Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

"convenience"? No changing your mind with a perspective like that.

Anonymous wrote:Ok so if the government can order women to go through pregnancy and L&D against their will, in the name of “saving lives,” it should be able to harvest your body for parts after your death against your will in order to save lives. After all you’ll be dead and it will be of no consequence to you if the government takes your kidneys, liver, eyes, or limbs to save or improve the lives of others. And also everyone should be forced to give blood regularly and to be in a bone marrow databank to be available to donate if the government finds a match. After all, giving blood and bone marrow is a temporary inconvenience and doesn’t harm you. Exceptions can be made for the sick and children, but once you turn 18 you need to register for the blood bank and bone marrow database.

Anti-abortion folks, you call yourself pro-life so are you with me? I would assume you will agree with both these proposals

Anonymous wrote:Abortions performed that end a persons life for no other reason than convenience isn't healthcare - change my mind....

Part of the disconnect here is a disagreement about why and when some life is more valuable than other life. The mere fact of life isn't inherently valued. We don't mind squashing bugs, for example. Most of us are meat eaters and don't killing pigs for our bacon.

So what is it about human life that makes it morally entitled to extra consideration? Is it because it has a soul? Obviously many of us don't believe in souls. Is it because humans are more intelligent and perceptive than other beings? If that's it, how does that affect how we treat a human in a permanent, vegetative state versus, say, a healthy, alert adult dog?

There are no definitive answers on a moral question like this. We're really asking what it means to be human. Is humanity simply a function of life plus the correct number of chromosomes? Is humanity simply a matter of biology or is there a biographical component? Opinions differ dramatically.

The Supreme Court in Roe tried to strike a balance. For the first 12 weeks, when the life in question is a blastocyst or an embryo, the life in question just isn't the same as a fully human and the rights of the fully human woman take priority.

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

look, I'm sorry you don't like these reasons. I get it.

BUT, then help us to reduce the need by providing free birth control (including LARCS), comprehensive sex education (not abstinence only propaganda), affordable and accessible health care, assistance to low income mothers and children and affordable and accessible child care.

If you aren't willing to do these things, the need for abortion will remain.

The biggest need us for cultural changes to make people avail themselves if all these free services and then use them. If you want abortions to be rare, you have to make people take responsibility for their reproduction. I am an L and D nurse and many of the women I see claimed to have an IUD, always took their pills, had a failed implant, or the classic broken condom. Statistically, these could not have occurred with the frequency I see them and their babies suffer for it.

Holy shit, have you ever heard of the term "sampling bias"?

You're a labor and delivery nurse. Of course you see all the exceptions and birth control failures! No sh#t, Sherlock.

Of course I understand sampling bias. I also understand the difference between anecdotal information and rigorous research. Do you?

Then why did you just cite your anecdotes as the basis for jumping to huge conclusions? Frankly, I'd expect more intellectual rigor from a nurse. For every person you see as a L&D nurse who has an accidental pregnancy, there are easily thousands out there whose birth control didn't fail. You see the exceptional cases.

I'm not impressed by your shallow logic.

Actually, I am in a hospital where it is the opposite. Thousands more women have accidental than planned pregnancies. I used the anecdote to highlight the need for a cultural way to induce people to use contraception and birth control. It is good that your experience has been primarily with women who have had planned pregnancies. I would like to see most oregnancues planned rather than accidental. How do you propose accomplishing that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

look, I'm sorry you don't like these reasons. I get it.

BUT, then help us to reduce the need by providing free birth control (including LARCS), comprehensive sex education (not abstinence only propaganda), affordable and accessible health care, assistance to low income mothers and children and affordable and accessible child care.

If you aren't willing to do these things, the need for abortion will remain.

The biggest need us for cultural changes to make people avail themselves if all these free services and then use them. If you want abortions to be rare, you have to make people take responsibility for their reproduction. I am an L and D nurse and many of the women I see claimed to have an IUD, always took their pills, had a failed implant, or the classic broken condom. Statistically, these could not have occurred with the frequency I see them and their babies suffer for it.

Holy shit, have you ever heard of the term "sampling bias"?

You're a labor and delivery nurse. Of course you see all the exceptions and birth control failures! No sh#t, Sherlock.

Of course I understand sampling bias. I also understand the difference between anecdotal information and rigorous research. Do you?

Anonymous wrote:taking away birth control options and access to abortions is NOT the way to make this cultural change

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A woman has a right to control her body. Period. It doesn't matter the reason.

Too bad the body control only occurs after the pregnancy.

Abortion is the only way women can seemingly control their bodies.

I like how you let men off the hook so easily.

Unfortunately, I didn’t create humankind. I made no personal decision to build a woman’s body to carry unborn babies, and gift a man with a penis.

I also don’t force women to have sex with men who will not support them in case pregnancy occurs. Women choose who they have sex with. If they have sex with a man who won’t help support a possible pregnancy I can’t prevent that.

However, a man can be forced to take a paternity test and the government will even take money out of his check for child support should he prove to be the father and refuse financial responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

look, I'm sorry you don't like these reasons. I get it.

BUT, then help us to reduce the need by providing free birth control (including LARCS), comprehensive sex education (not abstinence only propaganda), affordable and accessible health care, assistance to low income mothers and children and affordable and accessible child care.

If you aren't willing to do these things, the need for abortion will remain.

The biggest need us for cultural changes to make people avail themselves if all these free services and then use them. If you want abortions to be rare, you have to make people take responsibility for their reproduction. I am an L and D nurse and many of the women I see claimed to have an IUD, always took their pills, had a failed implant, or the classic broken condom. Statistically, these could not have occurred with the frequency I see them and their babies suffer for it.

Holy shit, have you ever heard of the term "sampling bias"?

You're a labor and delivery nurse. Of course you see all the exceptions and birth control failures! No sh#t, Sherlock.

Of course I understand sampling bias. I also understand the difference between anecdotal information and rigorous research. Do you?

Then why did you just cite your anecdotes as the basis for jumping to huge conclusions? Frankly, I'd expect more intellectual rigor from a nurse. For every person you see as a L&D nurse who has an accidental pregnancy, there are easily thousands out there whose birth control didn't fail. You see the exceptional cases.

I'm not impressed by your shallow logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

look, I'm sorry you don't like these reasons. I get it.

BUT, then help us to reduce the need by providing free birth control (including LARCS), comprehensive sex education (not abstinence only propaganda), affordable and accessible health care, assistance to low income mothers and children and affordable and accessible child care.

If you aren't willing to do these things, the need for abortion will remain.

The biggest need us for cultural changes to make people avail themselves if all these free services and then use them. If you want abortions to be rare, you have to make people take responsibility for their reproduction. I am an L and D nurse and many of the women I see claimed to have an IUD, always took their pills, had a failed implant, or the classic broken condom. Statistically, these could not have occurred with the frequency I see them and their babies suffer for it.

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile birth rates are at a 32 year low. We are turning into Japan and all you anti-lifers won't have anyone take care of you when older.

https://wtop.com/national/2019/05/fewer-babies-as-us-birth-rate-fails-to-rebound-with-economy/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

look, I'm sorry you don't like these reasons. I get it.

BUT, then help us to reduce the need by providing free birth control (including LARCS), comprehensive sex education (not abstinence only propaganda), affordable and accessible health care, assistance to low income mothers and children and affordable and accessible child care.

If you aren't willing to do these things, the need for abortion will remain.

The biggest need us for cultural changes to make people avail themselves if all these free services and then use them. If you want abortions to be rare, you have to make people take responsibility for their reproduction. I am an L and D nurse and many of the women I see claimed to have an IUD, always took their pills, had a failed implant, or the classic broken condom. Statistically, these could not have occurred with the frequency I see them and their babies suffer for it.

Holy shit, have you ever heard of the term "sampling bias"?

You're a labor and delivery nurse. Of course you see all the exceptions and birth control failures! No sh#t, Sherlock.

Of course I understand sampling bias. I also understand the difference between anecdotal information and rigorous research. Do you?