• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, oh my!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neil Peart

Learn to swim
  • 753
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Someone tell me why, succinctly, there are politicians in this world that still think they can tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body? In this country it's always these clowns called Republicans, the party that's always against social equality and rights. I'm no feminist, in fact I despise most feminists I come across.

    I bring this up because I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for denying women the right to abortions and contraception, especially when it's being denied by rich old men in business suits. I also have yet to hear one reasonable argument for Planned Parenthood being de-funded as often as it is.
     
    the abortion is illegal because there are some people on the world that are so called 'christians' (i'm not generalizing, i'm not talking about the real christians or catholic people) that thinks that making an abortion is killing or murdering someone, or taking a life away. They call it Genocide because of that. And i personally think that the world is 50/50 about this theme, because:
    1. The abortion is illegal by the opinions the people give(up there)
    2. The abortion SHOULD be legal because: What happens if a 13 year old girl is raped and she become pregnant? she should have the non-wanted baby and raise it with her hate from the heart? or should she abort, and start living her life again?

    i think the theme is confuse, and everyone should take knowledge about this, because is word that this affect all the women around the world and they need help

    that are my opinions about this...
     
    I dont believe in abortion, because in my opinion i believe its taking a life away, however if a 13 year old were to he raped and a child was to be the product of something like that I am unsure how adoption works but if it works the way i think it does, then put the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in the world who would be forever grateful for a child.
     
    I dont believe in abortion, because in my opinion i believe its taking a life away, however if a 13 year old were to he raped and a child was to be the product of something like that I am unsure how adoption works but if it works the way i think it does, then put the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in the world who would be forever grateful for a child.

    So you think the government should be the ones making the choice for the woman? Irrespective of how anyone feels about abortion on a moral level, they shouldn't want the government policing a woman's reproductive system, ESPECIALLY these idiot conservatives who yell about "freedom" all the time yet have no issue limiting a woman's reproductive freedom.
     
    I dont believe in abortion, because in my opinion i believe its taking a life away, however if a 13 year old were to he raped and a child was to be the product of something like that I am unsure how adoption works but if it works the way i think it does, then put the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in the world who would be forever grateful for a child.

    Two problems with this.

    First, 70% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions (also called miscarriages). Now some politicians are attempting to put laws on the books which makes it a criminal offense for a woman to have a miscarriage if she was found to be engaged in any activity which could harm the fetus. Also, the laws protect persons, not humans. There is a distinct legal difference. A person is a human that has been born. A human fetus, still within the womb, is not considered a person. Personhood amendment, laws which seek to give constitutional protections to unborn fetuses regularly fail because of the massive problems associated with these laws.

    Second. While adoption certainly is an option for these women, less and less children are actually being adopted out to homes. There is a very large percentage of children (and that number is growing) who end up aging out of the system without ever being adopted. This is because less and less people are choosing adoption and are instead opting for other reproductive options, such as surrogacy or In vitro fertilisation. Where once adoption was the only way for some couples to have children of their own, now there are many other options, and given the choice a couple (or single person) often will want to have a child that shares his or her own DNA.
     
    Also, adoption aside, you're still forcing a woman to carry a fetus for NINE MONTHS, then give birth to it. That's a pretty awful thing to force someone into, if you ask me.

    As for the original question, I honestly don't know, and it makes me so mad I almost didn't even open this thread because I just didn't want to face ignorance on this topic AGAIN. It's ridiculous that old white men get to make decisions about what women do with their bodies. I understand that some people believe a fetus is a human life with full rights, but that is OPINION, not fact, and laws shouldn't be based off of it. The way I see it, if it can't survive on its own without the sacrifice of another human being, it's not a human life with rights.

    (Also, perhaps a bit off topic, but I want to stand up for feminism here. I am a feminist, and don't understand why anyone wouldn't be. I think you've just met the wrong type of feminist. =) Real feminism is about equality between men and women, not hating men or whatever you've experienced.)
     
    The whole idea about abortion being the woman's choice because it's her body is slightly flawed. The whole thing about abortion is that a second, albeit not fully-formed, person being killed. Not every abortion is inherently necessary due to being caused by rape or the fetus being detrimental to the woman's health. Perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't culturally inclined to screwing like bunnies. I realize that line is bound to get me some heat, but think about it. Would abortions really be so common if sex wasn't a regular activity for some people? Just food for thought.
     
    (Also, perhaps a bit off topic, but I want to stand up for feminism here. I am a feminist, and don't understand why anyone wouldn't be. I think you've just met the wrong type of feminist. =) Real feminism is about equality between men and women, not hating men or whatever you've experienced.)

    Feminism implies female superiority, not equality. If your intention is equality between men and women, I think the special interest group you're looking for is egalitarianism.

    Feminism had some good ideas and had some meaning in the 70s and prior, but today it's a sedentary, dull squeak uttered by a legion of bored, fatass housewives and uninspired social justice warriors on Tumblr. Bear in mind, I do accept the fact that my gender has been in power for many of the disgusting things that has happened in this world, but that leads to an entirely different argument.
     
    The whole idea about abortion being the woman's choice because it's her body is slightly flawed. The whole thing about abortion is that a second, albeit not fully-formed, person being killed. Not every abortion is inherently necessary due to being caused by rape or the fetus being detrimental to the woman's health. Perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't culturally inclined to screwing like bunnies. I realize that line is bound to get me some heat, but think about it. Would abortions really be so common if sex wasn't a regular activity for some people? Just food for thought.

    Sex is recurring because we are sexual creatures and are driven instinctively to procreate. I understand that some may hold to a puritanical belief, but it is not realistic to expect the human race as a whole to adhere to such a strict belief system. Also, again I have to iterate the difference between what is human and what is a person under the law. Terminating a pregnancy is NOT a criminal act. Killing a person IS. This has nothing to do with culture. It's basic biology. Even those of us who are gay are driven by these same instincts which is why you will find many same sex couples also raising children of their own. To deny this basic fact is to deny a very important part of human nature.

    Now, that being said, it's very important for us, I think, to be responsible in our lives and accept whatever consequences might come about from our actions, and that includes taking responsibility for creating a new life. If, however, the thought of carrying to term that baby is not something the woman can cope with, then it is responsible for her to decide to terminate the pregnancy.

    Most women know that giving a child up for adoption is becoming harder to do because there are less people willing to adopt these days. So subjecting that child to what could potentially become being bounced from foster home to foster home with no stable family life, or being raised in a group home until they are 18, is just simply unacceptable to them. Abortion, then, becomes the best option available to them.

    I for one would never fault a woman who chose to have an abortion. In my view, this is probably one of the bravest decision a woman can make, because it is a very difficult, very emotional, decision, and one not lightly taken, contrary to the belief of some who think woman use abortions as a method of birth control. They fail to realize that many of the women who do become pregnant were at the time in fact using a contraceptive, which just happened to fail.

    Also, blaming a woman for an act that actually involves TWO people, is silly at best and downright ignorant.
     
    The whole idea about abortion being the woman's choice because it's her body is slightly flawed. The whole thing about abortion is that a second, albeit not fully-formed, person being killed. Not every abortion is inherently necessary due to being caused by rape or the fetus being detrimental to the woman's health. Perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't culturally inclined to screwing like bunnies. I realize that line is bound to get me some heat, but think about it. Would abortions really be so common if sex wasn't a regular activity for some people? Just food for thought.

    If you believe that the fetus is a human and can't be "killed", then you are a hypocrite if you are pro-choice for women that were raped. Is the fetus less of a human in that case?

    I don't think you understand the argument being made, because people boil it down to one sentence and leave out the explanations. Let me give you an example. Say I'm a mother of a child, the kid is let's say 4. She comes down with an illness that, due to her youth, will kill her very quickly unless she gets part of a liver. Because she's in such a precarious situation, she can't get a donor liver there fast enough, and I'm a match - the only way the child will survive is if I donate part of my liver. I have the money to afford the donation, I'm a healthy person that will probably not suffer complications, and I love my child that I intentionally brought into this world. In this situation, no one denies that this child is a fully-formed human being with human rights. No one denies that me not giving her part of my liver will directly "cause" her death. And yet, I am not legally obligated to do so, because it's my body. I can choose for whatever reason I want not to undergo a surgery to keep my child alive, despite their human rights.

    That's the issue here. Whether or not the fetus is a person is secondary; even if it is, I am under no obligation to give up my body for its use for 9 months. I am under no obligation to harm my quality of life to help another person stay alive, because we have bodily autonomy. When science gets far enough that we can take a fetus from a mother's womb and give it a similar environment to fully develop, then abortion that results in the intentional death of the fetus is something I would argue against. But in the world we are in today, I am not forced to give up my bodily autonomy for someone/something else, nor should I be.
     
    Now, that being said, it's very important for us, I think, to be responsible in our lives and accept whatever consequences might come about from our actions, and that includes taking responsibility for creating a new life. If, however, the thought of carrying to term that baby is not something the woman can cope with, then it is responsible for her to decide to terminate the pregnancy.

    No woman is OBLIGATED to bring any life into this world. She can if she wants, if not, down the drain it goes. It really is that simple. You aren't teaching anyone any lessons about responsibility by making them carry a baby to term.
     
    Feminism implies female superiority, not equality. If your intention is equality between men and women, I think the special interest group you're looking for is egalitarianism.

    Not true. Feminism is supporting and fighting for the rights of women. This says nothing at all about the rights of men, or about how men should be treated. This kind of thinking is really holding feminism back, and is one of the reasons women don't have as many rights as we should have.
     
    No woman is OBLIGATED to bring any life into this world. She can if she wants, if not, down the drain it goes. It really is that simple. You aren't teaching anyone any lessons about responsibility by making them carry a baby to term.

    Umm, I think you need to take a closer look at what I said. You've pretty much just agreed with my statement.
     
    Why the ♥♥♥♥ are people talking about Christians and Feminists? There are both who lie on both sides of the issue. Let's not generalize, cool? Cool.

    I support abortions because they accommodate for the fact that we cannot predict for everything, and it prevents someone having to raise a child that they cannot take care of or is the result of an emotionally traumatic experience, usually rape. I don't believe it should be everyone's first choice and I think that people should still do the standards when available (abstinence, contraceptive methods ect) but it's there for a reason and that's to help individuals who cannot take care of a child and it serves as a last resort.

    The problem with banning abortions anyways is that people will still have them, just in extremely dangerous ways. It's not like abortions are a new thing. It's just that since they are legal they are safer.
     
    Two problems with this.

    First, 70% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions (also called miscarriages). Now some politicians are attempting to put laws on the books which makes it a criminal offense for a woman to have a miscarriage if she was found to be engaged in any activity which could harm the fetus. Also, the laws protect persons, not humans. There is a distinct legal difference. A person is a human that has been born. A human fetus, still within the womb, is not considered a person. Personhood amendment, laws which seek to give constitutional protections to unborn fetuses regularly fail because of the massive problems associated with these laws.

    Second. While adoption certainly is an option for these women, less and less children are actually being adopted out to homes. There is a very large percentage of children (and that number is growing) who end up aging out of the system without ever being adopted. This is because less and less people are choosing adoption and are instead opting for other reproductive options, such as surrogacy or In vitro fertilisation. Where once adoption was the only way for some couples to have children of their own, now there are many other options, and given the choice a couple (or single person) often will want to have a child that shares his or her own DNA.

    With the second point you made, theres a higher amount of LGBT couples who want to adopt a child than there are children up for adoption, I'm not going to get into that subject because its a subject that could have plenty of causes.
     
    Two problems with this.

    First, 70% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions (also called miscarriages). Now some politicians are attempting to put laws on the books which makes it a criminal offense for a woman to have a miscarriage if she was found to be engaged in any activity which could harm the fetus. Also, the laws protect persons, not humans. There is a distinct legal difference. A person is a human that has been born. A human fetus, still within the womb, is not considered a person. Personhood amendment, laws which seek to give constitutional protections to unborn fetuses regularly fail because of the massive problems associated with these laws.

    Second. While adoption certainly is an option for these women, less and less children are actually being adopted out to homes. There is a very large percentage of children (and that number is growing) who end up aging out of the system without ever being adopted. This is because less and less people are choosing adoption and are instead opting for other reproductive options, such as surrogacy or In vitro fertilisation. Where once adoption was the only way for some couples to have children of their own, now there are many other options, and given the choice a couple (or single person) often will want to have a child that shares his or her own DNA.
    70 percent? Where in the world did you get that fact from? That honestly sounds unbelievable to me. The population would be far smaller if true.
     
    70 percent? Where in the world did you get that fact from? That honestly sounds unbelievable to me. The population would be far smaller if true.

    The study he's referencing is right here.

    Human pregnancy wastage occurs on such a scale that only ~30% of conceived pregnancies will progress to live birth.

    A good chunk of "babies" are miscarried before implantation even occurs, so the mother does not even realize that she was "pregnant" for a time.
     
    The hypocrisy against abortion is quite astounding to me. An unborn fetus is given more attention than a child already born, especially a child born into a poor family or neighborhood with very little outlook on life. An unborn baby deserves the same rights as an adult human, but a young child of specific race or gender is abhorred if poor or uneducated. Food stamps, free lunches for the poor, social security benefits, medicaid, all of those are a waste of time and money. But preventing someone from having a child that would most likely require those services at some point in their life? Completely understandable.

    Then there's the argument that people just "shouldn't have sex" if they do not want to get pregnant. It would be a good argument, if the least bit realistic. Human beings have been having unwanted babies for thousands of years; birth control is a recent phenomenon that has dramatically helped this issue. Yet some women cannot afford birth control, and condoms are not 100% effective. Yes, accidents do happen, regardless of what people want to believe. And yes, there are women who are obviously and completely careless and do not care if they become pregnant or not. But that's such a small percentage of women that it's moronic to assume that all unwanted pregnancies are the result of negligence.

    I've always been for abortion rights, simply because it is better to prevent an unwanted child from coming into the world than it is to allow them to suffer for their entire existence. Looking at our broken adoption system, our broken economic situation and the outlook of the country's development, I'd rather have an abortion as a poor, young, working-class woman than bring a child into the world that would have less opportunities to succeed than I did in my youth.
     
    Someone tell me why, succinctly, there are politicians in this world that still think they can tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body? In this country it's always these clowns called Republicans, the party that's always against social equality and rights. I'm no feminist, in fact I despise most feminists I come across.

    I bring this up because I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for denying women the right to abortions and contraception, especially when it's being denied by rich old men in business suits. I also have yet to hear one reasonable argument for Planned Parenthood being de-funded as often as it is.
    Because a large quantity of people believe that human life begins before conception and thus consider abortion to be a form of murder, which is within the right of the government to legislate. I disagree with that stance, but you're completely misrepresenting the opposing side of the argument, and that's not conducive to a good discussion.

    Perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't culturally inclined to screwing like bunnies. I realize that line is bound to get me some heat, but think about it. Would abortions really be so common if sex wasn't a regular activity for some people? Just food for thought.
    No, and robbery would be less common if nobody owned anything, and murder would be less common if everyone was dead. You're suggesting that we curtail a basic biological (not purely cultural as you suggested) behavior (and furthermore, one that's actually pretty great) for some nebulous and debatable benefit that could just as easily be obtained by giving people better access to protection. That's assuming anyone would listen to you and decide to stop having sex for such a reason (unlikely).

    There's nothing inherently wrong with sex and there are ways to prevent pregnancy that don't involve magically curbing human biological urges.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top