It’s irresponsible and stupid to use abortion as birth control. And it’s not just a problem for the woman; also for the father. What if he WANTS the child? What if he is stuck for the cost of the abortion? (Well, he’s stupid if he didn’t use a jimmy but things do fail)
In this day and age of affordable and available birth control, the only reason to use abortion as one on purpose is psychological reasons that should be dealt with. Seriously.
I told you people that’s not necessarily true. It’s not like you’ll definitely get pregnant several times a year if you don’t use birth control. I wouldn’t get pregnant often, and if I really didn’t think there were any moral issues at all involved with abortion, it wouldn’t be crazy to think one abortion might be preferable to likely years of hormonal birth control which has side effects I don’t like, or condoms which I also don’t like (and method X which has side effect Y, etc.). I wouldn’t do this because I don’t know that I could ever even go through with an abortion, but if I thought abortion was no big deal it wouldn’t be completely irrational.
Heh. (bolding mine)
Why? Medically/biologically speaking, a woman isn’t pregnant until the embryo implants in the uterus. No hormonal changes are necessary or happen before that happens (beyond the ones that always happen, every month, during a woman’s fertile period, whether they conceive or not). The pro-lifers can paint it however they want, but it’s no different than the spontaneous failures-to-implant that happen from time to time. (I remember reading that they made that argument with the pill, too… in the event that conception happens anyway, the pill also irritates the lining of the uterus and prevents implantation, so the pill is – occasionally – an abortificant. Basically it’s just a tortured justification for being against both abortion and birth control simultaneously, even though logic would dictate that if you don’t want abortions, preventing pregnancies in the first place would be an awesome idea.)
As to the OP, I see no moral issues, no. The real issue is that surgery-as-birth-control is a bad idea for health reasons (and likely financial reasons, too). Surgery is a BIG DEAL. You have to deal with anesthesia of some kind, whether sedation and pain blockers or general. You’re risking infection, perforation, blood clots, and other complications every time you have one. That’s a lot of excess risk when preventative measures are available, less costly, and are much less risky.
My personal view is that it is occasionally reprehensible, nearly always regrettable, but sometimes unavoidable and in certain circumstances, an absolute necessity. My wife is from the former Soviet Union and she knew married women of that era who had no other means of birth control offered by the state and ended up with 8-12 abortions in a lifetime.
As a man, if a woman I impregnated opted for an abortion for whatever reason, I might be saddened by it greatly, but know that I have no right or say in the matter. It is her body. Women are ruled enough by men in this world - leave them at least control of their own bodies.
If you think the side effects of condoms are bad, wait until you’ve had x-number of abortions. :dubious:
The side effects of x number of abortions can be nil.
Well yeah, obviously I’d rather use condoms, but some men really just refuse, and some women really just let that fly. And I think the experience of taking the abortion pill can vary a lot. I’ve heard that for some women it’s not that big of a deal.
And again, I’m not talking about having an abortion every couple months. It’s hard to imagine that that would be preferable to using some type of birth control, for any woman. But an abortion every couple years vs. using a condom every single time? If you ignore any moral issues, it’s not completely black and white.
“Who doesn’t do anything that’s not ideal healthwise, but is more enjoyable in the short term?” I ask as I sip a rum and coke and eat a cinnamon roll.
True, one might not ever get pregnant. But even the monetary costs of even one abortion far outweighs the cost of condoms.
Either one is free to me.
So what. If the woman is paying for her abortion, it is up to her what she thinks is worth her money. If she condomless sex is worth the price of abortion, that’s her biz.
I think such a person would be much better spending his or her time trying to get comprehensive sex education available in and out of schools, and in making various forms of contraception easily available - for men and women. That is much more efficient than standing outside a clinic. Especially when you consider that many or most of the people this person is standing with probably oppose contraception and effective sex education.
What’s unpleasant? That IUDs prevent implantation or that these people say that? Lots of fertilized eggs don’t implant naturally. A couple of cells is about as far from human life as you can get in our bodies. No brain, no brain wave, no hands, no feet, no cute little baby face. Those who think life begins at conception appear to do so because of thoughts of a soul, and that religious nonsense has no place in our laws.
–
As for me I’m of the “it’s inefficient” school which has been so well covered I uncharacteristically have nothing to add.
Well, I didn’t mean to imply that anyone has said that; my apologies. I meant it as a different reason one could have for why abortion in this hypothetical is still acceptable (or even a net positive, depending).
In abortion discussions I’ve read on a website whose writers and commenters are overwhelmingly pro-choice, I’ve seen this point raised (more than once, spread over months and separate discussions) by a pro-choice poster and each time, there are other pro-choicers who basically say something like, “… Whoa, somehow I never even looked at it that way. Yet another excellent point!” I hadn’t seen this particular reason/perspective and wanted to contribute it.
Then he can carry it to term his own damn self.
So, in this hypothetical world without STDs, is having an abortion generally considered an OK thing to do or is this a world where it is so controversial that doctors and clinic workers who provide abortion services are targeted for harassment and violence? While this hypothetical woman has the right to an abortion, if people are placing their lives in danger to help her to exercise that right then I think at the very least she has a responsibility to treat this as a serious decision and not “no big deal”.
I think that’s my perception of the issue. If I recall correctly from a UseNet group discussion eons ago, there’s non-trivial damage being done with a surgical abortion (dilation & cleaning = scrape the uterine walls?). That’s a pretty drastic way to deal with the issue of pregnancy – but then I don’t tend to think any surgical procedure should be taken lightly.
I’d understand if you don’t like condoms, IUD’s or diaphrams, but it seems to me that Plan B is, well, supposed to be Plan B and not Plan A. Isn’t it basically a hormonal shock treatment? I can’t imagine any chemical shock to the body is 100% free of long-term repercussions. I suspect smaller doses of hormones from spermicides or transdermal patches would be a lot less hazardous.
—G!
[I’ll leave out the light-hearted lyric here.]
I know, and I love that we are composed of a vast network of living things who are just as hell-bent on survival as we are. I recognize that there are obvious times when the optimal result is for something to die to prevent the suffering of another living being - cancer cells, food for eating, abortion, etc. I’m not advocating complete abstinence from killing things because that would be stupid. The way I feel personally, however, is that life - all life - is not something to be taken for granted. It should not be needlessly or carelessly destroyed. I feel that way because I am utterly fascinated by biology and because that’s just how I’ve always been. I am aware that most people don’t feel that strongly about single-celled organisms and fetuses and blades of grass, but my life philosophy is heavily influenced by Buddhism and the understanding that everything is a part of everything else. Taking a kinder and more aware approach to all life seems like a good idea to me.
You and in fact 99% of the world’s population do not have to feel the same way. That’s why it’s called pro-choice.
That’s just too damned bad. He doesn’t have control over MY body. You’re not the one carrying it. Abortions shouldn’t be used as one’s sole choice of birth control, but for back up. If you have an issue with it, make sure to discuss this before you have sex.
Using abortion as one’s only form of birth control: I would guess, over time, that multiple abortions would have an effect on one’s body. Depending on the methods used, constant manipulation of the uterus surely would have a physical effect, even if abortion IS a safe procedure.
Why would you be concerned about this hypothetical woman’s risks to her fertility?