|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 20, 2008 17:10:17 GMT -5
Pumpkinpie, I don't mean to upset you. But it is a good point. And I know what rape is. I've been through it myself. I just don't see how that changes anyones opinion if they are so against abortion is all. Do 2 wrongs make a right? Rape is a crime, but in many peoples opinions so is abortion. Why should it be a crime in some cases but not in others? I know there is a massive difference in circumstances. But the act of aborting a baby is still the same. You speak that it's not 'fair' to tell a woman whose been raped she can't have an abortion. What has that got to do with the abortion argument? What about the baby? What about it's rights? What about what's fair on it? Isn't that what the Anti abortion topic is all about? The rights of the unborn baby to live? Or is it now the rights of certain unborn babies? You haven't answered my question on that, and I doubt you can. Because if I were you, nor could I. And there are such cases where the condom breaks (that's how my sister got pregnant with her son) or where the Pill doesn't work effectively (my son was conceived when I was on the Pill; it later emerged that the Pill I was on was less effective that it should be, that there were quite a few reports of women getting pregnant on it) No contraception is foolproof. There is no 100% guarantee. So what about those cases? Where the woman did use protection but got pregnant anyway? Should they be allowed an abortion? I see a slippery slope ... There is always a slippery slope in such cases as these. Same as the death penalty. It's either ok to kill convicts or it's not. To me, it's not ok. It's never ok. I understand your sentiment, but saying it's ok for some women to have an abortion but not others is too risky and never ever works. It's either ok or it's not. It's either legal or it's not. You're either Pro or Anti, same as the death penalty. It can't be partially legal. It doesn't work that way, sadly. I can understand why you feel obliged to say it's ok for rape victims. I agree with you. I think it's ok for rape victims too, and for everyone else, I think it's ok too. Providing it's done before 9 weeks gestation, whereby the woman can take an abortion pill, rather than undergo invasive surgery. I don't like abortion. I would never have an abortion. The act of invasive surgery is disgusting. I don't even like the idea of women taking a pill to terminate a pregnancy. But, I feel that women should have that right to decide whether to go through an unwanted pregnancy or not at the beginning of her pregnancy. I wish we lived in a perfect world where rape didn't happen, and contraception was foolproof, and girls didn't go round having unprotected sex. I wish every pregnancy was wanted. I'd like to see abortion rates go down. But I can't say it should be illegal, because to say that would mean it would be illegal to all women, including rape victims and including women who used protection but got pregnant anyway ... I also think it's unfair to expect a young teenager to go through an unwanted pregnancy. But this is my opinion, like it or not. Again, being raped isn't the same as willing sex in any way shape or form. Why should a woman have to suffer 9 months over something she DIDN'T do? Unless the woman chooses to be that pro-life... then more power to her!! A child is not suppose to be conceived during a rape because rapes are not suppose to happen. Sex is suppose to happen. And when it happens among a careless teenager, I believe responsibilty for those actions should be taken, not cowardly run from, by aborting the mistake. Not when so many couples would love to adopt a newborn.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 20, 2008 17:12:40 GMT -5
Sometimes compassion means having to choose the lesser of two evils, that's all. That's a great line, I love it!
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 20, 2008 18:01:57 GMT -5
You've ignored many of the points I made including the fact that contraception isn't foolproof, that many women get pregnant using contraception, and the fact that the abortion argument is based on the rights on the unborn child's right to live, regardless of the circumstances.
You are merely arguing my point. Exactly, why should rape victims have to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I agree! But why should anyone? When the abortion pill is there? Provided it is done by 9 weeks gestation. How can you call abortion cowardly? It is hardly cowardly. Abortion affects all women deeply. I know a few women who've had abortions. It's not an easy choice to make.
As for adoption, I was adopted by a couple who found they couldn't love me as I didn't look like them, I had a terrible childhood as a result. I would rather have been raised in a car by my mother than been adopted. I'm sure in many cases, adoption is wonderful, but it was certainly not for me. I am deprived of everything, who I am, where I was born, my real name, my bloodline, my family. Things which other people take for granted.
It is very easy for people who aren't adopted, and who have never had an unwanted pregnancy to judge others. It's also easy to assume all unwanted pregnancies apart from rape are caused by carelessness, which is not the case.
Look, we can't have a debate if you don't respond to all the points I've made.
If you can't respond to my points, we shall agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 20, 2008 18:45:46 GMT -5
You've ignored many of the points I made including the fact that contraception isn't foolproof, that many women get pregnant using contraception, and the fact that the abortion argument is based on the rights on the unborn child's right to live, regardless of the circumstances. You are merely arguing my point. Exactly, why should rape victims have to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I agree! But why should anyone? When the abortion pill is there? Provided it is done by 9 weeks gestation. How can you call abortion cowardly? It is hardly cowardly. Abortion affects all women deeply. I know a few women who've had abortions. It's not an easy choice to make. As for adoption, I was adopted by a couple who found they couldn't love me as I didn't look like them, I had a terrible childhood as a result. I would rather have been raised in a car by my mother than been adopted. I'm sure in many cases, adoption is wonderful, but it was certainly not for me. I am deprived of everything, who I am, where I was born, my real name, my bloodline, my family. Things which other people take for granted. It is very easy for people who aren't adopted, and who have never had an unwanted pregnancy to judge others. It's also easy to assume all unwanted pregnancies apart from rape are caused by carelessness, which is not the case. Look, we can't have a debate if you don't respond to all the points I've made. If you can't respond to my points, we shall agree to disagree. Contraception isn't full proof you say, but it was for me. Either way, abortion isn't the answer. Is that what you want me to say? Have I answered all your questions now? Abortion is a cowardly, easy way out to an inconvenience. You and skyloom sure have alot in common including your tragic childhoods. But at least neither of you were aborted! Let's save some but not all. Murderers, but not babies. Not in my book. I say, let's save both. And that is my opinion. I hope I've answered all your questions now.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 20, 2008 18:49:32 GMT -5
You haven't actually. Contraception is never foolproof. You were lucky not to have an unwanted pregnancy. Not everyone is, even the most careful of us. So that isn't answering my point at all. Well, you don't want to save all the babies ... do you? Just some of them ... You agree with abortion don't you, in cases of rape, so you can't complain at me for agreeing with it up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither of us completely disagrees with it. But neither of us agrees with it in the state it is currently in, up to 24 weeks is disgusting. I agree with saving babies after 9 weeks gestation. You agree with saving babies whose mothers weren't raped ... or should I rephrase that, you agree with aborting babies whose mothers SAY they were raped. What if they weren't? If abortion were only for people who were 'raped', then many girls would pretend to having been raped to have an abortion? Yet another slippery slope. So you agree with saving the murderers, and murdering the babies of rapists, or at least the babies of mothers who say they were raped or actually raped. Doesn't sound so golden now doesn't it. And I have never had an abortion nor would I; I just refuse to tell another woman what choice to make with her own body, whether she has been raped, whether contraception didn't work or whether she was careless. It should be a last resort always and I don't like it but the abortion pill is all I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 20, 2008 19:05:26 GMT -5
You haven't actually. Contraception is never foolproof. You were lucky not to have an unwanted pregnancy. Not everyone is, even the most careful of us. So that isn't answering my point at all. Well, you don't want to save all the babies ... do you? Just some of them ... You agree with abortion don't you, in cases of rape, so you can't complain at me for agreeing with it up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither of us completely disagrees with it. But neither of us agrees with it in the state it is currently in, up to 24 weeks is disgusting. I agree with saving babies after 9 weeks gestation. You agree with saving babies whose mothers weren't raped ... or should I rephrase that, who SAY they were raped. What if they weren't? If abortion were only for people who were 'raped', then many girls would pretend to having been raped to have an abortion. Yet another slippery slope. So you agree with saving the murderers, and murdering the babies of rapists, or at least the babies of mothers who say they were raped or actually raped. Doesn't sound so golden now doesn't it. And I have never had an abortion nor would I; I just refuse to tell another woman what choice to make with her own body. The abortion pill is all I agree with. Actually it does sound golden. ;D Seriously though, if a woman is willing to lie about a rape in order to have an abortion, then so be it. She's got it in her to lie about rape, she's got it in her to murder. She'll never feel guilty in her life. That's her character, so be it. We all know what we can or cannot live with.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 20, 2008 19:08:23 GMT -5
lol. Oh dear. What a thing to say. And before we know it we'll have loads of young men in prison accused of rape, who didn't actually rape anyone, but are now being accused of rape, because the woman they slept with wants an abortion. Lovely. Sounds a great system you have there. lol. This is precisely why allowing abortion only in cases of rape does not and would not cause anything other than chaos.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Because this is getting silly.
Good to be back though.
Take care. x
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 21, 2008 10:27:39 GMT -5
My point is that (and I freely admit that I'm talking about my OWN country, Britain) when the MAJORITY of abortions in my country are of women having their THIRD or MORE abortion and that I'm having to pay MY taxes to subsidise their fecklessness and basically to condone child murder, that is wrong.
When you get to know me, Briseis, you'll find I'm one of the LEAST one-dimensional and most agonised morally posters you'll ever find.
On a lighter note, how IS Achilles?
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 21, 2008 12:41:16 GMT -5
I'm surprised you say that. Anyone I know who had an abortion had it done privately. Haha. I wish I knew!!!!! lol. And I'm from Northern Ireland by the way. I suppose that is the UK too.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 21, 2008 14:38:45 GMT -5
I'm surprised you say that. Anyone I know who had an abortion had it done privately. Haha. I wish I knew!!!!! lol. And I'm from Northern Ireland by the way. I suppose that is the UK too. Well, the rules are different over in Ulster, I know. My Dad's an Ulster Prod from Londonderry so I was brought up to believe it IS in the UK!
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 21, 2008 15:36:28 GMT -5
Isn't that what I just said? lol
Yes, so you keep saying ... ... ...
Regards
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 21, 2008 19:31:38 GMT -5
lol. Oh dear. What a thing to say. And before we know it we'll have loads of young men in prison accused of rape, who didn't actually rape anyone, but are now being accused of rape, because the woman they slept with wants an abortion. Lovely. Sounds a great system you have there. lol. This is precisely why allowing abortion only in cases of rape does not and would not cause anything other than chaos. We'll have to agree to disagree. Because this is getting silly. Good to be back though. Take care. x Not if the woman chose not to press charges. I'm not saying there should have to be proof a rape existed. Her word could be enough and confidentiality would have to be respected. If she was lying than that's just another discusting thing she'd just have to live with. Maybe less would have abortions if it wasn't so easy. I would also condone abortion for a woman if she had a health condition which could lead to fatal results for her if she carried the pregnancy full term. If the pregancy could kill her, I think an abortion would be ok.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Sept 22, 2008 7:15:44 GMT -5
OK. Well that will mean absolutely nothing then, other than we would suddenly have a massive increase in 'raped' women - but abortion rates would stay the same. It would make no difference whatsoever. Women would just think 'ok. I'll just say I was raped, and that I'm not pressing charges'. If a woman can go through with aborting her baby, then lying that she was raped but that she isn't pressing charges, would mean nothing to her.
To add insult to injury, women who were actually raped, may not be taken as seriously as they are now, because people would probably think she's only doing so to get an abortion. All that policy would do is give an excuse to lie about one the world's most disgusting crimes.
My aim would be to reduce abortion rates, and setting the limit to 9 weeks would do exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 22, 2008 16:00:59 GMT -5
OK. Well that will mean absolutely nothing then, other than we would suddenly have a massive increase in 'raped' women - but abortion rates would stay the same. It would make no difference whatsoever. Women would just think 'ok. I'll just say I was raped, and that I'm not pressing charges'. If a woman can go through with aborting her baby, then lying that she was raped but that she isn't pressing charges, would mean nothing to her. In this paragraph you make it seem like if a woman has it in her to abort her baby then she must be a bad person, one who would obviously make up a rape story. Yet, you condone abortion the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. You don't know that abortion rates would stay the same. Some people actually do follow rules and procedures. Right now it's easy to get an abortion, and just like biglin mentioned, there are actually women who use abortion as their method of birth control! I knew a girl who did. She had an abortion in highschool and a couple in college. I know there are obviously some women who would lie about being raped, but others wouldn't be able to go through both an abortion and a rape story. The rates would decline....
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 24, 2008 9:08:42 GMT -5
Guttmacher Report Documents 30-Year Low In Abortion Rates, Major Shift In Abortion Demographics Article Date: 24 Sep 2008 - 5:00 PDT A Guttmacher Institute analysis of 30 years of data since the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade found that the U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974 and that the decline has been more significant among white women and teenagers than among blacks and Hispanic and older women, the Los Angeles Times reports (Engel, Los Angeles Times, 9/23). Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, said, "There's been a real change in the picture of women who get abortions," adding, "This is the first time anyone has looked at this in a comprehensive way." For the report, Jones and her colleagues analyzed annual data collected by CDC and by periodic surveys that Guttmacher has conducted of abortion providers between 1974 and 2004. The analysis verified previous reports that had found the abortion rate fell to its lowest level since 1974, dropping by 33% from a high of 29 abortions per 1,000 women between ages 15 to 44 in 1980 to 20 abortions per 1,000 women in that age group in 2004. The proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 during that time steadily declined, falling from 33% in 1974 to 17% in 2004. Among those younger than 18, the proportion of abortions fell from 15% of all abortions in 1974 to 6% in 2004. The proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s rose from 50% to 57% and increased from 18% to 27% among women age 30 and older (Stein, Washington Post, 9/23). According to the report, the decline in teen pregnancies began before the emphasis on abstinence-only education and largely is a result of more effective and widespread use of contraception. However, the report also said the decrease in the abortion rate among teens has been accompanied by an increase in teen births in part because of a greater societal acceptance of unwed mothers, increased difficulty in obtaining abortions in some parts of the country and changing attitudes toward abortion (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). Jones said, "We've made the most important progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rate, [rather] than reducing unintended pregnancy in older women." The report also found that the proportion of all abortions performed for women who already had a child increased from 46% in 1974 to 60% in 2004, reflecting the trend of women turning to abortion when they cannot afford to support another child, Jones said (Washington Post, 9/23). Data on Racial Disparities The report found that abortion rates have fallen among all racial and ethnic groups, but large disparities between groups remain. Hispanic women obtain abortions at three times the rate of white women and black women at five times the rate of white women, according to the report (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white women ages 15 to 44, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 50 abortions per 1,000 black women of the same age. According to the Post, these statistics mean that about 1% of white women had an abortion in 2004, compared with 3% of Hispanic women and 5% of black women. Furthermore, the proportion of all abortions obtained by white women decreased from 45% in 1994 to 34% in 2004, while the proportion of all abortions increased from 16% to 22% among Hispanics and from 35% to 37% among blacks (Washington Post, 9/23). According to the Times, the Guttmacher analysis found that the disparities in abortion rates partly reflected differing pregnancy and child-bearing patterns. About 70% of all pregnancies among African-American women were unintended, compared with 48% across all racial groups, according to the report. The report also found that Hispanic women had higher pregnancy and birth rates than white women (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). Claire Brindis, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California-San Francisco and co-director of the Brindis Center for Global Reproductive Health, said the disparity in the abortion rate is more the result of income than race or ethnicity. "Many of these women are low-income women who tend to have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy," Bixby said, adding, "Oftentimes, living in poverty they experience so many other challenges in their lives that they don't always know that they're eligible for family planning services or have transportation to services." However, Day Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, said the higher rate of abortions among minorities is a result of the number of inner-city clinics that perform the procedure. "It doesn't have as much to do with poverty as that the abortion facilities are there, ingrained in the neighborhoods," Gardner said, adding, "We as a community don't talk about this. ... This is a silent killer among us" (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). According to Jones, the findings indicate "we need to figure out efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy, not only among teenagers but among all women, and in particularly women of color. A lot of policymakers are stuck 30 years back when most women getting abortions were teenagers and college students, and that isn't so much the case these days." Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that birth control is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancies. "Unfortunately, there's a large number of uninsured people in this country, and if you are uninsured you are less likely to have access to affordable health care, including affordable birth control." In terms of the overall drop in teenage pregnancies, Michael New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama who works with the Family Research Council, said it was the result of several factors, including increased contraceptive use, more teenagers delaying sex and state laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions. "The states with the most pro-life laws have seen the biggest abortion declines," New said (Washington Post, 9/23). Reprinted with kind permission from www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122677.php
|
|