Yes, damn you, IEatFood! for not being able to know my life story from a post or two ! What is wrong with you ?!? 
Thanks for the pleasant and civil exchange of views, foodeater.
Anyone know the second verse of “Kumbaya” ? I’m still stuck on the chorus 
I looked and there are a lot of versions:
Kumbaya #1
Kumbaya #2
Kumbaya #3
Kumbaya #4
At least the first link has sound so you can sing along…
There are many teenagers who act before they talk about it, and a large percentage of abortions are performed on the teenage segment of the population. Even this simple guideline could curtail the number of abortions by this segment. Don’t assume that all teenagers discuss this issue before they have intercourse.
Sorry about the confusion…:smack:
Nice? Telling me I sound just like you did until you got older and wiser is supposed to be taken as nice?
All it comes off as is ‘When you grow up like me, child, you’ll learn.’
That depends on what ‘young’ means. Life experience, I have a lot of. I’ve taken care of myself for a very long time, but I suppose compared to Bea Arthur I am young. Age is of little relevance here.
The life I have, and you can call it a lifestyle if you want, but that’s a very cavalier term for every hope and dream I’ve had since I was knee high, would end.
I wouldn’t be dead, but I wouldn’t be living either.
Isn’t it a bit presumptive for you to imply that it’s only teenagers who might face an unwanted pregnancy and opt for abortion?
My teenage years are long behind me, I have discussed with my sexual partners that I will never have children and if that means aborting in the event of a birth control failure, that is what I will do. And it’s still possible that birth control could fail on me, and I’d still abort. There are a lot more women like me out there who opt for abortion than there are teenagers who got too excited after the prom and got it on in the back of a borrowed car.
I hope that wasn’t a knock at Bea. She’s hot!
Wow, this is exactly how I didn’t expect an abortion thread to end.
Aw, damn. It looks like I missed out on the arguments.
Well, what the heck. I’ll revive some of it anyway. If I sound half coherent, please bear with me. It’s 6AM, and I’ve as yet to sleep.
First off, I am not going to bother stating here what my view on abortion is. It’d be pointless, and, I feel, there would be too many opportunities for someone to try and “change” my mind. And I’d be insulted, because I have thought long and hard on this, and my mind is pretty made up.
Eh, I’m rambling already. Right, here we go then:
Somewhere in page two, someone was comparing a fetus to a newborn or a person with severe mental retardation. It was, if memory serves, a statement that if fetuses should be aborted because of the lack of interaction with other people, so should newborns and severely retarded people.
I respectfully submit my vehement disagreement. Newborns are physically capable of interacting with not only the mother, but the father, the aunts, the uncles, the grandparents, the hospital staff, the local police. A person with severe mental retardation can also do the same. A fetus cannot.
At a separate board that I frequent, this issue has come up quite often (and with a fair amount of vitriol). One of the cornerstone statements of those opposed to abortion is that, “life begins at conception.” And the reasoning behind that is, “all humans have a soul.”
So (on that board, at least), conception begins at life because life requires a soul, and only those with souls can be conceived.
Of course, the argument got bogged down at, “what is a soul?”
Another cornerstone of those against abortion is the apparent use of frequently charged words and phrases - baby butchers, baby killers, murderers, etc.
Likewise, those in favour of abortion seem to frequently use equally charged words and phrases - Nazis, slaver, misogynistic, sexist, etc.
It would appear to me that there is no possible compromise on this issue. Those who are against abortion seem to be cold and uncaring about the other lives that would be affected by the birth of the unborn. Equally, those who are in favour of abortion seem to be cold and uncaring about the other lives that would be affected by the termination of the unborn.
It would seem that the “anti choice” group have a motto of: “Don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Otherwise, suffer the consequences.” And yet, no alternative is offered to those who do want abortions. There are no artificial wombs or incubators available. I do not believe it is possible to transfer one fetus to another woman (I could be wrong, of course). Adoption is an alternative option…for the future. That is nine months down the road. Those who want abortions aren’t content to wait nine months. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be having abortions.
By the same token, the “pro choice” crowd seems to have a motto of: “A baby would disrupt my life, and I cannot put my life on temporary hiatus for nine months.” Again, there is no feasible alternative offered to appease the “anti choice” people. Still no incubator, still no transference of fetus, nothing.
Of course, each case is different and individual, so YMMV.
It would seem to me (in my sleep deprived state) that a (semi) reasonable alternative would be to put this debate on hold. Stop funnelling money towards lawyers’ fees, and put it towards medical research instead. Make that artificial womb.
And if you must waste it on lawyers’ fees, then find a better use for it. Get the age of permanent sterilization lowered*. Lower the costs of adoptions. No one does a homestudy on a pregnant couple, you know.
Certainly, I think that by banning abortions, it will stop many people from having them. And sure, with the way DNA tests are going, child abandonment will be easier to prosecute (“I see no papers indicating you gave this child up willingly, you just ABANDONED her on the side of the road!” sort of thing).
So instead, the unwanted children will get placed in orphanages or other places, where the system is already overstrained and too many are falling through the cracks instead.
I should get off my soapbox now.
(Btw, if anyone has any cites they want me to take a look at, please email them to me. My poor brain got fried trying to read all the cites in SEVEN pages. Thanks!)
Please keep in mind I was very careful to say “appears” and “apparent” and “seems to” and other terminology. I am not making absolute statements. Just offering my PoV.
*When I was eighteen, I talked to several doctors in Arizona about permanent sterilization. Every single one of them told me that no doctor would do it because I was too young, and “did not know” my own mind. That my mind would change as I got older. And all sorts of other nonsense.
If I may advise, if you’re going to write lengthy posts on any subject, don’t do so at 6 a.m. when you’ve had no sleep.
Just picking out some of the flaws:
This is a pretty major misconception (no pun intended). I’m pro-choice, and it isn’t the case that I hate fetusses and feel they should be aborted. I’ve decided that the alternative (forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will when a safe medical procedure is available) is worse.
In this particular case, you’re misremembering the sequence:
Blaron: “A fetus may be human, but it is not legally a person. A fetus does not have a lifetime of memories, feelings, thoughts, and interactions with people. A woman does.”
Blaron’s point was that a fetus should not be legally defined as a human being, and not be granted the same civil rights. It was JThunder who made the connection to infants and the retarded:
JThunder: “And so, by your logic, the rights of a woman outweigh those of a newborn infant, or a severely retarded child. Shall we now advocate infanticide, and the killing of mental retards?”
As I understand it, Jthunder was arguing Blaron’s reasons for denying “personhood” to a fetus, pointing out the distinction (no memories, thought, interactions etc) could be applied to infants and the retarded, who are currently defined as “persons”.
Your interpretation imples Blaron was advocating euthanasia, when euthanasia was actually a ploy by JThunder to attack Blaron’s defintions of personhood.
You’re disagreeing with the wrong person. Blaron never suggested that infants or the retarded should be killed. Rather, JThunder suggested (rather pointlessly) that Blaron’s stance on fetusses would justify the killing of infants.
I have to point it out again: pro-choice people are not generally in favour of abortion in the sense that that go around encouraging women to abort (though I have no doubt some extremist nutcases do). Favouring “abortion rights” rather than just “abortion” is more accurate.
So far, no-one has used the words “Nazi”, “misogynistic” (or any variaton) or “sexist” in this particular thread to describe their opponent. Variants on “slave” and “slavery” popped up a few times, though.
There are many adjectives to describe people on both sides of this issue, but I don’t think “cold” even makes the top 100. In any event, it comes down to who should prevail the conflict between a woman and a fetus. If it’s impossible to satisfy both parties, a decision has to be made that hurts someone. Who should take the hurt? That’s a matter of opinion.
The disruption can be a lot longer than a mere nine months. Consider a woman who already has six children. Adding a seventh could pose a ruinous financial burden, and not for just nine months, but for eighteen years. Bearing the child and then just putting the child it up for adoption may cause more problems that just quietly aborting the fetus in the first trimester. The pro-choice stance is that the decision should be made by the woman, and not any governmental agency.
Hey! I made a choice to write a lengthy post at six am on no sleep, damnit!
Okay, so I remembered the sequence wrong. I’d say to sue me, but I’ve no money. I can make great coffee, though.
Anyway, I should have clarified. A lot of those ideas do seem to come from that other board that I frequent. Of course, with some certain asswipes there, it was necessary.
I will concede, though, that you may have a point with it being a bigger burden to put a child up for adoption.
Does anyone know the process for that? I have been unable to find squat on it, other than “our counselors will help you through the process.”
catsix, why don’t you get sterilized? I’m genuinely curious.
Sapphire, here is some info from the adoption agency my brother was adopted through.
If it were as easy as ‘just get sterilized’, I’d have done it seven years ago.
In many, many locations on this board I’ve discussed the difficulty I’ve had in even getting a doctor to speak to me about sterilization without demeaning or insulting me, telling me that I am too young to know what I want, that all women love kids once they have some, that an unmarried woman couldn’t possibly want to be child free because as soon as she meets ‘Mr. Right’ she’ll want to have his children.
In seven years and four states, not one single doctor has taken me seriously. The first one that does, I’m making an appointment with.
Lie to them. Tell them you already have four kids.
A good cite that really sums up just about everything in this thread except sans the snide remarks and the one-upmanship for all you late-comers.
Cite?
I believe that the older you get, the more you become informed (am I really going out on a limb here?:rolleyes: ). Most teenagers still have that “I am invinceable” and “It won’t happen to me” attitude (I have a 15 year old that tells me that every day!). Couple that with inexperience, and lack of knowledge and you have a high pregnancy rate among sexually active teenagers. Adults usually have improved on this lack of judgement and I seriously doubt that adult women would be as careless or uninformed in their judgement. Give yourself more credit than that. As for doctors refusing your request for sterilization treatment based on your current situation, I find that equally astonishing and disappointing.
19 years and then some…I agree with you there.
But why would this woman wait to become pregnant with an unwanted seventh child when sterilization is available when she already knows she can’t afford the child? Is there government funding for abortions only, and not for sterilization? Since pro-choicers do not want a governmental agency to make a decision for the woman, maybe there should be no governmental funding at all to muddle the issue?
Quietly? Or do you mean “secretly”?
Cat, go to California. You can practically get a drive through sterilisation if you wish…
Thanks very much, Super Gnat. I’ve bookmarked it for perusal (can’t do it now, unfortunately, since I just cancelled a therapy appointment because I’m feeling unwell).
Catsix, how I know that song well. When I was looking into permanent sterilization, I tried both male and female doctors, and was told the same thing.
And there’s still that part of me that is screaming and wailing and clawing at my decision to remain off of birth control.
Unfortunately, it is my experience that had I been a male requesting it, no one would have batted an eye.
I wish you lots of luck in your quest. And a ton more luck in finding a doctor who will treat you with the respect you deserve.
I’m sensing some hostility, Captain (which means the thread is back to normal. Phew).
I don’t know why you’re demanding a cite and then dropping unsubstantiated factoids of your own. Simple math says even careful adult women can get unintentionally pregnant. For some back-of-the-envelope calculations, estimate there are 100 million women of childbearing years in the U.S. Maybe half are sexually active (to be conservative), leaving 50 million. Even if all of them are using well-established contraceptive methods (the Pill, condoms, diaphrams, etc), these devices do have failure rates. A one-percent failure rate can translate to 500,000 unintended pregnancies.
A great many Americans live in povety, scrabbling along from paycheck to paycheck. Scraping up the money to get a tubal ligation (as well as taking time off work to recover) may be difficult for them, and there is an additional complicating factor: the actions of rabid pro-lifers murdering abortion doctors have driven many OB/GYN doctors out of the specialty, which may make it more difficult for a woman to even find a surgeon, let alone pay them.
catsix can offer a personal perspective on this, I’m sure.
Huh? How is that going to improve the situation?
Well, tell you what: when you put the results of your last prostate exam in the personals of the New York Times, then you can encourage women to broadcast the results of their OB/GYN visits. I said “quietly” because an abortion is actually a pretty fast, easy and low-key way to end a pregnancy. In the case of a woman who does not wish to remain pregnant, she may as well terminate it in a manner that is fast, easy and low-key.
As minor additional note, simple courtesy requires that when you quote somone and modify their writing (as in italicizing the word “quietly”), you write “Emphasis added”.
Yeah, I noticed…hostility is your strong suit.
Simple math would tell you that, but I was talking about rates (percentages) among the teenage populace which is smaller in size (age 13-17) vs. adults (age 18-40something), but the percentage rates for teenage unwanted pregnancies are higher than adult unwanted pregnancies. Care to take a guess at who the next generation of adults will be? BTW, unintended and unwanted pregnancies are not mutually inclusive.
**
I guessed you missed it in one of my previous posts…my wife did have tubal ligation surgery…I did not have to run my wife through a gauntlet of Pro-Lifers to have this done contrary to your rhetorical statement. Catsix has her perspective, we have ours, quite sure. The cost involved is still cheaper than raising a child, but our reason was because my wife’s life was in danger from a tubal pregnancy.
I have personal issues with my taxes subsidizing abortions as many other pro-lifers. I would be more supportive of something that is more in the realm of “conception control” (sterilization, condoms, education, etc.) rather than “birth control” (abortion, RU486, etc.).
You’re funny. When you said “quietly”, the first thought that crossed my mind was “secretly” as in implying shame. I don’t need to see a “gyno blotter” in some fish-wrap to go out and badger them. Most pro-lifers don’t subscribe to those methods.
BTW, My prostate is in great shape.
Thank you Captain Nitpick, I will take it under advisement.
I don’t know where you got the idea that the U.S. federal government funds abortions. It doesn’t, unless the abortion is medically necessary.