Abortion and politics (WARNING-may be offensive, gross, NSFW)

[elsporko]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

[Greenday]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

And continue to A.) Overload the system with kids and B.) Continue to increase the demands on Earth's resources? Nah.

[fireheart17]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

Pregnancy can change a woman's body permanently. A major issue should the woman have subsequent pregnancies, is Rhesus factor. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but what I AM aware of is that in subsequent pregnancies, it can cause problems at birth, resulting in the need for blood transfusions. I'm not 100% sure if it's an issue for women who've aborted an embryo (that's what it's known as until about 3-4 months) and then successfully gone on to have a child later on in life.

In fact, I'm a little curious regarding the "purity/virginity/celibacy" groups. We don't have many of them down here (that I'm aware of) but I'm just wondering...out of those groups, how many lost their virginity before they were married?

The point I'm trying to make elsporko, is that why should young people be punished by being forced to give birth? Should we make it a legal requirement that everybody wears a chastity belt until they are married? Should we introduce severe forms of female genital cutting to prevent young women from doing anything? You tell me what the response is. Because here are the short facts:

1) Condoms can and will break if used incorrectly or if they're repeatedly exposed to sunlight.
2) The Pill is ineffective if the user is taking certain other medications, if they have diahorea or vomit within a certain period of time after taking the Pill, and can also cause DVT in some patients.
3) Implanon (what I'm on at the moment) is ineffective if it's inserted by an unqualified professional, if it's inserted at the wrong time in a woman's menstrual cycle, or if the implant itself is broken or damaged.
4) IUD's run the risk of uterine preforation and in most cases, actually cause HEAVIER menstrual cycles, which can result in low iron levels for women.
5) Diaphragms can cause problems if it isn't inserted correctly, also they need to be refitted when there's weight gain or loss.

So what is the option then?

[AdminAssistant]

In fact, I'm a little curious regarding the "purity/virginity/celibacy" groups. We don't have many of them down here (that I'm aware of) but I'm just wondering...out of those groups, how many lost their virginity before they were married?

The figure I've always seen thrown around is that about 3% of the total population actually saves it for their wedding night.

[Amanita]

I don't mean to get into TMI here, but I am a voluntary celibate. Not for religious reasons, as Paganism is generally sex-positive. I'm just not interested in the entanglements of a sexual relationship. That said, I don't believe that everybody out there needs to step in line behind me and renounce sex unless they want a child.

It's not realistic. Most people have urges and drives, and feelings. If somebody wants to have sex, it's not my business. Even if they do everything right, using protection and all, things can go wrong. And if something goes wrong, I would sooner see them having an abortion than giving birth to the child and abusing it. Or leaving the kid in a trashcan, or giving the kid up, only to have said kid lanquish in foster care.

[fireheart17]

And a few fun facts I discovered regarding said website, in addition to the campaign overall.

-The website I posted in my OP apparaently isn't considered to fall under Australian advertising standards because guess what? It's not on an Australian server. There's talks of a new law that states ALL campaigning politicians need to have their websites based in Australia.
-His campaign posters (which in Australia only consist of the person's name, their political party if they have one, Vote [1] in some of them and in most cases, their face) may be coming under fire by the advertising standards due to the images they're showing. I've only seen one innocent one-that is, of a newborn baby reaching out with sparkles.
-He's been placed last to near last for ALL the minor poiltical party preferences, which leads me into my short spiel on voting:

Basically, in SA, we vote for both the Lower House and the Upper House (known as the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council) in entirely different ways.

The HoR is fairly straightforward. Every person voting is given a green slip that has four or five names on it-these are the candidates standing for their political district. You're required to fill out ALL the boxes-that is, mark 1-5 on them in the order you want.

When they count them, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is struck out and his/her preferences are redistributed among the other candidates, according to the wishes of the candidate and/or party. They then count the number 2 preferences and do the same thing, until the candidate with the majority vote wins.

The LC works in a similar manner. They use a slightly different method of distributing them, but in general, the concept is still the same.

There were a heck of a lot of minor parties running for the election when I went down today-my personal favourite? Gamers4Croydon.

[Nyoibo]

Yeah, Gamers4croydon got my no.1, looks like Labour won the election, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

Getting your tubes tied is major, invasive surgery. A first-trimester abortion (the vast majority) is not. Someone who feels that an abortion is necessary because of their current circumstances should be forced to undergo major surgery and never be able to have kids in the future, when they are ready for them, because some people want to punish women for daring to have sex?

No.
-----

I just believe that you should be responsible for the choices that you make.

Sometimes having an abortion is the most responsible choice you can make.

The problem with abortions is that to some (many?) people, they become just another form of birth control.

I think it's probably far fewer than the pro-life camp would have us believe. And there are many, many women who are married, in long-term relationships, already have kids, etc. and still end up having an abortion. The portrayal of all women who have abortions as promiscuous and irresponsible is wrong and does nothing to help the issue. And saying "well, then, don't have sex" doesn't help either. Does anyone seriously expect that married people won't have sex if they don't want kids?

n the instance of rape, the "daily reminder" can be too much of a psychological impact on the mother.

Rape is not the only thing that can cause serious psychological implications for the mother. For some women, the pregnancy itself and the accompanying hormones, regardless of the circumstances of conception, can do that.

I recently came across a blog post from a guy whose wife had had 3 difficult pregnancies, all resulting in c-sections, and was terrified of the possibility of getting pregnant again and what it might do to her health. The guy was asking for opinions on the concept of birth control being sin and should he give in and use it or get a vasectomy because he was afraid he would go to hell for it. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thought of his wife getting her tubes tied, though. The reason she didn't have it done with the last c-section was because it was done at a Catholic hospital, so they wouldn't do it. Meanwhile the physical part of their marriage was non-existent because she didn't want to so much as cuddle with him for fear it would lead to sex and another pregnancy.

A group that demands less government control/interaction/involvement, yet here they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot do. Sounds like government control/interaction/involvement to me.CH

They want less government control as long as the government is promoting their point of view.

The only thing I will say personally is that if you're getting public funding to either get an abortion or raise your children, then the "my body, my choice" argument doesn't hold as much water as you think. If I am paying through taxes to subsidize your behavior, then why shouldn't I get a say in how my money is spent?

Getting public assistance means that the government owns your body? I think not. And if it's all about the money, it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than 18 years of providing for a child.

[fireheart17]

Yeah, Gamers4croydon got my no.1, looks like Labour won the election, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Ditto. In both counts (I voted G4C in Upper House, Greens/Liberal/Labor/Family First in lower)

Also, according to the last count I heard...Trevor Grace only received .3% of the votes.

[Fryk]

Getting public assistance means that the government owns your body? I think not. And if it's all about the money, it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than 18 years of providing for a child.

I didn't say the government owned their ass. Having a say is NOT the same thing as having total control.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I didn't say the government owned their ass. Having a say is NOT the same thing as having total control.

So how would that work, exactly? They have to what? Apply for an abortion? Get permission? Or are you saying they should lose their benefits if they do get one? I'm asking, seriously.

Ultimately, the decision has to be the woman's. Unless you're going to outlaw it completely, which will cause more problems than it solves, the ultimate decision has to be hers. It is still her body. It is still her choice.

[Fryk]

If they're on public assistance, then yes. Maybe some sort of permit would be a good thing. Although I don't see why they wouldn't get one, seeing as how an abortion is far less expensive than a full term pregnancy and a delivery. I guess when it comes down to it, I'm arguing on the other side, although I might not have worded it as such. Someone who's on welfare who wants to keep their baby at mine and everyone else's expense SHOULD ask for permission.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Someone who's on welfare who wants to keep their baby at mine and everyone else's expense SHOULD ask for permission.

And if the answer is no? They can't force you to have an abortion, either. Or to give a kid up for adoption (unless they can prove you are unfit to be a parent; simply being on welfare is not enough).

If they need permission before they get pregnant, well, the whole point of the abortion debate is that the majority of people seeking them did not plan to get pregnant. If there were no unplanned pregnancies, there would be no abortions except for dire medical reasons. So you could say the people on welfare must use birth control; then how do you police that? No method is foolproof, some people can't use certain methods (such as hormonal BC)...and how would you prove that a pregnancy resulted from failure of birth control vs. failure to use birth control?

Aside from the ethical qualms I would have about such a system in the first place, I really don't see how it could be implemented in a fair (or efficient - I mean, we are talking about the government, here) manner.

[Fryk]

I'll admit, my idea as it is now doesn't seem fair. That's probably why I'm not making public policy. But I also know that the current system isn't fair, either, and it's unfair to a larger number of people.