Abortion Medical Procedures

[nmainguy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/26/clinic.bomb/index.html

I find it odd that the anti-choice gangs tend to resort to murder while the pro-choice groups tends to err on the side of individual choice. BTW, the majority of those individual choices are full term pregnancies resulting in adoption or maternal/paternal recievership.

[CDeb]

I find it odd that the anti-choice gangs tend to resort to murder.....

I find it odd that homosexuals tend to resort to underage boys.

Edited April 27, 2007 by CDeb

[musicman]

I find it odd that homosexuals tend to resort to underage boys.

i just learned it's bois.

[CDeb]

I moved this response to some posts here from the gay marriage thread so it will stay on topic.

Because the radical right doesn't deal in facts. Thanks for that info.

I don't deal in facts? Nonsense. KinkaidAlum parsed them for his benefit, I'll now parse them for the benefit of the millions who never had a chance.

In that poll KinkaidAlum cited, what are "certain circumstances?"

In polls, this phrase is generally (but certainly not always) meant to mean rape, incest, mother life/health at risk. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion group), rape and incest acount for 1% of abortions (13,000 out of 1.3 million in 2000, the latest stats I could find). A different study on AGI's website shows that mother's life/health accounts for 2.8% of abortions.

So what does the poll tell us?

That 71% of the country favors making approximately 95% of abortions illegal.

For what it's worth, a 2006 CBS news poll (what I was referencing with my comment, KinkaidAlum) broke down with:

31% "Permitted in all cases"

16% "Permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now"

30% "Only in cases such as rape, incest, or to save the woman's life"

12% "Only permitted to save the woman's life"

5% "Never"

So that's 47% ("darn near half the county") that favors eliminating 95% of abortions and only 31% favors the current state of abortion in the US. Oddly, KinkaidAlum's evidence helped my point more than my evidence did. According to KinkaidAlum's stats, most Americans do not support the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.

So, there are your facts, macbro. Opposition to abortion is not a radical position, as much as it suits your world view to paint it that way.

And we should just let the female half of the country decide the issue (for or against), once and for all.

Any logical person, pro-choice or pro-life, should find such an argument wanting.

Stats might surprise you. I could find only one poll showing that women were more pro-abortion than men. Polls are relatively consistent in showing that women favor greater restrictions (and making abortion illegal) more than men. Why is that? Well, it's not surprising when, according to AGI, 14.1% reported that their partner doesn't want the pregnancy as the reason for their abortion. Another study showed that number at 34% (I'm sure there were differences in how the question was asked). If you took men out of the equation, the country would be more pro-life than it is now.

Beyond the stats, men don't need to be given the right to influence the abortion issue, they already have a responsibility to do so. Don't you believe that straight people have a responsibility to seek equal rights for gays? Real men don't just stand around with their hands in their pockets and witness the murder of vulnerable people.

I wonder if you ever tell pro-abortion men to keep quiet. Do you believe that the Supreme Court in 1973 had no right to be involved in the Roe v. Wade decision since they were all male? Do you mind that the overwhelming majority of abortionists are men? Do the male escots outside of abortion facilities bother you? Evidently, the only men you think should have no opinion are those who think women deserve better than abortion.

What about women who can't get pregnant? Should only young, sexually active, fertile women who are not practicing birth control be allowed to have an opinion about abortion?

EDIT for fat-fingered typos.

Edited June 3, 2008 by CDeb

[BryanS]

I wonder if you ever tell pro-abortion men to keep quiet. Do you believe that the Supreme Court in 1973 had no right to be involved in the Roe v. Wade decision since they were all male? Do you mind that the overwhelming majority of abortionists are men? Do the male escots outside of abortion facilities bother you? Evidently, the only men you think should have no opinion are those who think women deserve better than abortion.

What about women who can't get pregnant? Should only young, sexually active, fertile women who are not practicing birth control be allowed to have an opinion about abortion?

Who are we, as men, to make such a determination for women (what is "better" for them)? If the women of this country believe that we should be more anti-choice, than we are today - then wouldn't it be to your benefit - and the women of this country - of wanting to see this country move in that direction - to give more power to women to decide the issue, as you describe? I realize there are problems with the practical affect of doing this; however, it would be nice to see only the women, of a legislative body vote on abortion-related bills, only women in the executive sign them (starting with the secretary of education and working up the chain if need be), and only women on judicial panels weigh the issue (so Ruth Ginsberg would be the only vote, if it came to the Supreme Court today), and only the women on TV protesting for or against the issue. Then we'd get to the bottom of what women really want.

Instead, we have too many men working behind the scenes of "women's rights" groups who think women deserve better than abortion, polluting the issue.

[20thStDad]

So you think a child created by a man and a woman belongs only to the woman? I'm not saying all men are reasonable on this issue, but to say men shouldn't even be involved is taking it way too far.

[BryanS]

So you think a child created by a man and a woman belongs only to the woman? I'm not saying all men are reasonable on this issue, but to say men shouldn't even be involved is taking it way too far.

No one gender "owns" a child. Men don't give birth. Women do. It is a woman's reproductive rights issue. As a man, you should not be able to force a woman to bear your child, if she doesn't want it. Likewise, you should have no say in whether she wants to keep it, either.

[gwilson]

This is the most disheartening thing about this discussion to me.

No one, save for VERY VERY few people WANT abortions. Not even those on the side of choice. Yet both sides go after each other so viciously. It is sickening to me.

I do not believe in abortion as a means of "oops" prevention. I also do not believe that an abortion in the first trimester is murder. I do believe that later term abortions should be banned. I also believe that save for the case of late term abortions, it isn't my choice what someone chooses to do to their bodies. I am a Constitutionalist and a firm believer that save for the cases where someones choices adversely affect others, they are none of my business.

I just wish the two polarized sides could quit the self righteous pissing match and focus on helping people stay out of trouble rather than what to do when the mistake has already been made.

The concept that we should ban abortion but we shouldn't teach sex education (how it is taught now isn't working) or promote safe sex is a pretty ridiculous paradox of the right.

No one gender "owns" a child. Men don't give birth. Women do. It is a woman's reproductive rights issue. As a man, you should not be able to force a woman to bear your child, if she doesn't want it. Likewise, you should have no say in whether she wants to keep it, either.

I disagree with this. The concept that the man should have no say is absurd. If he doesn't want it and she chooses to keep it, he is still held responsible financially for that child. Conversely, if he wants it and she doesn't, he has no right on the matter. This is the definition of unfairness.

[sevfiv]

No one, save for VERY VERY few people WANT abortions. Not even those on the side of choice. Yet both sides go after each other so viciously. It is sickening to me.

Exactly - the term "pro-choice" is one thing, "pro-abortion" another.

The reason choice is so very important is because each situation is unique. No one mandate can possibly fairly cover all of the different situations that exist around pregnancy. We have to entrust that choice to the parties involved in that specific situation only.

[20thStDad]

There are 2 parties involved, from the very beginning, and neither should be able to just "choose" the other out of it. It's not his body, but it's his legal and financial responsibility once that child comes into the world. In that case he should have just as much input as she does. To me there's no real difference between the situation of the man wanting to keep a child and the woman not wanting to, and the other way around. Neither is a good situation, but the decision was made by both parties before you even get to that point. If you get to a disagreement between man and woman on whether to keep a child, it's already a bad situation. But it's one they both are in, not just the woman. I'm not saying there's an easy answer on how to resolve those situations, I'm just saying one party shouldn't have all of the power when both are undoubtedly involved.

[west20th]

I find it odd that homosexuals tend to resort to underage boys.

What kind of b**S**t remark is that?!!

Edited June 3, 2008 by west20th

[Daniepwils]

To me this isn't about religion or politics, it is about accountability and taking responsibility, people need to grow up!

With exception to rape/forced sex/or endangering the mother/child, abortion should be illegal. You CHOSE to have sex and with that choice comes a risk...now live with your choice.

If you are married and no longer want children then have a vasectomy or hysterectomy (it is usually easier for the man to have it done).

[crunchtastic]

If you are married and no longer want children then have a vasectomy or hysterectomy (it is usually easier for the man to have it done).

This is why I love hearing men debate women's reproductive rights. They don't even know how the plumbing freaking works, yet feel compelled to tell me my business.

It is not necessary to remove the uterus, or even part of it, to prevent conception. edit: The correct term for female sterilization is tubal ligation. Not lit-i-gation, as I have heard two separate grown men call it.

I'll be gracious, and not speculate publicly on the other mysteries of female sexual anatomy that some men have not yet figured out.

Edited June 3, 2008 by crunchtastic

[jayshoota]

I find it odd that homosexuals tend to resort to underage boys.

Did you seriously say this?

[sarahiki]

This is the most disheartening thing about this discussion to me.

No one, save for VERY VERY few people WANT abortions. Not even those on the side of choice. Yet both sides go after each other so viciously. It is sickening to me.

I do not believe in abortion as a means of "oops" prevention. I also do not believe that an abortion in the first trimester is murder. I do believe that later term abortions should be banned. I also believe that save for the case of late term abortions, it isn't my choice what someone chooses to do to their bodies. I am a Constitutionalist and a firm believer that save for the cases where someones choices adversely affect others, they are none of my business.

I just wish the two polarized sides could quit the self righteous pissing match and focus on helping people stay out of trouble rather than what to do when the mistake has already been made.

The concept that we should ban abortion but we shouldn't teach sex education (how it is taught now isn't working) or promote safe sex is a pretty ridiculous paradox of the right.

I disagree with this. The concept that the man should have no say is absurd. If he doesn't want it and she chooses to keep it, he is still held responsible financially for that child. Conversely, if he wants it and she doesn't, he has no right on the matter. This is the definition of unfairness.

You put all of that very well... I agree with you on most points. The idea of an abortion, any abortion, truly breaks my heart. And yet, I am pro-choice. I think the most immoral thing happening today is the way that our government and others are putting obstacles between people and birth control. To limit access to birth control is morally abhorrent, in my view.

[BryanS]

I disagree with this. The concept that the man should have no say is absurd. If he doesn't want it and she chooses to keep it, he is still held responsible financially for that child. Conversely, if he wants it and she doesn't, he has no right on the matter. This is the definition of unfairness.

This is currently the law, I believe. You cannot impose your wishes/desires/control upon a person who is pregnant - and what she should or should not do with her pregnancy - it is her body, not yours. AFTER birth - the whole situation changes (men and women both have a say in the upbringing of their children, etc). BEFORE birth - the ball is in her court. Life isn't fair, but that's the way that it is. If women want to grant men some level of control over their bodies - women should decide that.

[BryanS]

You put all of that very well... I agree with you on most points. The idea of an abortion, any abortion, truly breaks my heart. And yet, I am pro-choice. I think the most immoral thing happening today is the way that our government and others are putting obstacles between people and birth control. To limit access to birth control is morally abhorrent, in my view.

...as well as inadequate sex education: the whole concept of abstinence, limiting access to protection (that can save your life), "no sex before marriage" (which sends the message to gay/lesbian youth - they cannot get married, therefore they should not have sex, etc.)

On a lighter note, the biggest issue I have is the "no sex until marriage." Would you buy a used car, and not test drive it? I don't think so (unless you're me! - but I knew what I was getting into.)

[editor]

...as well as inadequate sex education: the whole concept of abstinence, limiting access to protection (that can save your life), "no sex before marriage" (which sends the message to gay/lesbian youth - they cannot get married, therefore they should not have sex, etc.)

On a lighter note, the biggest issue I have is the "no sex until marriage." Would you buy a used car, and not test drive it? I don't think so (unless you're me! - but I knew what I was getting into.)

Bad analogy. Driving is 90% of what you do in a car. Sex should be a very small part of a marriage. A lifetime commitment should be based on a lot more things and more important things than sex.

If 90% of what a person means to you is sex, that's not a marriage -- that's prostitution.

[CDeb]

Did you seriously say this?

Ummm. Yes, I did.

But you are taking it out of context of a year-old discussion. I certainly do not believe such a thing.

It was a sarcastic response to illustrate the absurdity of nmainguy's post implying that violence is a hallmark of the pro-life movement, when in fact it is an incredibly rare action of radicals. Ergo, I made an absurd statement regarding a very rare action of homosexuals (since it would hit home with nmainguy) as a common theme of homosexuality, which it OBVIOUSLY is not.

Understand also, that nmainguy, who hasn't been around in a while for all you new posters, consistently lowered the level of discourse when he did not disagree with some of us and I was prone to taking his bait at times.

[KinkaidAlum]

Maybe there would be less need for abortions if we had the following;

1) More sex education

2) Free Birth Control

3) More active fathers

#3 is key to me. Until men as a whole step up and own THEIR responsibility in creating a life, then we as a gender need to step out of the debate.

There are far too many women struggling to raise kids alone while their former husbands/boyfriends/lovers/one night stands move on to their next conquest. That is the reality.

[gwilson]

...as well as inadequate sex education: the whole concept of abstinence, limiting access to protection (that can save your life), "no sex before marriage" (which sends the message to gay/lesbian youth - they cannot get married, therefore they should not have sex, etc.)

On a lighter note, the biggest issue I have is the "no sex until marriage." Would you buy a used car, and not test drive it? I don't think so (unless you're me! - but I knew what I was getting into.)

Abstinence should be taught in sex education as A method, not THE method. Abstinence only teachings don't work. Kids are curious.

I believe responsibility should be taught, regardless of whether it is sex related or finance relation or even personal decision related.

Maybe there would be less need for abortions if we had the following;

1) More sex education

2) Free Birth Control

3) More active fathers

#3 is key to me. Until men as a whole step up and own THEIR responsibility in creating a life, then we as a gender need to step out of the debate.

There are far too many women struggling to raise kids alone while their former husbands/boyfriends/lovers/one night stands move on to their next conquest. That is the reality.

I both agree and disagree with you on point three and your subsequent statement.

Being the product of a biological father who was worthless and then being raised by a man who had no real responsibility for me, I can say that this isn't JUST a MALE problem. There are plenty men, the majority actually, who are responsible when it comes to their parental duties. There are more kids WITH fathers than without, thank God. That said, the female partner has a role to play there as well. She is choosing her sexual partners. If she makes a poor choice, it is her responsibility as well. I'm not saying it is her fault by any means, but she was involved and she wasn't a victim.

[jayshoota]

Ummm. Yes, I did.

But you are taking it out of context of a year-old discussion. I certainly do not believe such a thing.

It was a sarcastic response to illustrate the absurdity of nmainguy's post implying that violence is a hallmark of the pro-life movement, when in fact it is an incredibly rare action of radicals. Ergo, I made an absurd statement regarding a very rare action of homosexuals (since it would hit home with nmainguy) as a common theme of homosexuality, which it OBVIOUSLY is not.

Understand also, that nmainguy, who hasn't been around in a while for all you new posters, consistently lowered the level of discourse when he did not disagree with some of us and I was prone to taking his bait at times.

Thank you for the clarification and I do understand the point you were trying to make.

[BryanS]

Bad analogy. Driving is 90% of what you do in a car. Sex should be a very small part of a marriage. A lifetime commitment should be based on a lot more things and more important things than sex.

If 90% of what a person means to you is sex, that's not a marriage -- that's prostitution.

I was half-way joking in my prior response... but here is a more serious take...

Of course there's more to marriage than sex. But before you make that lifetime commitment - wouldn't you want to test the waters first? Sex is by no means everything, but along with it, and so many other important things in a relationship, there needs to be some degree of compatibility/harmony. If I were dating someone who insisted that we hold off, until rings were on fingers... well... we're probably not going to agree on a lot of things, ultimately anyway.

I would go as far to say that people, who actually subscribe to the "no sex until marriage" mantra, end up getting married way too soon (within a month of meeting each other), because their hormones take over - and you end up with an extremely bad/abusive marriage. Get all (or most of) the excessive sexual energy out of your system before tying the knot. If you truly love one another, and you both find out that you were more to one another than just prostitutes, then you'll probably have a better marriage/relationship in the end (whereby you're not having sex, but making love - there is a difference).

So we should probably encourage (responsible) sex (for those who like it) before marriage as a way to drive down the divorce rate and promote healthy, stable families for those who enter into it.

[musicman]

Get all (or most of) the excessive sexual energy out of your system before tying the knot. If you truly love one another, and you both find out that you were more to one another than just prostitutes, then you'll probably have a better marriage/relationship in the end (whereby you're not having sex, but making love - there is a difference).

LOL so love comes after prostituting yourself??

Edited June 4, 2008 by musicman

[BryanS]

LOL so love comes after prostituting yourself??

Of course it does... (tongue in cheek)

Edited June 4, 2008 by BryanS

[musicman]

tongue in cheek

i wish not to discuss your fetish. LOL

[BryanS]

i wish not to discuss your fetish. LOL

At least it doesn't involve Madonna. =) (I am kidding!)

[crunchtastic]

So we should probably encourage (responsible) sex (for those who like it) before marriage as a way to drive down the divorce rate and promote healthy, stable families for those who enter into it.

I don't know. I had a lot of, uh, encouragement, before getting married in my 30s, and I still got divorced. If I had children by him, I still would have gotten divorced.

I do think a lot of people treat marriage like a car lease; on the other hand my own was a dismal failure and I chose not to 'try to make it work', which admittedly makes me a weenie. Tough call. The sad ones are the early marriages that go down in flames with 2 kids in junior high, and a wife with limited to no financial resources of her own, and neither the man or woman is emotionally mature, despite the fact that they're 32 with kids. I see so many of those.

[memebag]

Bad analogy. Driving is 90% of what you do in a car. Sex should be a very small part of a marriage. A lifetime commitment should be based on a lot more things and more important things than sex.

Speak for yourself. Sex is very important to some of us.