The argument is not being seen.
I believe you’re saying that using abortion-as-birth-control should be penalized, and there’s a point it’s fairly obvious that has occured.
Abortions are not “voluntary procedures like any other”. Nothing else is like pregnancy. It’s unique. So are abortions. That’s why so many folks are pitted against each other in arguing it — it simply doesn’t yield readily to analogy to any other situation. There are no general rules that apply to it ethically, legally, etc, without a pretty large contingent of people saying “But that’s not appropriate to look at it that way”.
You’ve got me rethinking the counseling part — it is important to make sure it is really volitional and not “my middle class parents insist that I gotta have this abortion”.
But the point is, if you’re not going to allow late term abortions, there has to be no impediments that would make it reasonable for someone to fly past the cutoff point without having secured their abortion, if abortion was their preference. They have to be available. Locally available. They have to be affordable, which means for some people they may have to be free. They have to be easy, not something where to obtain you have to negotiate a maze of red-tape procedures.
Counseling, then, but if after counseling the person still wishes to have an abortion, it takes place the same day.
Yes, Medicaid should pay for them, and yes, birth control info and paraphernalia should be in the hands and heads of everyone, as familiary and as readily at their disposal as their cell phones and iPods. That helps make the abortions rare.
Compromise means you give up something you don’t want to give up, or do something you don’t want to do, in order to get your opponent to also give up something they don’t want to give up, or do something they don’t want to do.
You seem to be suggesting something the other side should give up, here. So what are you willing to give in return?
That’s why I prefer requiring referrals. We require doctors to exert their judgement and to fulfill their Hypocratic Oath to the best of their ability- but then turn around and dictate on a procedure that’s not medically necessary? Make them refer to a non-objecting doctor: there are plenty out there, in general. As to specific cases with limited availability- that’s a refinement. I’m allright disagreeing on this, honestly.
Because then if the student decides to ignore the advice not to have sex, they are even less prepared for the consequences. I don’t mind a program that has a clear message that abstinence is the best option for avoiding pregnancy and/or STDs, but the rest of the program needs to be a clear “but if you’re going to do it, here’s how to be safe as possible”.
I agree.
I’m just saying it’s not non-understandable.
EDIT: That’s also the beef many conservatives have with non-abstinence programs: They feel the risks portion is too skipped over, resulting in a false idea of safety if one practices “safe sex.” I hate the term, it should be “safer sex.”
That would indeed be weird. That’s why they don’t make that claim.
Rather, as I specifically emphasized, these particular pro-life groups oppose the use of artificial contraception outside of marriage. That’s not the same as sayhing that unmarried people should have unprotected sex. Quite the contrary; they generally (and perhaps universally) urge people to abstain before marriage. As far as contraceptive methods go, some of them will specifically recommend the rhythm method, precisely because it requires a deep commitment between two people and does not readily lend itself to casual sex.
Once again, this is the point at which certain dopers will jump in and say, “But that’s just stupid! Blah blah blah.” As I take pains to emphasize though, whether you agree with their particular approach or not, the point remains that they do NOT oppose the use of birth control. You might disagree with the particular approach that they take, but this does not justify reducing their viewpoint to “They don’t want any birth control whatsoever.”
No, but a program in which people are taught not to drive recklessly would be. So would a program in which teenagers below the requisite driving age are shown the hazards of driving, and then urged to wait until they are old enough and receive the proper training.
Similarly, abstinence-only advocates aren’t simply saying “Don’t have sex.” Rather, they urge people to wait until marriage before hopping in the sack, while simultaneously emphasizing the risks and hazards of premarital sex. This is quite a bit different from the “Don’t do it” formulation that you gave.
[Miracle Max]: He’s only MOSTLY dead.
Teens generally think they’re invincible. Hormones WILL make them horny. Things can build to sex before you even know it.
Ideally I think it should be “don’t do it because there’s potential consequences but if you must here’s the proper way to use a condom”
I’d much rather if they do have sex that they do it safely.
But they tend to exaggerate the risks, or make them up out of whole cloth --especially those risks associated with birth control. They’re also making a moral statement about sex and marriage that I really don’t think is appropriate in a school setting.
So you analogy fails. Besides, they already are of the requisite age. Abstinence only hands them the car keys and tells them not to drive
Couldn’t you say the same about anyone who hasn’t donated bone marrow, a kidney, blood tissues, ect.? There are actual adults and children that need that stuff and could die without it. Isn’t not donating a kidney or undergoing a monthly spinal tap a callus disregard for human life as well?
Okay, but “they don’t want any sex whatsoever” is not a more reasonable viewpoint. I can understand being against abortion. I cannot for the life of me fathom why these people believe that my sex life is something they should have any “viewpoint” on at all.
I think that you’re entirely too comfortable with the idea of “big breaches of privacy”, let alone jailing women for having abortions, to be real genuine about wanting “compromise”.
I’m equally uninterested in compromise, but I’m honest about it.
Is there anything *else *that’s completely legal, as long as you only do it four times?
The rhythm method is not natural,it is natural for humans to use the sexual urges mostly during the time a woman can get pregnant, There are many rhythm babies to prove this. Justice Scalia said they had 9 children because of Papal Roulette. The case of a lot of people, it also does not make for happy or satisfied marriages because the woman may not want to be pregnant all the time.
Coming from a family of 14 I remember my parents fights because my mother didn’t want to go to bed when my father did. Not that I can blame her for that. It was the depression and they could barely support the ones they already had.
It is unnatural to stick tubes in a person to keep them alive in a comotose state if they would not want that to be, yet the same people who want a woman to be pregnant all the time to not have access to birth,control. and they are the one’s who complain when their taxes are raised to take care of the born babies whose parents cannot afford to give them proper care.
If one looks to the countries that are impoverished it is mostly due to over population.
Monavis
Effective policy needs to be simple.
Separate abortion law from policy regarding sex education, parental rights and contraception.
Allow unlimited, unrestricted abortion at any mother age through 13 weeks of gestational fetal age.
States may place restrictions on abortions for fetal ages 14 weeks and over.
In short, a constitutional amendment with unlimited abortion right protection for all citizens in the first trimester of pregnancy, with individual states free to regulate abortion as the fetus progresses toward anatomic human-ness.
Are you serious? You equate a man not being responsible enough to take care of his own birth control, to the point of causing several unplanned pregnancies, to not donating bone marrow? The only way I can read this is that you think that a man who causes a pregnancy has no more responsibility to that potential child than he has to a complete stranger.
You’re wrong. I’m not comfortable with the idea, but neither am I entirely comfortable with people not trying to be responsible about preventing unplanned pregnancies.
I appreciate your honesty about being unwilling to compromise on this issue, and would thank you to assume that I am being honest as well.
I like the idea of counselling, but think that any pregnant woman should get the pros and cons of all three options–single parenthood, abortion and adoption. When I hear pro-lifers say “Abortion is all negative and adoption is all positive” I want to scream.
Allow more single and gay adoption.
Clean up the foster care system. I’d have fifty abortions before I’d risk a child of mine going into foster care.
No no. I’m comparing it to saying 4 abortions is a callus disregard of human life. There’s tissues you could do with less of that donation could save someone’s life. Heck just some of your money could save someone’s life.
Child support is the motivator for men to take care of their birth control. All it takes is a few chicks not getting abortions and you’re broke for 18 years, more if you’re responsible and look after you own kids in adulthood. Which any decent person would.
This is a compromise I could live with (I personally favour unrestricted abortion up until birth, and already see the current 2nd trimester cutoff as a compromise, but if I were in the States would be willing to accept your further compromise in exchange for the firmer protection an Amendment would grant)