Banning abortion doesn't make sense to me

[Boozy]

I think BK was being sarcastic when she said that, or perhaps there was a typo. She's expressed support for Plan B, so I assume she's fine with birth control.

[Zyanya]

Considering we WERE not allowed to give our opinion to anyone-which I also stated in the previous thread.

CPCs exist to give their opinions. Every other supposes service they offer is also available at PP, including prenatal care and access to adoption information, and counseling to young mothers. Hell, I've yet to see a PP that didn't have a flier for an adoption agency and information about prenatal care hanging in the waiting room. CPCs exist solely to confuse women on the subject of abortion.

The branch of the CDC that is responsible for reporting injury and death statistics for abortion has not released any data since 1988-
if none of these are true show me these numbers-for the US-previously you provided stats for austrailia(which are not covered by the CDC)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm

The date there? 1999. First link to pop up on google when you type in CDC and abortion. Please do at least a bit of cursory research before clinging to the falsehoods the CPCs gave you.

The reason CPCs and pro-lifers don't want to admit this data exists?

Because it shows that only .6 of every 100,000 women who get an abortion suffer mortality, as opposed to 12 in 100,000 women who go through childbirth. Kind of makes your entire stance on the issue of abortion being dangerous a little ridiculous, doesn't it?

yup all lies

Indeed. Seriously, a test sample of 158 women? Nowhere near enough for useful medical data. Especially when it leaves out pertinent information such as WHY the abortion was induced and WHEN, both of which are very important factors for determining future medical complications. If you have to have a late-term abortion due to ancephaly, of course the risks are higher, it's a far more invasive procedure (but absolutely necessary) with correspondingly higher stress put on the mother. And the difference cited was between women with no abortions versus women with TWO or more abortions. Oh, and to further muddy the waters, removal of an ectopic pregnancy is called an abortion, a woman who previously had an ectopic pregnancy would likely be at increased risk for another.

I do love your attempts to provide studies to back up your claim by misleading folks about the contents. Did it not occur to you by now that I follow your links and evaluate them?

No it wouldn't you can't sue active duty military-I was living at Fort Leonard Wood Mo-GLWACH is a military hospital-all medical staff are active duty.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...AAznF3u&show=7
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medical-M...ieral-used.htm

Yes, you can sue the military for medical malpractice. It's a bit trickier, but it can be done. Even military doctors are not allowed to lie to patients.

And I'm sure at some point you probably figured out that just because you are military you aren't prevented from seeing a civilian doctor. My mother was living on a military base when she was pregnant with me, and I was born in a civilian hospital.

and I'm sure lack of contraception and sex education has little to do with the number of unplanned pregnancies. Also if I'm not mistaken many countries there routinely practice female circumcision-which leads to severe complications in childbirth on it's own.(also stats on that from WHO-# An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
In Africa, about three million girls are at risk for FGM annually)

According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

Considering it's 'pro-lifers' that are constantly saying 'no, the pill is bad, it causes teh abortions', I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

And female genital mutilation, while abominable, is a strawman here. Banning abortion does not decrease abortion, it simply increases the risks of abortion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I wouldn't like to suspect people of lying without proof of it.

Rapscallion

I was thinking the exact thing. Accusing someone of being a liar on a public forum is extremely uncool. And yet it happens here with disturbing regularity. Someone posts something outside the realm of someone else's experience or opinion, and suddenly they are a liar. Gets old.

I like to read a good debate, and sometimes participate in one, and I like hearing both sides. However, I tend to ignore those that can't present their ideas without infusing them with personal attacks and rude implications about other posters.

But I suppose that's a subject for another fratch.

[Zyanya]

The truth about CPCs

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=30616

Pearson's manual instructs CPC staff to use vague and evasive language so as not to clue women and girls in to the fact that the centers are anti-abortion. He advises centers to list themselves in the phone book "under the headings of abortion, pregnancy, birth control information, clinics, social services, welfare organizations, women's organizations and services, and health services" in order to mislead women. The manual also suggests that CPCs locate themselves in the same buildings as abortion clinics so that "the abortion chamber is paying for advertising to bring that girl to you." (JMJ Life Center, a local CPC, moved directly next door to Planned Parenthood Greater Orlando earlier this month.) Pearson's philosophy deems that CPC staffers should use whatever means necessary to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. In a 1994 speech, he declared: "Obviously, we're fighting Satan ... A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her [do that]."


http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_resear...cpc_report.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/chooselies.htm

[blas87]

If I remember correctly, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion anywhere. There is always a consultation, and every other option is always offered to a woman and the risks and everything involved are always laid out on the table. I had that pregnancy scare last fall (turns out I was just so stressed out that I was making myself physically ill, but it really made me realize I had been stupid and really needed to stick to my guns with forcing bf to wear condoms), and he wanted me to check out abortion clinics. The closest one I could find was in Minnesota and it went into great detail about how the entire procedure goes, before and after, etc. It's not like a tattoo parlor, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion.

Thankfully I wasn't pregnant and we didn't need to go that route, but I did learn a few things reading on that site.

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

[BlaqueKatt]

Considering it's 'pro-lifers' that are constantly saying 'no, the pill is bad, it causes teh abortions', I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

and I suggest you go back one page

(and it's a reason I fully believe "Plan B" should be readily available*)


*no I don't beleive that hormonal birth control is completely safe, but I do feel it's the best option we have. And I would much rather have plan "b" available at you local supermarket, than see a baby aborted.

but yeah continue to lie about me and then call me a liar-welcome to my ignore list. Every thread where I've disagreed with you you've started on personal attacks-I'm tired of it-so go ahead dance around claim victory whatever-I don't care.

[Zyanya]

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

Exactly. And if you decide you do not want an abortion, many also provide pre-natal care and ob/gyn services, as well as referrals to adoption agencies or women's shelters if necessary. When my sister was pregnant, the doctor she was initially consulting regarding getting an abortion ended up being the one to deliver my niece when my sister changed her mind.

The reason I am adamant about this topic is my grandmother's sister died from a self-induced abortion pre-Roe vs Wade. I was raised to stand up for myself as a woman. My uterus is not your property, and you do not have the right to enslave my body to your warped morality. I am more than a walking womb.

I actually have worked at a rape crisis center, and I've heard the stories of women who were essentially raped a second time by doctors or pharmacists when they tried to get Plan B or similar. Forced-birthers are no better than rapists.


Here they are, the women who have actually had abortions - http://www.imnotsorry.net/

They aren't monsters.
They aren't murderers.

They aren't poor bitter women with lost wombs suffering from post abortion syndrome.

They are normal women going on with their lives.

[tropicsgoddess]

Your solution is to make slaves out of people for at least 9 months out of their lives. You would make one person wholly subservient to another. Specifically, the mother gets to be subservient to the fetus. The mother no longer gets a say in what she will do, she must obey the needs of the fetus. She is now a slave to someone else.

If you want to compare slavery arguments, you might as well compare the rest of it.

The response of "Well, don't have sex" isn't exactly a very fair option. Women who get raped face the possibility of getting pregnant from that encounter.

What about a married couple? Suppose that couple wishes to remain childless. That couple should deprive themselves of the joy of making love, even if they were to take every precaution to prevent pregnancy? After all, accidents happen.

What if the prospective mother will find herself in dire straits because of it? I'll use my wife as an example: She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in her early twenties. The medications she has to take to control this are serious medications. At one point, she was on Vioxx. In order for her to carry a pregnancy to term, she would have to stop pretty well all pain controlling medications for the next 9 months. Sure, she could go as strong as something like Advil, but the arthritis continues to ravage her body for that entire time. She won't die from it, but she will suffer excruciating pain that will involve her hands being twisted in ways that hands were not meant to turn. She will wake up every morning in pain, and spend her days in pain, going to sleep in pain. The only difference will be the quantity of it.

Now, the people who are using the "don't have sex" argument are getting into this couple's bedroom and telling them that they can't do this. Who is making a choice for the others now?



Why doesn't a prospective mother have rights to force a man to donate his sperm?

Until such time as it actually can survive outside the womb, it's part of the woman's body. You might not want to call it that, but it is. It is no different than a kidney in that regard. Remove the organ, it dies. Same for the fetus.

As such, that choice has to belong to the woman, and the woman alone. Why doesn't the father get to choose to abort? Well, bluntly put, he made the choice to have unprotected sex (yes, it's possible for female on male rape to occur which will result in the female getting pregnant, but that's extremely difficult to do. We can pursue that topic further if you'd like). As such, he's already made a choice to accept the risk of her getting pregnant.

Finally, assume he thought she was using the pill: I firmly believe that, if he can prove that the pregnancy was planned without his knowledge or consent that he should be able to sever all parental rights and obligations, and require her to deal with the consequences.

Mostly, it is disturbing because some of these places can be highly irreputable. The one site seems like the medication is legit and safe, but only used appropriately- which we all know, not everyone will have the knowledge to use it safely or even use it as instructed.

Back-alley abortions are frightening. It is scary in and of itself that these women feel so hopeless that they turn to mutilation because they feel they have no other option.

You both have excellent arguments on how banning abortion doesn't make sense, but there's another argument I'm going to put in on that one. The cultural factor. There are some cultures that are very against pre-marital sex, but extremely against out-of-wedlock pregnancies. If a woman was unable to get an abortion for having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, she could be ostracized for bringing shame to her family's name, but what's worse is that her life could be in danger as well. The relatives would kill her to keep the family from that dishonor. So for those that think banning abortions make sense, picture this: the many women that would die from back alley and home rigged abortions, going through the pregnancy while having health issues of their own,honor killings from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Also imagine all the women that suffer permanent damage to their reproductive organs from the back alley and home rigged abortions, and how many more unwanted and (for some) unloved children would be bought into this world.
I am pro-choice, but I believe that abortion should be a last resort with consultation if the plan B (morning after pill) fails.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not to mention women who die from air embolism; that happens when they try to syringe soapy water up themselves and end up putting an air bubble up there instead. Plus as I mentioned before, infanticide and abandonment. A desperate woman who is forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want may well decide to smother the baby at birth, or dump it in a phone box.

I agree with Zyanya. My body is my own, and I refuse to be forced into pregnancy when I don't want children and plan to never become a mother. I spent years battling compulsive eating disorder, self harm, depression til I learned to love my body for what it was. I refuse to ruin it with stretchmarks, swags of skin, droopy breasts and fat rolls. I want to stay out all night drinking; go to concerts; ride motorbikes and have spontanious outings. I want to spend my spare cash on myself. I want have lie ins and me time. I refuse to give all that up, so I choose to not be a mother. Since I am doing all I can to avoid pregnancy, I feel I have every right to choose to have a parasite removed from my womb, should an accident happen. I would choose abortion as a last resort if contreception and the morning after pill don't work.

That is my right. Just as it is your right to keep a baby or give it up for adoption. It is WRONG to force a woman to have an abortion. It is WRONG to force a woman to birth an unwanted baby. Both are as WRONG as each other.

[Amethyst Hunter]

If I remember correctly, you cannot just walk in and get an abortion anywhere. There is always a consultation, and every other option is always offered to a woman and the risks and everything involved are always laid out on the table.

No. You can't. In fact, in some states, you are FORCED BY LAW to wait a mandated period (which can be anywhere from 24 hours to several days to weeks or even months, depending on the law) before you can actually proceed with the abortion. Some states also have laws which say that doctors must give examinations, ultrasounds, etc. and basically attempt to talk the woman out of it. You can thank all the anti-choicers for laws like these - laws which are designed to stall the woman as long as possible so that the time frame during which an abortion can be safely/legally performed expires. As someone else put it, it IS 'forced birth.'

Mandatory waiting periods aren't going to discourage women from getting abortions one bit. Anyone who's chosen to have an abortion has already thought things through and made up her mind solid, and nothing will change that. Anti-choicers just can't handle the fact that women are autonomous beings with the capability to think for themselves, and that's what really burns them: that they can't control women.

Before people go rioting and picketing at abortion clinics, they should understand that people who work there are NOT executioners and murderers. They are doctors and nurses, and they do not push for abortions. They are there to help.

This is why I firmly believe that any act of vandalism and violence against these places/people should be treated like the terrorist act that it is, and their perpetrators punished accordingly. Religion is NO excuse for terrorism.

[powerboy]

I believe that women and couples should give the child up for adoption - if they do not want the child for whatever reason. Like what was said earlier, for every abortion - there is 40 couples that could of had an adoption.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I refuse to go thru pregnancy and birth, thanks very much; do you not realise the ravages that a baby brings to a woman's body? Yes, if you want that child and are going to love it, you would accept that, but there is no way in hell that I'm going to put myself thru that just so some couple who want a PERFECT BABY can adopt.

Yes, I capitalised that for a reason. There are loads of older kids who need parents, and loads of autistic or Downs babies waiting for adoption, that these people refuse to adopt cuz they want perfect babies. That's why they go abroad, rather than adopt an older child or one with a disability or syndrome.

[the_std]

I believe that women and couples should give the child up for adoption - if they do not want the child for whatever reason. Like what was said earlier, for every abortion - there is 40 couples that could of had an adoption.

That's a nice sentiment, but childbirth can irrevocably alter a woman's body. It can put her in danger. It can do all sorts of nasty things. So, even if she doesn't keep the baby, she'll still have to put up with all the changes from actually delivering the child. What if she doesn't want that?

[AFPheonix]

What the_std said, and couples that adopt and can afford it aren't as common as one would like to think. Sorry, there's tons of little kids in orphanages and foster care that would love to have a mom and dad and don't.
Not to mention women and girls who WILL be abused if they come up pregnant and are found out.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is only *ONE* tried-and-true way to lower the abortion rate (and do note that I said "lower", not "eliminate" - it will never be eliminated entirely whether it's legal or illegal) and this is the only method that I approve of and would endorse:


- Provide age-appropriate correct and unbiased information throughout a child's development as the needs change and arise (i.e., kindergartners don't need to hear about condoms just yet, but they should be taught the basic differences between boys and girls), preferably before a crisis hits (like finding out your 14-year-old has been dating a 16-year-old)

- Teach self-respect (therefore enabling teens to resist peer pressure better and give them an outlet for their boredom/frustrations; this is why I heartily support mentorship and apprentice programs which can help teens discover future career interests and nurture their talents - I only wish that I had had something like this when I was a teenager)

- Provide ALL available contraceptive, abortion and adoption services (doing so makes it that much less likely that a woman will pick the abortion route; people tend to feel more secure when they know they have a wide array of options they can depend on) without judgment or pressure to choose a particular path

- Provide all necessary resources that parents will need to successfully raise a healthy and well-adjusted child (Also ties in with the above; many abortions are had by poor women who can't afford the costs of an extra mouth to feed even if they do want a, or another, child. As of this point in time, it takes approximately a quarter of a million dollars to raise an average child in the US from infancy to age 18, and that's not even counting the costs of college. Your poverty rate goes up, you're going to see more abortions. Fix the poverty, and the abortion rate goes down because more people can afford to properly care for however many children they have.)


The hardest truth for many people to accept is that abortion is always going to be around. It's been around ever since time began and humans figured the whole scheme out; the reason it became such a taboo in the 1800s-1900s was because the medical community at the time was losing out on patients who were going to trained midwives and such instead of doctors (and not just for abortions, for healthcare in general), so they made it illegal before realizing how many women were suffering and dying as a result of self-inflicted or botched abortions. The updated version of the book Our Bodies, Our Selves details a very dark period where women were winding up permanently damaged or dead because abortion was criminalized. Once abortion was legalized, these cases dropped dramatically, and, ironically, so did the total number of abortions being performed. You don't back someone into a corner if you don't want them to do a particular thing.

There are times when it IS necessary. Take ectopic pregnancy. It WILL kill you, no ifs ands or buts. A successful ectopic pregnancy makes the news because these types of deliveries are exceedingly rare; you could probably count on one hand the number of times they occur - the vast majority of women who wind up with one will not only lose the pregnancy but die themselves if they were to carry to term (because the pregnancy ruptures the internal organs and causes massive internal bleeding). This is why sterilization candidates are cautioned to use a backup - or better yet, multiple backups - method of birth control until they're 100% assured that the sterilization has taken successfully.

That's why I don't believe that abortion is such a huge sin (and if it is, why isn't it explicitly listed in the Top Ten Rules - and the "thou shalt not murder" one doesn't count. It has to be in there *by name*). I'm a lot less bothered by a discarded embryo than I am by a baby just born and tossed into a trashcan. If all the factors I listed above had been in place for the female who did such a thing, that kind of tragedy surely never would have occurred in the first place. To me, the only time abortion is truly wrong is if 1) a woman is being pressured into it when she's made it clear that she doesn't want to do it, or 2) someone's using it as a primary method of birth control when it was clearly never intended to be as such - and I can virtually guarantee that the ones doing this are far and few between.

The propaganda likes to trick people into believing that 8, 9-months pregnant women are walking into clinics everywhere and demanding abortions like candy. Not so. First, as I previously stated, getting an abortion is *never* that simple, and second, there is *no* legitimate doctor on earth who would do an abortion that late unless there was a serious medical risk (like the fetus having died in utero and the necrotic tissue needs to be removed lest infection sets in). And I really, really doubt that there is any woman on earth who would go through a pregnancy that long and suddenly decide that she didn't want to give birth. Most abortions take place within the first 12 weeks and the rest afterwards in the second trimester; only a very, very few take place late in the pregnancy - and those are almost always because something has gone seriously wrong and needs to be dealt with asap.

That's why I am and always will be pro-choice: I believe in giving people the freedom to choose as they will. If we want them to make better choices, we have to give them the help that they need in order to make such decisions. Band-aid fixes like bans never solve the problem, they just make it worse and expose the banners as hypocrites - because those who want to ban it also usually don't want to pony up for the long-term solutions. (And I could go into a whole 'nother rant about how most of said banners are also misogynistic creeps who want to see women brought low, but that's for another time.)