Abortion

[Nepenthe]

It can be without insurance, which tends to correlate with poverty and subsequently a glaring lack of sexual education and large families. In general, your rebuttal is primarily anecdotal anyway. It's great that your friend was able to buy that many condoms on the cheap. But it has little to do with the price of tea in China when we're talking about the affordability of women's contraceptives.

[Badnik Zero]

Well I tried to say that condoms are women's contraceptives also, technically. The issue is that no one gives a damn about using condoms. People who can't afford it should use condoms then. There's a lot of places to get them cheap.

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

Apathy/preference is just part of the issue. Another part is that sexual education in the US is a disgrace, thus there's genuine misinformation and ignorance about condom usage. Another part is that some men are allergic to latex and thus can't actually use them. Another part is that shit happens and a condom can break or slip. Another part is that not everyone is privileged like your friend, either in knowledge or Internet access, and can go on the Internet and buy over 100 condoms for twenty dollars. This is where women's contraceptives come in.

[Badnik Zero]

Good points, but that's if accidental pregnancies are caused by lack of information. I would say high school pregnancies probably are, but you can't be twenty something, sexually active, and have never encountered a condom or know what it's for. In these cases I'm thinking it's just people unwilling to wrap their shit. Condoms are given out for free. You can find them on the cheap too. I'm not saying it's fail safe. But it's a cheap alternative to expensive pills, which by the way not everyone is privileged to afford or know how to get, especially if they don't know shit about condoms for whatever reason. It's far more difficult to get than a simple condom, a pill often requires a prescription, which requires a doctor. I'm saying girls carrying condoms is not a bad idea. Do you think it's a bad idea?

[Nepenthe]

I don't think it's a bad idea, although men should be carrying them too. Regardless, I'm refuting your stance that difficult access to contraceptives is an "excuse" for accidental pregnancy based on anecdotal evidence (which is fairly weak evidence for anything, btw) that your friend bought a ton of condoms cheaply on the Internet, and I'm doing so from a perspective of real-world consequences.

 

Not every single man is "unwilling" to wear a condom, and to boil the issue down into one solely consisting of purposeful irresponsibility is highly disingenuous. Either many are misinformed or some physically cannot wear them due to a reaction to latex or another medical problem. This means we, realistically, have a lot of men out their having sex unprotected for reasons not stemming from willful shirking of personal responsibility.

 

Therefore, this facilitates the reason for existence and the proper usage of birth control, which poor women- those most likely to lack proper sexual education and insurance, and thus those statistically most likely to have many children- don't have easy access to. Therefore, this means we, realistically, have a lot of men and women having unprotected sex for reasons not stemming from willful shirking of personal responsibility. So you get accidental pregnancies regardless.

[Badnik Zero]

Not every single man is "unwilling" to wear a condom, and to boil the issue down into one solely consisting of purposeful irresponsibility is highly disingenuous. Either many are misinformed or some physically cannot wear them due to a reaction to latex or another medical problem.

 

But I think it's not really honest to say condom failure is such a cause of abortions either. It's after the fact. The article says condoms fail at up to 15% when used incorrectly. I'm gonna say to that to forget that figure, because we are already talking about people who are making an effort to wear condoms. The argument of ignorance is presented like people don't even know where to start with the thing, but people who have sex do know what a condom is. I'm not talking about first timers, I'm talking about people who run the risk of getting pregnant with a short term partner. The ones who don't wear it are irresponsible. Barring your individual examples like latex allergy which is a different issue. Condoms are available over the counter at the freakin' Walgreens. I've seen party bowls full of them at bars, you can take handfuls of them. My friend using the internet is only an example of how cheap they really get. If condoms were important you'd just go out and get them, like toothpaste I said. And maybe awareness does need to be raised so people think more about it. But just lemme say - Difficult access in most cases is an excuse when you can buy them the same place you buy cigarettes and toilet paper. And prescription pills are not a replacement either if cost is an issue. I just can't believe people are disagreeing when I say condoms are a good cheap option. Yeah they are not fail safe but nothing really is. I will agree that in addition to condoms, people need to be told more often that they need to practice birth control in general. But that a lot of girls especially uninsured young ones, simply cannot afford that shit.

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

... What?... I've never said condom failure causes abortions. Because it can't.

 

It literally cannot.

Condom failure results in the potential for pregnancy (and STD transmission). Abortion is the termination of a fetus. Two completely different things.

Anyway, people are disagreeing with you because you are effectively arguing that, since condoms are so cheaply available, there is no excuse for accidental pregnancy sans "people don't give a fuck," when this simply isn't the actual reality, in the US or elsewhere. You are compounding this disagreeable notion by continuing to argue on anecdotal evidence, as well as arguing against the inclusion of birth control in the discussion because it is potentially expensive to women without insurance. Okay; If condom usage fails 15% of the time (which I'm glad you acknowledge), that's theoretically 15% of women who could potentially get accidentally pregnant from proper condom usage anyway, meaning that's 15% of women getting pregnant for reasons outside of "men don't give a fuck." And without birth control, I guess they're stuck, right? Your own argument contradicts itself. 

Edited April 19, 2013 by Nepenthe

[Badnik Zero]

I think there's a failure to communicate here. Maybe I'm writing it wrong.

 

We were talking about accidental pregnancies, in the abortion topic. So condom failure leads to pregnancy, of which some accidental pregnancies then lead people to get abortions. The abortions we've been talking about all topic.

 

So you just explained what I was saying back to me, so you understood me anyways, right?

 

You got me on my main point though. Since condoms are readily available, a lot of people have to just not give a shit. Don't take that as a fact, it's just an opinion of mine based on what I've seen, so feel free to put no weight in it. You contradict yourself also by saying condoms are unreliable, but then attributing that unreliability to ignorance of people not using them right. The pill is also unreliable when you forget to take them two days in a row, which is not uncommon for people to do on a pill regimen. That does not mean the pill is not reliable... So doesn't that mean condoms are reliable then when used properly? I am not arguing against birth control at all I think everyone should have it. In reality though - and I quoted Diogenes when he'd mentioned cheap contraceptives - not everyone can afford a pill. And if you are talking about availability then I'm saying condoms are much more available, and much cheaper than the pill. So for people who have no other option, there is no reason they shouldn't be using condoms. I'm talking about girls with shit jobs and no doctors. They are the best alternative at that point. Up to 15% failure if not used right, fine then that's after the fact. I'm trying to say I believe a large percentage of people causing pregnancies don't wear them to begin with and there's no reason for it. If someone doesn't know what a condom and is sexually active he's just a dumb motherfucker.

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

I've never asserted that condoms are unreliable. I've repeated the statistic in the article I linked- the one you agreed to- that condoms have a 15% failure rate, which I wouldn't consider an inherently bad statistic or an indicator of reliability of the product itself, but is rather indicative of misuse which partly stems from lacking sexual education. Condoms, when used properly, are damned reliable, and in conjunction with a birth control pill are that much more effective.

 

Regardless, I do think there's a miscommunication somewhere. My argument is as thus: Your initial statement that lack of access to cheap contraceptives is no excuse for arriving in the situation of getting accidentally is fundamentally flawed. I've provided reasons and actual statistical evidence to support my assertion that the situation is not only the result of apathy, but mainly deep-rooted problems in culture that stem from awful sexual education as well as the issues of poverty. You keep arguing that, "Well, me and my friends can get condoms easily!" without failing to take into account that anecdotal evidence proves nothing because it's only a summation of your singular experiences, thus they cannot be said to accurately reflect society as a whole. Half of your argument is immediately refuted merely by persons who have lived differently from you.

 

This is all ignoring the elephant in the room anyway: Women's contraceptives should be just as cheap and proliferate without insurance. Relying only on condoms is not a game any woman should want to play.

[Badnik Zero]

Well no it's not anecdotal because I also said that you can walk into any pharmacy anywhere and get condoms. You can walk into any corner store anywhere and get condoms, sometimes single wrapped if you need just one.

 

They are sold everywhere. You only need to be anywhere.

 

I agree that birth control should be available for all.

 

But the crux of my argument is that people just don't give a damn, and if they did, the figures would be lower.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/abc_list_c.htm#condomuse

 

Here I found something on condom usage from the CDC if you want statistics.

 

68.3% of men reported in the four weeks prior to the interview that they used condoms "none of the time".

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

My argument has not disregarded apathy or preference in terms of lacking condom usage; in fact, I've said this at least twice already. My argument once again states that saying apathy is the only reason for accidental pregnancy in the US or anywhere really is untrue, plain and simple. 

 

And funnily enough, your statistics note something interesting: The percent of men not using condoms between 2006 and 2010 is 68%. However, the number of women using any contraceptive method consistently in that same time period- including condoms- is 62%. That theoretically leaves a roughly 6% portion of the population not using any contraceptive methods at all, which means the potential chance for accidental pregnancy in 2010 was <=6% (potentially less than due to homosexual relationships), which...ironically doesn't speak to a huge statistic of people on a surefire way to an accidental pregnancy, especially with condom usage rising.

[KittyNakajima]

The pill contraceptive is not cheap on its own, I'll agree. But with places like Planned Parenthood, that should not even be an issue. I remember that I was paying something like $20 a month for each cycle when I was on it, without insurance. Twenty. That's not exactly breaking the bank.

 

But now I think it's practically nothing at all for co-pay on most health insurance plans in the U.S.

 

Then there's the morning after pill, which while I'm not exactly sure the price shouldn't be entirely bank breaking either.

 

But anyway, I think to back up Ristar here, the point was that there are definitely many options out there for cheap birth control regardless. People just need to know where to look.

[Badnik Zero]

Thanks Kitty for letting me know about that. I made a few assumptions I think, since I had no idea that pills were so cheap at a place like Planned Parenthood. I'm seeing the statistic for women having unprotected sex is more like 10% so Nepenthe is right that failure to use a condom doesn't always mean unprotected, even if her math is anecdotal at best (lolol Nepenthe I'm just joking). Regardless I stick by my initial statement that price and availability of birth control, condoms, or whatever, is a poor excuse for getting pregnant by accident. Many people should be able to get them.

Edited April 20, 2013 by American Ristar

[Tani Coyote]

Really all this is just cementing my support for higher education funding; the current system is circular and gives rich areas the best education. Conservatives throw out the "United States spends more per pupil" argument, but that blatantly ignores the fact most of that spending is going to be concentrated on a few privileged pupils. Per capita measurements are worthless if they are not equal, which is something those who want more spending in education to be: they want it to be every student getting (arbitrary number) 10,000 per pupil in actuality, rather than 19,000 on one pupil and 1,000 on another, which can be skewed as "10,000 per pupil" by averaging.

 

I always found it interesting how so many of our society's problems all are connected. Poverty leads to worse education, weaker family units, higher birth rates, and more crime. Better, more equal amounts education would work wonders here (see Finland), but it is ludicrous.

 

Heck, with better education, abortion would become a non-issue. Most people would be making use of protection or contraception (and if they don't we could fully say they are being irresponsible at that point), and the amount of abortions would shrink enormously.

 

Abortion isn't an easy decision - you are terminating a child you could very easily love and adore; the decision is normally motivated by economic factors more than anything else. Saying it could be given up for adoption is ludicrous as well, given how the orphanages are already pretty well-stocked and the government's done its best to make sure adoption is difficult.

 

If we had better social services, the thought of "I wouldn't be able to provide a good life for my child" will enter much fewer parents' minds. If we had better education, more people would know of contraceptives and make use of them. If we had more widespread internet usage, people would stop believing bullcrap theories that their friends told them since they could Google it.

 

As another note. Let's be honest here, most Americans don't have an issue with contraception. Unless you're a very conservative Catholic, the issue's become pretty moot.

[Speederino]

I can't decide for the life of me if this deserves its own thread or not, but I figure that since it mostly centers on abortion it would probably wind up being merged with this thread regardless. Anyways:

 

A Pennsylvania doctor has been found guilty of murder after performing three late-term abortions. And by 'late-term abortions' I mean 'he delivered fully-living babies and killed them with a pair of scissors'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22518979

 

And of course, this has already sparked debates about pro-abortion stances, even though I'm pretty sure practically nobody condones this. Other highlights of the story include:

 

- The doctor's defense attorney saying his client is being targeted because he's black

 

- The clinic itself was official, but very back alley-ish. The staff was untrained and the clinic was unsanitary.

 

- The untrained staff once administered an overdose of sedatives to a patient, killing her.

 

- Pennsylvania health inspectors never once inspected this clinic in the 15 years it operated

[Old dead account]

Well for fuck sake they're pulling out the race card. Pretty sure it's also illegal to hire unqualified staff too. But yeah if those babies were delivered alive and he stabbed them then there's not much left to say about this.

[iDEATH]

I can't decide for the life of me if this deserves its own thread or not, but I figure that since it mostly centers on abortion it would probably wind up being merged with this thread regardless. Anyways:

 

A Pennsylvania doctor has been found guilty of murder after performing three late-term abortions. And by 'late-term abortions' I mean 'he delivered fully-living babies and killed them with a pair of scissors'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22518979

 

And of course, this has already sparked debates about pro-abortion stances, even though I'm pretty sure practically nobody condones this. Other highlights of the story include:

 

- The doctor's defense attorney saying his client is being targeted because he's black

 

- The clinic itself was official, but very back alley-ish. The staff was untrained and the clinic was unsanitary.

 

- The untrained staff once administered an overdose of sedatives to a patient, killing her.

 

- Pennsylvania health inspectors never once inspected this clinic in the 15 years it operated

 

This story is fucking disgusting, I actually had to stop reading that article....so so sad.

I'm pro-choice but there's no defense of this man's actions. If these allegations are true, the babies were definitely living things. Pro and anti abortion groups will forever argue at which point a clump of cells are a living child, but there's no argument in this case.

 

If he's found guilty I hope he goes down for a long long time. Sick....

[NocturnalTwilight]

I think it's wrong. 

 

If the woman doesn't want a child to take care of, instead of taking it's life with no way to defend itself, just take some safe sexual procedures, like using a condom, birth control pills, or just don't have sex until you're married and ready to have a child. There's always that procedure of getting tubes tied, or getting a vasectomy.

 

In other words, think before sex, because you'll either have to take care of a child you don't want, or kill an innocent baby, if you don't play it safe.

 

Some may consider it "the woman's decision" whether to kill her child or not (that's what it's called, no way around it), but it's also her decision before hand to have sexual intercourse or not. Like I've already said, it's killing an innocent baby. Taking away a life that had no way of defending itself for no reason at all, besides that fact that the people weren't smart enough to take some safe steps before sex, or you're just too lazy and irresponsible to take care of a child that you took part in making.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Some may consider it "the woman's decision" whether to kill her child or not (that's what it's called, no way around it), 

Dude, you're seriously going to dictate that a clump of cells that haven't even developed a heart and a brain yet is killing a child?

 

You're telling me that terminating this:

A blastocyst, essentially an embryo that has barely even past the first trimester and is nothing but a hundred cells of no more than 2 types of cells (meaning it doesn't even have a developing brain, heart, skin, eyes, or muscles yet) that haven't even differentiated yet into the millions of cells that make even a pre-developed fetus, Is killing something that hasn't even been given life yet?

 

No seriously, think through this paradox: how do you kill something that isn't even born into life yet? You might as well argue that your committing murder by taking a shower and killing cells that way.

 

To my knowledge, no one here is advocating terminating this:

Which is essentially an embryo with a heart and a brain, and much more easier to call murder. And while you may not believe in terminating a cluster of a hundred cells, you have no right to dictate what it is to anyone else who differ in that belief.

 

Yeah, safer sex is more ideal, but this whole issue of "murdering babies" just comes off as absurd when so many people are ill informed about what is being terminated.

Edited May 14, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[iDEATH]

I think it's wrong. 

 

If the woman doesn't want a child to take care of, instead of taking it's life with no way to defend itself, just take some safe sexual procedures, like using a condom, birth control pills, or just don't have sex until you're married and ready to have a child. There's always that procedure of getting tubes tied, or getting a vasectomy.

 

In other words, think before sex, because you'll either have to take care of a child you don't want, or kill an innocent baby, if you don't play it safe.

 

Condoms break, pills don't have 100% accuracy. Taking sensible precautions doesn't automatically mean no pregnancy. I always have safe sex, but accidents can still happen.

 

Or maybe you're suggesting that every time I want to have sex I should sit down with my fiancee and go through our finances to make sure we'll be capable of taking care of the child should out methods on contraception fail?

 

Also, don't make me laugh with that shite about only being ready for a kid when you're married, that just doesn't wash whatsoever? Utter nonsense....

Edited May 14, 2013 by Jake Bird

[KittyNakajima]

I think it's wrong. 

 

If the woman doesn't want a child to take care of, instead of taking it's life with no way to defend itself, just take some safe sexual procedures, like using a condom, birth control pills, or just don't have sex until you're married and ready to have a child. There's always that procedure of getting tubes tied, or getting a vasectomy.

 

In other words, think before sex, because you'll either have to take care of a child you don't want, or kill an innocent baby, if you don't play it safe.

 

Some may consider it "the woman's decision" whether to kill her child or not (that's what it's called, no way around it), but it's also her decision before hand to have sexual intercourse or not. Like I've already said, it's killing an innocent baby. Taking away a life that had no way of defending itself for no reason at all, besides that fact that the people weren't smart enough to take some safe steps before sex, or you're just too lazy and irresponsible to take care of a child that you took part in making.

 

Whoa, there. First, let's get some things straight here.

 

One. It takes two. Two people make a baby. Granted I do think that a lot of the weight of the decision to abort or not does fall on the woman as she is ultimately carrying the embryo/sac of cells - the man could very well have a say in it too, especially if given the circumstances concerning the relationship. I'd think the thoughts of the prospective father who also might be a semi-serious boyfriend/husband/fiancé might have more sway than that of a random fling/one night stand.

 

Secondly, at least two of those examples of contraceptives that you mentioned are pretty friggin' permanent. I think a vasectomy (male equivalent of getting your tubes tied) can be reversed, but it's not always successful.

 

Tubal ligation, or tube tying is pretty much the end of a woman's child bearing career if done correctly. I've heard some shoddy things about it from classmates, especially concerning the fact that a lot of OB/GYNs won't do it if you're under a certain age, one child, or it's not a life threatening circumstance. The reasoning being that the woman might change her mind about wanting another child after the procedure is done.

 

I've actually read stories about women in their early to mid 20s who already had two or more children being refused the procedure because of the aforementioned criteria, despite the fact that they felt that they had enough children at home to tend to.

 

Finally, wait until marriage? Eh. I rather know what I like and don't like in bed and end up with someone who knows what they like/don't than someone who doesn't have a clue or their left from their right.

 

But anyway, sex before marriage is as common as their air we breathe. People are going to have premarital sex regardless, so they might as well know what options they have to protect themselves against both STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

 

P.S. - If you want a really creepy version of wait till marriage - do some research on the Duggars/Bates, their beliefs, and their association with Bill Gotthard. It gets really scary once you get past those fake ass smiles and look deeper into what they believe, from the way they dress, the music they can/can't listen to, or the fact that they don't date - they have "courtships", which is basically a fancy term for arranged marriage. Most of this is more strictly pushed on the daughters than the sons, but still.

 

And then you have the fact that the matriarchs of each family have popped out a good 19 children each, as they believe each child is a "gift from God". Given the implication that sex is for procreation, that means that they've actively tried for each one, and may be trying for more each time they have sex, and taken in with the no dating/courtship rule with their children...it's scary.

 

May

[The Kid]

Then, you know, there is always the idea that a woman could be raped and get pregnant from the act. I don't know if she'd want that constant reminder around, let alone raise it.

 

Point is, it isn't a simple "Just wear a condom" solution. In fact, no contraceptive is 100% effective.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the belief that pregnancy from rape is a reminder of the act due to it being that, if she were to carry it to term (and I honestly don't think she should if she chooses not to), she'd essentially be demonizing the child for someone else's crime. And I really hate that mindset.

 

Granted, I don't think she should be forced into carrying it to term either. Nor can I stop the victim believing that because such an act can very much psychologically murder them (or in other words, they look at people differently and with fear) and I wouldn't have any clue on how they would be see the world afterwards in their shoes.

 

But as far as pregnancy from rape goes from an outsider's perspective, I'd like to go the route and say that she's aborting it because wouldn't have the resources and preparation to raise the child.

Edited May 16, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[iDEATH]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the belief that pregnancy from rape is a reminder of the act due to it being that, if she were to carry it to term (and I honestly don't think she should if she chooses not to), she'd essentially be demonizing the child for someone else's crime. And I really hate that mindset.

 

Granted, I don't think she should be forced into carrying it to term either. Nor can I stop the victim believing that because such an act can very much psychologically murder them (or in other words, they look at people differently and with fear) and I wouldn't have any clue on how they would be see the world afterwards in their shoes.

 

But as far as pregnancy from rape goes from an outsider's perspective, I'd like to go the route and say that she's aborting it because wouldn't have the resources and preparation to raise the child.

 

I get what you're saying and I suppose a lot of people would feel the same, many women would carry such a child through to term and give it up for adoption.

While it is a shame to think of a  child being a victim of their father's crime. It's understandable why it would happen. While it's not pleasent to think about, imagine a woman who carries it to term, keeps the child and the child looks like their attacker, (seeing as babies, generally look more like their fathers at birth, this would be pretty common). It's easy to see why that would be a constant reminder and why that would be difficult to live with.

[KittyNakajima]

Posting this here since it's relevant, but not strong enough to warrant a topic of its own:

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/FBI-charges-man-with-murder-after-they-say-he-tricked-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill

 

 

For those of you too lazy to click the link, the story goes as follows. Girlfriend finds out she's pregnant and tells the boyfriend/prospective dad-to-be. Boyfriend isn't happy, and tells her to terminate, but brings her to his OB/GYN dad to get the official word - 6 weeks pregnant.

 

Boyfriend later goes out and buys Cytotec (an abortion pill), rips off the labels on the container, and gives it to his girlfriend under the pretense of a care package for a bacterial infection that was caught during her initial pregnancy testing. Tells her to take three a day until their finished, but she loses the baby soon after.

 

She finds out at the hospital that she's miscarrying, and produces the "antibiotics", which doctors correct her on. Boyfriend gets arrested and is currently being held without bond on first degree murder charges.

 

Now, those are the facts. I can already see some pro-life folks screaming for this guy to be charged on murder, but they won't stick because it isn't illegal to get an abortion before the end of the first trimester. Even past that point, it would have to be proven that the fetus was indeed viable - which it would NOT be at six weeks.

 

I get that the mother did in fact intend to carry to term, but the very least they can get this guy on are any charges pertaining to her harm. Like assault, intent to harm/maim/poison. The OB/GYN father of this douche should also be charged as an accessory if he was the one who wrote that prescription for those pills.

 

I also think this brings up a good question - what happens if one of the prospective parents doesn't agree about the decision to carry to term or abort? In this instance it was the guy (with unfortunate results) while the woman wished to keep the baby. I would like to think that compromise would be key. But if it can't, to be rather blunt - as one of my coworkers has said - "If you're woman enough to get pregnant, you're woman enough to take care of it whether or not the man sticks around or not."

 

 

But what happens if the man wants the woman to keep the baby but she doesn't? If we were to do a role reversal of the above story and replace abortion pills with forced pregnancy, we could have a number of things. The woman resenting the man for pressuring her to carry to term and/or take the role of mother while the man gets what he wants. The woman could also feel resentment for the child growing inside of her when she did not want it at all.