Anonymous
08/09/2012 23:19
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
As an attorney, I have fought for every woman's constitutional right to control her own body, and to make her own health care and medical decisions, including reproductive decisions. Period.
True, this subject has been beaten to death. But the debate, and the legal battle, continues to this day.
True, this subject has been beaten to death. But the debate, and the legal battle, continues to this day.
Anonymous
08/09/2012 22:51
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
WHO CARES
You live your life by your choices and let others do the same l
The Subject has been beaten to death
You live your life by your choices and let others do the same l
The Subject has been beaten to death
Anonymous
08/09/2012 21:45
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
The one argument I haven't seen here is that BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE. I have seen it mentioned in a previous page's post. But all the pro-lifers saying that women are just having sex without birth control or not using enough or the right kind....
But, lo and behold, visit FDA's website and see how effective they rate The Pill. 95%. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT. Five out of every 100 women who take the pill WILL GET PREGNANT.
When did your doctor tell you THAT? Oh, they talk about antibiotics and remembering to take it at the same time every day, but not 'well your cervical mucous might not cooperate'. You are saying there is no rom for error in birth control method effectiveness...if there is, then the woman is behaving irresponsibly?
Oh, you have side effects from synthetic hormones? Hmmm, that rules out the shot, implants, the pill...and the 'barrier' methods aren't quite as reliable either, check out the FDA effective rates on those, too. That leaves IUD or getting tubes tied...and for someone who might want to get pregnant one day, they aren't recommended by Drs.
Were we also educated about a women's cycle? Yup. Sure, I've been briefed on the Rhythm Method. Gotten pregnant with both my kids when I should have been in the 'safe' zone. Oh, you mean SOME women pop eggs more than once a month? Hmmm...don't remember learning that in high school Biology.
Should we have more education about birth control methods and women's reproductive capabilities? Sure, but it is a grassroots movement that is going to take time and a whole lot of congressional and community support. Should we lobby corporations to develop more options for prevention of pregnancy, for both men AND women? Yes, absolutely. (Where is this 'male pill', dear god!) But it hasn't happened yet. And until then, we have no maternity leave requirement in this country and many, many young people don't have health insurance. How is a woman without health insurance and an accommodating employer supposed to pay for the prenatal visits, labor/delivery, and post-natal care? Even with adoption, what if she gets preeclampsia? Needs bedrest at a job that requires heavy lifting or constant walking? Can't afford the possibility of any sort of complication? Needs counseling to deal with the separation of the baby that she's giving away? I almost DIED after my second kid. I could never afford the $500,000 bill from the hospital without insurance.
And let's get real. Fifty percent of all pregnancies are unplanned. Would you rather lose a clump of cells without a consciousness, or bring a child into this world who lives a miserable, tortured existence because they are unwanted? Abused and treated like crap by their own parents or relatives and then they turn into psychos who beat up toddlers? People lock their kids in rooms. They tie them up and starve them. They let others abuse them and turn a blind eye. There are many homes where kids don't belong. Abortion is one way to prevent that.
I honestly think that most people against abortion have never been in a situation where they've had to make a tough decision. Either they have constantly had a cushy support system (accepting family, long-term significant other, stable job with insurance, etc.) or aren't being truthful with themselves. It's all fine and good to think that you'd react a certain way UNTIL it affects YOUR life.
But, lo and behold, visit FDA's website and see how effective they rate The Pill. 95%. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT. Five out of every 100 women who take the pill WILL GET PREGNANT.
When did your doctor tell you THAT? Oh, they talk about antibiotics and remembering to take it at the same time every day, but not 'well your cervical mucous might not cooperate'. You are saying there is no rom for error in birth control method effectiveness...if there is, then the woman is behaving irresponsibly?
Oh, you have side effects from synthetic hormones? Hmmm, that rules out the shot, implants, the pill...and the 'barrier' methods aren't quite as reliable either, check out the FDA effective rates on those, too. That leaves IUD or getting tubes tied...and for someone who might want to get pregnant one day, they aren't recommended by Drs.
Were we also educated about a women's cycle? Yup. Sure, I've been briefed on the Rhythm Method. Gotten pregnant with both my kids when I should have been in the 'safe' zone. Oh, you mean SOME women pop eggs more than once a month? Hmmm...don't remember learning that in high school Biology.
Should we have more education about birth control methods and women's reproductive capabilities? Sure, but it is a grassroots movement that is going to take time and a whole lot of congressional and community support. Should we lobby corporations to develop more options for prevention of pregnancy, for both men AND women? Yes, absolutely. (Where is this 'male pill', dear god!) But it hasn't happened yet. And until then, we have no maternity leave requirement in this country and many, many young people don't have health insurance. How is a woman without health insurance and an accommodating employer supposed to pay for the prenatal visits, labor/delivery, and post-natal care? Even with adoption, what if she gets preeclampsia? Needs bedrest at a job that requires heavy lifting or constant walking? Can't afford the possibility of any sort of complication? Needs counseling to deal with the separation of the baby that she's giving away? I almost DIED after my second kid. I could never afford the $500,000 bill from the hospital without insurance.
And let's get real. Fifty percent of all pregnancies are unplanned. Would you rather lose a clump of cells without a consciousness, or bring a child into this world who lives a miserable, tortured existence because they are unwanted? Abused and treated like crap by their own parents or relatives and then they turn into psychos who beat up toddlers? People lock their kids in rooms. They tie them up and starve them. They let others abuse them and turn a blind eye. There are many homes where kids don't belong. Abortion is one way to prevent that.
I honestly think that most people against abortion have never been in a situation where they've had to make a tough decision. Either they have constantly had a cushy support system (accepting family, long-term significant other, stable job with insurance, etc.) or aren't being truthful with themselves. It's all fine and good to think that you'd react a certain way UNTIL it affects YOUR life.
Anonymous
08/09/2012 09:50
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Let me put this another way: why should it matter what you think about someone else's choices?
What a sense of humor you have! Given all the various opinions on a wide range of DCUM topics (including people's choices in different situations), you're hilarious to ask this question!
Sorry--let me be clearer. Why should your opinion control my choices?
Anonymous
08/08/2012 20:20
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.
i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?
Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore
Maybe, and i know i won't articulate this well, but i sometimes think that women have dug a pretty deep hole regarding holding men responsible by making abortion a women's only issue and decision. if the putative father doesn't have a right to a say in whether the woman has an abortion, how can we then say he HAS to be responsible if she decides to go on with the pregnancy. i promise i'm not being glib -- i really do wrestle with this issue because i think fathers SHOULD be required to be responsible.
as to the leaving babies in the hospital, i'm not advocating that women MUST continue with a pregnancy and place the baby for adoption, but rather that more of the 3/4 of the 1.3 million women i 2008 who had abortions in whole or in part because having a child would interfere with life, for example, would opt to continue with the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. that we could get over the notion that an unexpected pregnancy is a death sentence and a life ender and that more women would become accident surrogates, in an odd way, rather than choose abortion. may sound backwards and heinous, but that's how i feel.
Absurd. The men do get a choice. They choose whether to have sex, whether to use birth control. They may not have the identical choices that women do or as many choices, but they get a choice. It's ot like "Gattica" - I'm not vaccuuming your keyboard too obtain your dna. You choose whether or not to leave it in a place that causes babies. Might as well complain that it's unfair the earth is round or only women can breastfeed. Or maybewomen should complain that it's really not fair that men get the same parental rights as women, after all the woman does alk the work to create the life. But that's just the way it is. It's not fair, to either gender grankly. It's biology.
Additionally it is not in the greater interest of society to allow males to opt out of responsibility for children they have sired, wanted or not.
Frankly I think the status quo on this issue is right and reasonable.
Same for women. They should be responsible for their choice to have unprotected sex and not use abortion as a means of birth control--which many women do (not referring to children conceived by rape or incest and not referring to situations in which the mother's or baby's life is endangered, etc)
Having an abortion IS being responsible for their choice to have sex.
Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.
So? Seriously, let's assume what you're saying is true. Let's say I had sex, and in the heat of the moment, didn't use a condom (or I forgot that antibiotics would cancel out my oral contraceptives, or whatever). And now I'm pregnant -- oops! But I don't want to be, because I'm single and not exactly rolling in cash and frankly am not ready to have a kid. As time machines have not yet been invented, I don't have the option of going back in time and telling myself not to have sex (and, you know what? In this scenario, the sex was awesome and I don't regret it). So, I go to the doctor and get an abortion, which is costly and uncomfortable, because I'm not up for 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery. I have now officially Taken Responsibility For My Actions. Yay, me! I have absolutely zero problems with this scenario.
Pretty much a callous, flip way of sharing your feelings about aborting your offspring. As you've described the scenario, it's not a big deal emotionally and could happen again. I happen to think that both men AND women should be making more responsible decisions ahead of time instead of viewing abortion as a convenience. Again, I'm not referring to the kinds of situations (rape, incest, health of mother/baby, etc) where far more is involved than mere convenience.
Yup, could happen again. And actually, I agree with you -- I think the scenario I described above is an example of someone behaving irresponsibly (but only to the extent that she wasn't on birth control). But here's the thing: (1) I don't see why having an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility, when it's actually an example of someone evaluating the situation, deciding how best to proceed given the risks and circumstances, and making a proactive decision to fix their mistake, but more importantly (b) I don't think the fact that the person described above isn't behaving as morally as I would want her to, or making the choices I would, is any reason to take away her right to make medical decisions that affect her body. I think people who gorge themselves on fast food and have a heart attack should get treatment at an ER even if they can't pay. I think ambulances should come and assist drunk drivers that get into accidents. I think that my own choices and moral codes are just that: MY CHOICES, not anyone elses, and they certainly shouldn't be the basis for legal prohibition.
Let me put this another way: why should it matter what you think about someone else's choices?[/quote]
What a sense of humor you have! Given all the various opinions on a wide range of DCUM topics (including people's choices in different situations), you're hilarious to ask this question!