Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

ya know, we can have all of those things WITHOUT limiting access to abortion. providing free, accesibly long-term birth control (eg IUDs) in Colorado drastically reduced unintended pregnancy. Infringing on women's rights in order to force society to be more careful about sex is just not acceptable, particularly when there are other way to do it. but if you insist on going that route, then we REALLY need Mandatory Universal Vasectomy (MUV) as well -- as it will be FAR more effective in reducing, if not eliminating, unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

I am all for providing the birth control, especially condoms since it also helps prevent the spread of STDs. Please explain the control women statement. I mean, controlling women how? To what end? I guess looking around today, I don't see women being particularly held back or controlled by outside influences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

I am all for providing the birth control, especially condoms since it also helps prevent the spread of STDs. Please explain the control women statement. I mean, controlling women how? To what end? I guess looking around today, I don't see women being particularly held back or controlled by outside influences.

controlling women by forcing them to give birth when they don't want to. does that really need to be said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

I am all for providing the birth control, especially condoms since it also helps prevent the spread of STDs. Please explain the control women statement. I mean, controlling women how? To what end? I guess looking around today, I don't see women being particularly held back or controlled by outside influences.

controlling women by forcing them to give birth when they don't want to. does that really need to be said?

and in more detail ... if you're the same PP who posted "What if these laws lead to ... " then you're admitting that the goal of the laws is to IMPACT WOMEN'S BEHAVIOR by drastically raising the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Your entire theory is based on controlling women. You could argue that it controls men too (because they also have an interest in preventing unintended pregnancy) but the consequences obviously would fall much more drastically on the women. So as a way to indirectly create the behavior you purport to want (use of birth control) you're implementing measures to control women by increasing the consequences of the behavior you want to change. Furthermore, although your arguments are based on abortion here, it's not hard to scratch the surface of social conservative views on this issue, and find that they consider the bad behavior to be sex out of wedlock in general, and not just failure to use birth control. So to them, the tactic of banning abortion to raise the consequences of sex is absolutely connected to reinstituting control over women as a way to achieve their other goals (a return to traditional marriage). these people absolutely attribute the "breakdown of traditional institutions" to Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

I am all for providing the birth control, especially condoms since it also helps prevent the spread of STDs. Please explain the control women statement. I mean, controlling women how? To what end? I guess looking around today, I don't see women being particularly held back or controlled by outside influences.

controlling women by forcing them to give birth when they don't want to. does that really need to be said?

Seriously? You are quite presumptive! Not PP.

and in more detail ... if you're the same PP who posted "What if these laws lead to ... " then you're admitting that the goal of the laws is to IMPACT WOMEN'S BEHAVIOR by drastically raising the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Your entire theory is based on controlling women. You could argue that it controls men too (because they also have an interest in preventing unintended pregnancy) but the consequences obviously would fall much more drastically on the women. So as a way to indirectly create the behavior you purport to want (use of birth control) you're implementing measures to control women by increasing the consequences of the behavior you want to change. Furthermore, although your arguments are based on abortion here, it's not hard to scratch the surface of social conservative views on this issue, and find that they consider the bad behavior to be sex out of wedlock in general, and not just failure to use birth control. So to them, the tactic of banning abortion to raise the consequences of sex is absolutely connected to reinstituting control over women as a way to achieve their other goals (a return to traditional marriage). these people absolutely attribute the "breakdown of traditional institutions" to Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people need to close their legs and control their penises.

Yes. What if these laws actually lead to increased birth control use, fewer unwanted pregnancies, increased condom use with fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancies? Will there be any recognition that having abortions right up until the time of birth might be a bad thing? That curtailing it some might have some positive benefits? I doubt it.

If making abortions illegal prevented the need for abortions, they never would’ve become legal. In Colorado, there was free long term birth control provided by the state. Unwanted pregnancy rates dropped and abortion rates dropped significantly. Republicans took away the free birth control because it prevented abortions without slut shaming.

We know how to reduce abortion rates but that’s not the goal, is it? The goal is to control women.

Why does the government want to control women? We are the biggest factors of production. Why would they control us?
You have found this acralkying cry but what does it mean?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

[Anonymous]

These draconian backward anti abortion laws have nothing to do with babies or children or the well being of the unborn. If that was the case we’d have free medical coverage for all, more money for public education, and better access to affordable, quality childcare.

These laws are about controlling women and making sure that unless a woman is prepared to have a baby, she doesn’t have sex.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.