’)My bet is that outside of being offered the two most strident versions of abortion policy, a slight majority of people would be pro-choice with restrictions. I certainly count myself in that camp. I’m pro-choice and support pro-choice candidates (mostly) but I also think that there should be some restrictions like only allowing it within the first trimester and absolutely only with the approval of a parent/guardian for a minor.
First trimester only.
Parental *notification* for those under 18 (notice I didn’t say consent)
Legal if mother’s life is in danger or the child would suffer a miserable existance.
Other than that, no.
Sidenote: I’m glad I’m a guy and will never have to make that decision. I’ve seen the effects it has on the psyche of women that have went ahead and had an abortion. It lasts a lifetime.
Pro-Choice with restrictions–
There’s the rub. In Ohio where some women had to travel three or four hours to a clinic they were turned around and made to wait 48 hours thanks to anti-choice legislators who tried to whittle rights down by inconvenience.
Parental notification–
(In a perfect world) parents would be caring and would have been instrumental in getting their teens birth control, or wouldn’t kick them out of the house (see Sarah Palin) or might horribly be the rapist of their child.
If the mother’s life is at risk whatever steps must be taken– should be taken at any trimester.
And I know MANY women who’ve made the decision to have abortions who are healthy, happy, have families now or not and have never regretted their decision.
It’s all about not taking the choice away.
It’s always easy for men to have an opinnion on this, as it never affects them personally.
Both of you have bought into the women-are-such-hos view that women decide to remain pregnant for several months just so they can have a more dangerous second- or third-trimester abortion. The reality is that nearly all such abortions are performed for valid medical reasons, and not for convenience, and the longer the pregnancy lasts, the more this is true. But your policies would have women and their doctors have to get judicial approval, often from choice-hostile conservative judges.
You’ve also bought into the numerology that says if you divide 9 by 3 you get 3 therefore there must be something that happens right around week 12-13 that confers specialness on the fetus. From a scientific perspective, this is crap. That is, if you can even tell when the first trimester ends, because date of conception is often very uncertain, and fetuses do not all develop at the same exact rate.
Being “pro-choice with restrictions” (or just out-and-out anti-choice) is a cheap way for men to put on a cloak of moral superiority without having to ever confront the consequences of their voews. Unless it’s their own daughter or sister or wife who wants or needs a late-term abortion, then all of a sudden they’re wondering why they have to jump through all these legalistic hoops. Why doesn’t the law make an easy exception for my woman? She’s no ho! She shouldn’t have to go begging to a judge!
As for parental consent, no teenage girl should ever be forced to complete a pregnancy aganist her wishes, even by her own parents. It’s child abuse. It’s effectively rape by her own parents.
If you want to reduce the number of later-term “convenience” abortions, legal restrictions aren’t the way to do it. Instead, work to make first-trimester abortions easier to get, eliminate waiting periods for abortions, provide public funding for poor women seeking first-trimester abortions, and most of all, provide effective and inexpensive contraception to all woman who want it.
Also: on the “effects on psyche” crap. I had two abortions, and I’m just fine, thank you. So are all the other women I know who’ve had one. Furthermore, this assertion that abortion makes women feel bad assumes that it would somehow be less damaging to women if they were forced to be pregnant against their own wishes. That’s patently silly.
OK, never mind. What Greylocks said.
You’ve also bought into the numerology that says if you divide 9 by 3 you get 3 therefore there must be something that happens right around week 12-13 that confers specialness on the fetus.
Much of this is arbitrary. The idea that one becomes an adult is 18 is arbitrary, but we still use it as a yardstick.
As for parental consent, no teenage girl should ever be forced to complete a pregnancy aganist her wishes, even by her own parents.
My reasoning is this: There’s no other medical procedure this invasive anybody would ever consider okay for a minor to approve on their own.
Being “pro-choice with restrictions” (or just out-and-out anti-choice) is a cheap way for men to put on a cloak of moral superiority without having to ever confront the consequences of their voews.
That kind of reasoning sort of goes out the window when its women that also hold that position. And many do, it isn’t some mandate down from men that feel this way.
Greylocks made the point I was thinking. Read this article and let me know if you think most women would choose to go through this procedure for convenience, or perhaps it not so simple as it seems.
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/
And should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term (another 4-5 months) with this type of knowledge?
What ever your feelings on abortion may be, this is truly the wisest thing Oliver has ever posted.
“My reasoning is this: There’s no other medical procedure this invasive anybody would ever consider okay for a minor to approve on their own.”
So Oliver, if a 13-year-old is raped by a 19-year-old at a party and wishes to have an abortion, she should be stopped by her parents?
Yo mama: speaking as a woman who has made “that decision” and who is familiar with many other women who’ve also made the same informed decision, I’d like to point out that many of us don’t suffer any ill effects on our psyches as a result of abortion, other than the sheer relief of being able to safely and legally control whether or when we will reproduce.
Abortion is a decision that is rarely taken lightly, rarely happens after the first trimester (drinking the Kool Aid much?), and all too often is the result of a failure of traditional forms of contraception or sexual abuse.
As for being glad that you’re a guy so you’ll never have to make that decision — have you forgotten that pregnancy requires the participation of a man and a woman? As such, both parties should be active participants in all family planning decisions.
Sadly, pregnancy (planned or otherwise) and childbirth carry far more physical, emotional and economic risks for women (and particularly girls) than abortion. So step up to the plate, guys. Support a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. And, while you’re at it, why not lobby the pharmaceutical industry to get moving on a safe, effective male contraceptive. Women have been shouldering this burden for far too long.
absolutely only with the approval of a parent/guardian for a minor
What if the minor is a 12-year-old girl and her parent that you want her to seek permission from is her abusive father who is also the father of her fetus? Not so absolute as you’d like it to be anymore.
My libertarian instincts take over on this issue: IMO, the government should not have the power to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
It’s always easy for men to have an opinnion on this, as it never affects them personally.
As a woman, I happen to agree with Oliver on this one. And as a mother I absolutely do not want my daughters to be able to obtain a medical procedure without my knowledge or consent.
So Oliver, if a 13-year-old is raped by a 19-year-old at a party and wishes to have an abortion, she should be stopped by her parents?
This argument is no more valid than the ticking-bomb scenario used to justify torture.
You don’t make policy or pass laws based on the most extreme situation possible, you make policy based on what is healthiest for the society as a whole. And on the whole it is healthier for most girls to have the support of their families when making such decisions. There are, of course, exceptions, but the law can be made to step in when needed. A parent is not allowed to withhold live saving medical treatment such as chemotherapy from a 13 year-old girl based on personal beliefs, why should abortion be any different?
Not really. My argument has actually happened. And actually, parents refusing treatment for their kids with cancer has happened and state hasn’t stepped in – mostly it’s with Christian Scientists and the like, but it has happened.
The truth is, teenagers who have decent relationships with their parents will tell their parents if they get pregnant. The vast majority of teenagers who don’t want to tell their parents usually have pretty good reasons not to.
Teenagers can have bad relationships with perfectly decent parents; it doesn’t mean that those parents forfeit the right to be involved in medical decisions affecting their child.
Public financing for abortions? Are you kidding? I have to pay for some ho and her bad judgement? What a crock.
Greylocks, if you can go through that procedure and not have any moral qualms over it, I’d venture to say that a)you’re abnormal in that sense, and b) also in the minority. You make it sound like getting an abortion is like getting your ears pierced or a mole removed or something. That is very odd, and kind of disturbing. Please do not have kids ever. Someone as cold as you should never raise another human being. And maybe you should consider using a little more sense so you do not have to get a 3rd abortion.
Enter yo mama to elevate the conversation to new heights.
If the woman wants one.
Period.
Why do I make it my concern to worry about the health and reproductive issues of my neighbors? Honestly. We are a society too hung up on sexuality.
SQ, read my 1st comment.
I’m with Oliver Willis 100% on this. I’m pro-choice with restrictions. And yes, what greylocks typed was very odd for a woman. She seemed very casual about it, like it was nothing more than getting a flu shot. I find someone taking the issue of abortion that casually somewhat disturbing. Most people probably would, whether they’re pro-choice or pro-life.
My reasoning is this: There’s no other medical procedure this invasive anybody would ever consider okay for a minor to approve on their own.
The medical dictionary on the NIH website defines the word invasive as “2 : involving entry into the living body (as by incision or by insertion of an instrument)”
What is your opinion, Oliver, of medical (as opposed to surgical) abortion? Do you believe in parental notification and consent for a 17-year old to get this non-invasive pill?
(Though I would argue surgical abortion is comparable in invasiveness to a colonoscopy — both involve light sedation and insertion medical instruments through a bodily orifice, as opposed to an incision — and therefore not a very invasive procedure. It is not open heart surgery. But I know that argument won’t win you over.)
It’s a woman’s choice.
Period.
A lot of guys here who haven’t adopted and would never consider adopting want to restrict a woman’s choice and use government to force a woman to have a child.
And, yes, it’s just as wrong when women would force another female to have a child.
Very disappointing.
But Oliver won points with the right wing sociopaths “yo mama” and “amused observer” FTW.
While Oliver stands with the right wingers on this issue,
I’ll stand with “greylocks”.
Oh, and if the technology is developed to allow the Father to carry the baby to term safely sea horse style I would be all for encouraging couples to at least mull over the idea of transplanting the fetus but otherwise I cannot see a reason to ever deny a woman an abortion.
News Reference..
I would hardly call my stance on abortion “right-wing.” I’m left-of-center on this issue, which is where most the country is. You’re the one on the fringe if you stand with that freak greylocks.
Shorter Yo Mama: “I’m terrified of women who make use of their shame caves and take responsibility for their actions like adults.”
greylocks: Also: on the “effects on psyche” crap. I had two abortions, and I’m just fine, thank you. So are all the other women I know who’ve had one.
Lucky you.
The women I’ve known who’ve had the procedure have varied from not being affected at all to being profoundly affected by it for decades, so I’d be hesitant to speak for all women.
But how nice that you are able to do so and declare it patently silly that abortion makes a woman feel bad.
greylocks: It’s always easy for men to have an opinnion on this, as it never affects them personally.
Then you should meet some of the
fathersmen I’ve met if you believe that.If it is “patently silly” to assert that “abortion makes women feel bad” is it not equally silly to just assert that the men involved are completely unaffected?
But how nice that you are able to do so and declare it patently silly that abortion makes a woman feel bad.
Sean, before you put on your scolding cap, maybe you should double check what the fuck you’re talking about.
Greylocks was not suggesting it’s “patently silly” to believe that abortions make women feel bad. She was saying that it’s patently silly to assume that getting an abortion is more emotionally damaging than forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term:
Like I said before, play internet nanny all you want, but when you do, try to actually get your own shit straight first.
If it is “patently silly” to assert that “abortion makes women feel bad” is it not equally silly to just assert that the men involved are completely unaffected?
Again, Sean. Not what she said. Not even close.
rat bastard: “Shorter Yo Mama: “I’m terrified of women who make use of their shame caves and take responsibility for their actions like adults.””
Dude what the f**k are you talking about. I told everyone here I’m pro-choice. Do you actually read what people type before you respond to them?
yo mama: Public financing for abortions? Are you kidding? I have to pay for some ho and her bad judgement? What a crock.
Then would you be in favor of public financing for informative sex ed classes and birth control?
If you’re opposed to abortions, why not support a far less costly alternative that prevents the abortion issue in the first place?
Greylocks, if you can go through that procedure and not have any moral qualms over it, I’d venture to say that a)you’re abnormal in that sense, and b) also in the minority. You make it sound like getting an abortion is like getting your ears pierced or a mole removed or something. That is very odd, and kind of disturbing. Please do not have kids ever. Someone as cold as you should never raise another human being.
You know, I was with you for most of that. And that’s saying something considering I don’t think I’ve ever seen you say something here that I didn’t think reeked of stupidity. I was with you right up until “Please don’t have kids ever.” Why the need to turn a quite good reply into a personal insult?
Sean D….
That was an honest request. It wasn’t an insult.
Why the need to turn a quite good reply into a personal insult?
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? He called her “abnormal” because she didn’t rend her garments, wail and cover herself in ash because she got an abortion.
That’s pretty fucked up but to you, hey, that was the good part!
God you’re a tedious moron.
The women I’ve known who’ve had the procedure have varied from not being affected at all to being profoundly affected by it for decades, so I’d be hesitant to speak for all women.
Sean, great, glad to hear that you’re hesitant to speak for all women.
A little less impressed that you’ll so readily label some of the women you’ve known “abnormal” and not consider it a personal insult.
And Sean, if you agree that “not being affected at all” by an abortion makes someone “abnormal” does that mean that you think someone who is “profoundly affected by it for decades” is normal?
I do think its strange for a woman to have had an abortion and not to have had any sort of emotional side effect to it. And while I don’t think abortion should in any way bring shame on someone nor should we have a scarlet letter, I also think its equally odd to be I guess proud(?) to have had one. I’m not passing judgment on any one person, just calling it as I see it.
Do you believe in parental notification and consent for a 17-year old to get this non-invasive pill?
Yes. I’m probably not going by the dictionary defintion of invasive here, but the standard should be – I believe – the same for an abortion and other abortion related procedures as it would be for any other medical procedure. If its not something a kid can walk into a doctor and have done for/to them, then there’s no abortion exception. Now, for the very reason of rape/incest I think the approval should only have to come from one person – and that person can be a guardian. In the case of a life threatening procedure, well its like the chemo case currently in the news.
And News Reference, shove your scolding up your rear, I’m getting really tired of it. You’re often worse than more than a couple of the conservatives who post here.
It’s always easy for men to have an opinnion (sic) on this, as it never affects them personally.
Really? Unless I missed something and women are able to asexually reproduce, then it very damn well does affect men.
As for consent, kids under a certain age aren’t even allowed to get their ears pierced without parental consent. School nurses aren’t allowed to dispense aspirin without consent, but a major medical procedure like an abortion gets a pass? I don’t think so.
And “News Reference”, get the hell over yourself. I’ve been following Oliver’s blog for nearly 8 years now (wow!) and while he and I have strongly disagreed on a host of (mostly political) issues, the one thing he does not do is look to “score points” with anybody.
I do think its strange for a woman to have had an abortion and not to have had any sort of emotional side effect to it.
But if you don’t believe that abortion is “murder” to one degree or another, what reason is there not to treat it like any innocuous medical procedure?
For some reason Sean and Yo Mams think it’s totally “abnormal” for a pro-choice woman to treat an abortion as she would any routine medical procedure. But if she doesn’t think it’s murder or the ending of a human life, why should she feel guilty?
And again, I’ll ask, if it’s abnormal not to feel guilty at all, does that means it’s “normal” to spend years wracked with guilt?
If you think normal is somewhere in between, well, why get all up tight about it in the first place? Is there some sort of respectable “mourning period” that woman are supposed to enter after getting an abortion? You know, maybe they don’t have to wear black but they should at least have the good taste to not enjoy themselves for at least a month?
Would that be normal?
Actually, that kind of is my point. People do have emotions over considerable medical procedures. My mom had heart bypass, its not like it was just a walk in the park emotionally for her. I just think it would be odd for a woman to go through an abortion and not have any emotional response to it. Maybe some do, I just don’t think its the norm (and nor do I believe that one must feel “x”).
yo mama: That was an honest request. It wasn’t an insult.
OK. On a re-read I can see that. Guess I’m too used to CSS-style insult-as-replys.
fafaroo: Greylocks was not suggesting it’s “patently silly” to believe that abortions make women feel bad. She was saying that it’s patently silly to assume that getting an abortion is more emotionally damaging than forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term:
Yeah, I was taking the “patently silly” specific wording and using it for something else than a reply specifically to the comment in which greylocks used it. I can see the confusion.
Now, my turn:
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? He called her “abnormal” because she didn’t rend her garments, wail and cover herself in ash because she got an abortion.
No he didn’t. He called her abnormal becuase she seemed to treat it as an act without ramifications.
I know you like to seem to find it easier to mis-represent what someone says so you can then attack them for being so extreme. But like I said before, play internet nanny all you want, but when you do, try to actually get your own shit straight first.
I’m so relieved I won’t be forced to wear a scarlet letter… Seriously, Oliver, just because a woman doesn’t become a basket case because she had an abortion doesn’t make her proud of the fact. That is straight outta the pro-life play book, right next to the stuff about how women are incapable of making such great big decisions all by themselves.
fafaroo: A little less impressed that you’ll so readily label some of the women you’ve known “abnormal” and not consider it a personal insult.
Like right there. You either lie about what I’ve said or you have serious reading comprehension problems. Show me where I labeled anyone I’ve known as “abnormal” or STFU.
fafaroo: For some reason Sean and Yo Mams think it’s totally “abnormal” for a pro-choice woman to treat an abortion as she would any routine medical procedure.
Nope. Didn’t say that. If anything I said the range of reactions I’ve seen have varied greatly. And I didn’t describe either end of that spectrum (or any point along it) as being “abnormal.”
No he didn’t. He called her abnormal becuase she seemed to treat it as an act without ramifications.
Uh, Sean. Exactly. Not only did she not rend her garments over getting an abortion, she didn’t bat an eye over it because to her, there’s no reason to treat it as anything other than a routine medical procedure.
For that, Yo Mama labels her abnormal and as, you put it, you were “with him” on this point.
Indeed, you quoted Yo Mama’s full paragraph and commented:
So where did you labeled anyone you’ve known as “abnormal”?
Sean, you wrote just before you agreed with Yo Mama’s labeling of Greylocks as “abnormal” that some women you knew had exactly the same response to their abortions as Greylocks.
You wrote:
That is exactly the response that Yo Mama referred to as “abnormal” and you were “with him” on that point.
So please, Sean, stop digging.
Sean, what really kills me about your holier than thou internet nanny act is that you’re now up in arms that I dared LIE about you calling women you know “abnormal.”
And yet, when Yo Mama called Greylocks abnormal, you had no problem at all with it.
Indeed, you were totally with him on that point.
Heal thyself, moron.
OK. On a re-read I can see that. Guess I’m too used to CSS-style insult-as-replys.
I can’t believe this. Sean, Yo Mama calls Greylocks abnormal, odd, disturbing and cold. THEN hopes that she never has children.
And on a “re-read” you seem to recognize the sincere, thoughtful, considered nature of this and so, it’s all good.
Yup, there’s nothing personally insulting about being called abnormal, odd, disturbing and cold by someone who disagrees with your position on abortion.
That is fucking pathetic.
Being pregnant emancipates a minor for good reason. I won’t even get into the molestation issue; minors should not be subjected to parental corresion either way. If parents have developed a strong relationship with their child, she’s likely to tell them anyway; if not, it’s their own damn fault.
Always legal. No restrictions. I trust the pregnant person’s judgment over a blanket government regulation here.
Jesse Ewiak: “So Oliver, if a 13-year-old is raped by a 19-year-old at a party and wishes to have an abortion, she should be stopped by her parents?”
What if she was raped by her father / step-father / etc. In that case, I wouldn’t even consider parental notification a wise restriction. I would hope she would get help to stop the abuse, but having the government step it could cause he greater harm.
My sympathies, Oliver. You’re discovering firsthand what I discovered years ago: a middle ground on this issue is completely unacceptable to the pro-choice crowd. (And I stand slightly to the left on you on this issue.)
The prevailing theory is that the most militant of the pro-choice crowd (such as Strowbridge, it seems) are so afraid of acknowledging that a fetus has any human rights (or human existence) before birth that any restriction is tantamount to admitting that abortion is a form of killing, so they can’t give a single inch on the issue.
Also, I trust that you’ve also noticed that the limitations some have tried to impose have been utterly flattened by those same types. “Life of the mother” is a very clear ruling. But that means the mother must be in extremis. How about “health of the mother?” Wouldn’t that give doctors a safe margin when they don’t think continuing the pregnancy, but cause irrevocable harm?
Nope. Then it becomes a matter of “the mental health of the mother,” who is depressed over the unwanted pregnancy. Or the normal physical effects of the pregnancy itself are argued as a “health” issue.
No, there simply isn’t room for compromise on this issue among the extremists on either side. I’m sure you were aware of half of this before; now you’re learning it’s true on the side you nominally belong to as well.
J.
I would hope she would get help to stop the abuse, but having the government step it could cause he greater harm.
um, okay, so where is she supposed to get help, then? A school nurse? Oops! If she goes to a public school, that’s getting the government involved. A teacher? Uh oh, the teacher is required by law to report the abuse to family services which is a government agency. In fact any adult she confides to who is acting in an official capacity (i.e., counselor, teacher, coach) would have to then report the abuse to the proper authorities. In fact I believe that medical practitioners – including nurses – are also require to report abuse of a minor to the authorities. So even if she does end up getting an abortion, the government will get involved.
How does removing parental consent keep the government from “stepping in,” then? And wouldn’t it be better to have parental consent in the vast majority of cases that don’t involve abuse, with referral to the proper agencies in those cases that do?
It just doesn’t make any sense that you would require a parent’s permission for a child to get her nose pierced, but not to have an abortion.
And “always legal?” No restrictions? I’m sorry, but that’s not even the law now. Legal until the point of viability, maybe. But at some point you have to recognize the fetus as an individual human being, and at that point it does obtain some legal protection.
Me: “I would hope she would get help to stop the abuse, but having the government step it could cause he greater harm.”
Southern Quaker: “um, okay, so where is she supposed to get help, then? A school nurse? Oops! If she goes to a public school, that’s getting the government involved.”
I never said the government couldn’t be involved, but they can’t force that involvement.
Southern Quaker: “And ‘always legal?’ No restrictions? I’m sorry, but that’s not even the law now.”
No it’s not.
“Legal until the point of viability, maybe. But at some point you have to recognize the fetus as an individual human being, and at that point it does obtain some legal protection.”
Yes. It has legal protection as soon as it can made to survive on its own without harming the woman.
Otherwise, you are telling the woman that their rights are lesser than those of the fetus.
Quaker, the problem there is that “viability” is a moving target. The current record is just under 22 weeks, or a smidgen over five months. Medical technology, as in so many cases, is moving faster than the law.
The judicial involvement angle is to ensure that there is SOME adult with SOME sense of responsibility for a child involved in the decision at some point. If the child can’t or won’t get her parents involved, then there has to be some way it can be done. If anyone has a better alternative than a judge, feel free to speak up.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “No, there simply isn’t room for compromise on this issue among the extremists on either side.”
There’s no room to compromise on slavery either. This is not an extremist position.
“It just doesn’t make any sense that you would require a parent’s permission for a child to get her nose pierced, but not to have an abortion.”
By the way, parental consent when it comes to getting their nose pierced is not about protecting the child, it is about protecting the people who do the nose piercing.
Parental consent stops them from getting their asses sued.
It is not analogous to this situation.
Likewise, Strowbridge, there’s no compromise on murder. Especially murder of a helpless, innocent baby that has the misfortune of being an “inconvenience” to the woman bearing it.
You’re the mirror image of the Operation Rescue nuts, Strowbridge. You just can’t — or won’t — admit it.
J.
Just because you or anyone else agrees with “the majority” does not make that view the view that is constitutionally correct, and it does not make your opinion NOT the tyranny of the majority.
Abortion is medical care. It is a medical decision that is made between a woman and her doctor, and the government should get OUT of that decision. If anyone is concerned with preventing abortions, then they need to look up the stats on why women often choose abortion – out of fear of abuse, for one, and very very often for economic reasons (which, before someone gets glib, is very often part of the reason they’ve ended up pregnant without wanting to be, as access to medical care is very poor for low-income women, particularly low-income women of color). Fix those problems and then we can talk about the abortion rate. But get out of the exam room.
Fine, forget piercings. My kid can’t have her tonsils removed without my permission, either.
Sorry, Nikki, there are two other parties involved. First up is the father — this whole process determines whether or not he is going to be a father. Either his child will be destroyed or he will be on the hook for a couple of decades of child support (at the very least) — and he has absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.
And then there’s the child itself. At what point does it have a right to not be destroyed? At what point does it acquire enough “human” rights to not be killed?
J.
Two questions, which I am honestly interested in the answer to.
Should a fourteen year old boy who decides he never wants to have a child be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental permission?
Should a fourteen year old girl who decides to carry her pregnancy to term be allowed to do against the wishes of her parents?
I doubt there are too many young girls out there who have fundamentalist parents who are likely to beat her because she slipped out to get her tonsils removed.
“Sorry, Nikki, there are two other parties involved. First up is the father — this whole process determines whether or not he is going to be a father. Either his child will be destroyed or he will be on the hook for a couple of decades of child support (at the very least) — and he has absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.”
The minimum that we as a society ask people who are going to have consensual sex is that they are adults. This is because Sex has consequences that cannot be simply waved away. If the man has consensual sex with someone who has no intention of having his children then he could have at least found that out before having sex.
“And then there’s the child itself. At what point does it have a right to not be destroyed? At what point does it acquire enough “human” rights to not be killed?”
The rights of a fetus or a zygote to not countermand the rights of a human being, the woman who has to carry the child’s decision has to be considered first.
she didn’t bat an eye over it because to her, there’s no reason to treat it as anything other than a routine medical procedure.
Like getting tonsils taken out? Sorry, but I find such a blase attitude towards something like abortion to not be all that normal or ‘every day’ if that’s a better term (remembering an old pysch class I took back in the day). Now before you soil yourself please note that I am talking about that ‘attitude’ not the person. It’s no different than me thinking it’s not all that normal to like professional wrestling beyond the age of 14 but I am friends with some that still do like it and they’re fine people outside of that silliness.
Then again, I’m a 38 year old guy that likes to play video games so what do I know?
By the way, parental consent when it comes to getting their nose pierced is not about protecting the child, it is about protecting the people who do the nose piercing.
Parental consent stops them from getting their asses sued.
That’s not true. No business runs to the government saying, “Please make it more difficult for us to get business!” Such laws reflect parental rights and allowing them final say on minors having anything evasive (even as simple as earrings or tattoos) done including abortions so yes it is analogous to the situation.
For me personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that the issue of abortion is more of a social one than a legal one. It’s disturbing to me in reading some of the opinions here (particularly those of Fafaroo and Greylocks) and elsewhere that too many people are treating abortion like having a mole removed when in fact, there is human life that is being ended. The issue of viability is one that clouds the morality of the issue under a legal haze. So one week it’s nothing but 7 days later it becomes something deserving of protection under the law?
Banning abortion outright is not an option in my view despite being ardently pro-life (I’m opposed even in the case of rape or incest) because if history has taught us anything, just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s going to prevent somebody from doing it. In addition, there are enough scumbags out there that will have no problem looking to make money off illegal abortion and we know where that would lead.
rat_bastard,
I’m interested in why your reasoning vis a vie the father’s rights and responsibilities don’t also apply to the mother.
What I don’t understand is how people can so casually dismiss the people that would be (and are currently) royally screwed by these restrictions, for what gain? So more babies can be born into bad situations?
If it can’t live on its own outside the womb, it’s not a separate person. It’s a piece of the woman’s body, hers to decide what to do with. Where that line exists is irrelevant, because it changes from hospital to hospital, location to location, even doctor to doctor.
Just as the government should never be ending someone’s life, they should never be forcing the beginning of one.
“Dude what the f**k are you talking about. I told everyone here I’m pro-choice. Do you actually read what people type before you respond to them?” – Yo Mama
Well your first post starts out as a tentatively pro-choice post, but then you end it with the myth of women being traumatized for life by getting an abortion. So what you have is the patriarchal pro choice stance where you would allow limited abortion rights to women to protect them from the choice they clearly cannot fully comprehend.
Then in your next post you let your true feelings flow:
“Public financing for abortions? Are you kidding? I have to pay for some ho and her bad judgement? What a crock.”
So while you are gracious and let women traumatize themselves for life by putting their legs in the stirrups of shame, you know the truth – all women who have sex without the express desire to reproduce are hos and should be forced to march in the street with Scarlet Letters.
Then you finish it up with an attack on Greylocks who is a woman who defies you by not fitting your pattern of shame and recrimination for making personal choices that you largely fabricated to fit your patronizing worldview.
Bottom line, your not pro choice, you don’t respect women enough to let women choose, but since you cannot say that you try to frame the choice so that it ends up being your choice so it ends up being your choice.
“rat_bastard,
I’m interested in why your reasoning vis a vie the father’s rights and responsibilities don’t also apply to the mother.”
Biology and Sociology.
The mother has to carry the fetus to term, and is most often stuck with the lions share of caring for it, hence the decision is in the party who is affected the most.
As I have said before, if there ever comes a method of transferring a fetus to a male safely and having the man care for it Seahorse style than that would likely change the balance of responsibility if the father is willing.
rat:
…and if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
That ain’t gonna happen any time soon. So why even bring up the possibility of transferring embryos?
The fundamental philosophy of folks like rat and the rest here who argue against any restrictions on abortion is that the fetus, until it is born, is not a human being. (Or, as I wager Strowbridge would put it, “subhuman.”) Therefore, it is little more than a tumor (whose benign or malignant status is dependent upon the mother’s mood).
Unless, of course, the mother wants the baby and someone does something to injure or kill the baby, such as beating her into a miscarriage.
Think about that for a second. The humanity of the fetus is entirely based on outside, unscientific factors completely beyond its control.
Is a seven-month fetus human? Not to a woman who wants to abort it.
If it’s about to be delivered prematurely, then it’s mere seconds and inches from humanity.
If it’s been severely injured because the mother was hit by a drunk driver, and about to die, then in the eyes of the law it is a human and its death counts as a homicide.
If it’s December 31, then it’s not as far as the IRS is concerned.
It’s crazy. It’s an incredibly gray, 100% analog situation, and nutjobs like rat and Strowbridge insist on applying black and white, binary logic to the situation — and woe to anyone who dares disagree with them. Then, obviously, you’re a womyn-hating oppressor who thinks they all should be barefoot and pregnant and slaves to their uteri and need to be controlled by men.
And that’s only a slight exaggeration.
J.
I cannot believe some of these comments.
If I’m reading them all right apparently the middle ground on abortion is that it should be allowed but women should feel really, really bad if they get one.
And if they don’t feel guilt wracked at the thought of getting abortion, they need to know that they are abnormal, odd, disturbing and so emotionally cold that they are unfit to be mothers in the first place.
That’s your middle ground? Whatever, guys.
no rat bastard, you aren’t getting my point. You keep trying to turn this into some “shame” issue. That is way off base. I don’t know where at any point I’ve stated I want anyone to roam around with a scarlet letter. Your just pulling that one out of your ass. It is flat-out made up. I don’t however think that I, or anyone else should have to pay for anyone else to have an abortion. That just goes along with being a fiscal conservative and expecting people to take personal responsibility. Nice try with the strawman though.
If greylocks has no shame, has no moral qualms, or just doesn’t give this issue a second thought, I have one thing to say, and it’s accurate – she is in the minority. And that is a very callous view to have on destroying a potential human life. Enough said.
I am pro-choice with restrictions for the following reasons….
a) it’s practical. do we really want people to have children they can’t take care of, can’t afford, when through an abortion in the first trimester, before the fetus resembles human in any way, it could be aborted, saving the mother the responsibility they aren’t up to and more than likely, the child a miserable life. If the woman was raped or a victim of incest, not only am I pro-choice, I would encourage an abortion.
b) I want their to be restrictions on a few things: late term abortions for convenience. If the fetus/child could survive, and the mother’s/child’s life is *NOT* in danger, the mother should not be allowed an abortion. To me, that’s no different than murder at that point. And it’s too late for the procedure. And most Americans are with me on that point.
c) parental notification: no underage child can get a medical procedure without their parents knowing about it. I had to get a waiver signed when I was 17 just to get an ear ring, and I see this as no different. That is the logic I’m following. The parents should be *notified* of the fact that their daughter is engaging in the type of behavior that could forever alter their future, and 99% of the time, it’s not for the better. However, I do not thing the daughter should require any consent.
This is a left-of center view. And the stance I have puts me at the heart of mainstream America. Your abortion-on-demand, seemingly “abort the baby whenever, for whatever reason,” attitude puts you on the fringe. In a sane society, a person would never be allowed to abort an 8-month old fetus “just for the hell of it” or because “woops, changed my mind.” And of course, a sane person would never choose to have that procedure done.
folks like you, rat bastard, and greylocks are even too far off the farm on this issue for the vast majority of *left-wingers,* and that ought to tell you something.
I’m not the “anti-choice oppressor” here. You’re just a fringe kook and you don’t realize it.
So, fafaroo, in your world, what’s the rule?
I’ve re-read your comments, and you don’t argue FOR anything. You argue AGAINST quite a few, but don’t put forward a position of your own.
This was easy for me to spot. I’m doing the same thing. But I make no pretenses — I have repeatedly said that I’m “squishily pro-choice,” and earlier said that I was more liberal than Oliver’s stated position here. I’m cheerfully playing devil’s advocate, poking at the most extreme opinions.
Personally, I’m an uninvolved third party on the matter. Many years ago, I made damned sure I would never be involved in the possibility of an unwanted (or wanted, for that matter), and had my little visit to the doctor and my four days with my new best friends, bags of frozen peas. So for me, the matter is purely academic.
Go ahead, fafaroo. Say how you think things ought to be. Go on the record, like Oliver did. Be brave.
J.
“rat:
…and if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
That ain’t gonna happen any time soon. So why even bring up the possibility of transferring embryos?”
Because possession is 9/10ths of the law and the only time you should be discussing the fathers rights legally is if he’s capable of taking possession.
“The fundamental philosophy of folks like rat and the rest here who argue against any restrictions on abortion is that the fetus, until it is born, is not a human being. (Or, as I wager Strowbridge would put it, “subhuman.”) Therefore, it is little more than a tumor (whose benign or malignant status is dependent upon the mother’s mood).”
So basically your constructing my arguments for me so I will fill your role as strawman?
“Unless, of course, the mother wants the baby and someone does something to injure or kill the baby, such as beating her into a miscarriage.”
Or we could call it assault and try the assailant using existing law.
“Is a seven-month fetus human? Not to a woman who wants to abort it.”
Cute, assume a woman trying to abort a 7 month fetus does not have a damn good reason, Is there anyway you could be more patronizing of women? You and Yo Mama should get together and compare notes.
That reminds me, Oliver. I think I owe you a poke or two on your position. So you’d ban (or at least restrict) abortions after the first trimester. That’s a defensible position, and I’ll respect it (if not necessarily agree with it).
So, then, that’s the law in OliverLand. Suppose a woman has an abortion at seven months, when her life is clearly not in danger — it’s an entirely elective procedure; she simply doesn’t want the child. What would be the penalty? And who would be charged?
J.
Rat, I’m very carefully NOT taking a side here. I’m just trying to interpret what you say. And you seem to be saying that the fetus in question has ZERO rights until it’s born, and its continued existence is solely dependent on the good will and whim of the mother? That she can conceive it willingly, carry it for seven months, and then — for whatever she considers a “good” reason — can then have it destroyed?
If that isn’t your position, then please clarify.
J.
Go ahead, fafaroo. Say how you think things ought to be. Go on the record, like Oliver did. Be brave.
First of all, Jay Tea, this isn’t like the first time abortion has ever been discussed in these threads and I’ve given my position quite regularly and freely when it has.
I’m quite happy with the idea of abortion on demand with restrictions, as it were.
I think late term abortions should require a higher rational than early term abortions but should not be banned outright, as in the life of the mother should be at stake.
I believe that viability is as good a metric for determining at what stages higher rationals are imposed but I do not believe that extremely rare limit cases of viability should been given much weight in the process because the chances of a fetus surviving at 22 weeks is still so extraordinarily rare and so utterly dependent on the quality of medical care available in each in every case.
I believe minors should be able to get abortions without parental notification or consent if they can give cause to a judge for why their parents should not be notified or their consent required.
I do not believe that women who get an abortion for whatever reason at whatever stage of their pregnancy need necessarily to feel guilty for getting one.
Above all, I do not believe women are abnormal, cold, or unfit to be mothers ever, if they approach abortion strictly as a legitimate, routine, elective medical procedure.
So, fafaroo, you’re of the opinion that a fetus is essentially a tumor, whose status as malignant or benign is dependent upon the woman’s opinion?
And you’d put restrictions on late-term abortions. Fine. What sorts of penalties would there be for those who violate it? And who would be charged?
Don’t feel too picked on, fafaroo. I’ve made quite a few pro-lifers squirm when I ask them why doctors who perform abortion shouldn’t be charged with first-degree murder (for hire), and the women for conspiracy to commit murder for hire.
It’s an ugly, ugly issue, with absolutely zero easy, good answers. And I get irritated with those who insist that that isn’t true.
J.
fafaroo,
Well said. Agreed completely. With the following addendum.
I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
“Rat, I’m very carefully NOT taking a side here. I’m just trying to interpret what you say. And you seem to be saying that the fetus in question has ZERO rights until it’s born, and its continued existence is solely dependent on the good will and whim of the mother? That she can conceive it willingly, carry it for seven months, and then — for whatever she considers a “good” reason — can then have it destroyed?
If that isn’t your position, then please clarify.
J.”
Personally the Fetus has whatever value its parents place on it.
Legally, I think the fetus’s value < the mothers prerogative.
And bandying around that woman wakes up one day seven months pregnant and says “golly I want an abortion!” totally makes you sound reasonable.
Rat:
for a 7 month old fetus, the only good reason is for the mother’s life to be in danger. Other than that, I can’t think of one. The woman had the entire 1st trimester to choose abort the child “just for the hell of it.”
Have you ever seen a late-term abortion done? Do you not care that at this point, this “being” (or whatever you would want to consider it) feels pain, could survive……etc…..
Jaytea,
YOu make some good points with the abortion/murdering a fetus issue. Never understood how some people can want it legal to abort a fetus at x amount of months, but would also want someone charged with murder for assaulting a woman and ultimately causing the fetus to die. It makes absolutely no sense at all. They’re saying that whether a fetus is a viable life or not depends on whether the woman wants to have it or not. And that’s just plain stupid.
Abortion has almost no black/white to it. It’s a mess of gray. Trying to make it black or white without twisting yoursef into a pretzel is damn near impossible.
rat, I’m sorry for constructing a hypothetical you didn’t like. Let’s try a slight modification of a real situation — say Sarah Palin hadn’t discovered that her unborn son had Down Syndrome until the third trimester.
Up until that point, she was delighted (well, happy) to be carrying the baby. Now, all of a sudden, that baby has a problem — a birth defect that will make its life and hers more challenging. It’s not life-threatening to either party, but it is a hell of an inconvenience.
You don’t like that one? How about some other birth defect or health issue that’s not life-threatening? How about one or both parents lose their jobs? Or the woman gets a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity that she can’t accept because of her pregnancy?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Likewise, Strowbridge, there’s no compromise on murder. Especially murder of a helpless, innocent baby that has the misfortune of being an ‘inconvenience’ to the woman bearing it.”
Three points…
1.) Not a baby. A fetus.
2.) And its not murder to stop someone from harming you. And every pregnancy harms the woman. This is biological fact. (A woman’s immune system is weakened while she is pregnant. If this wasn’t the case, the woman’s immune system would destroy the fetus, thinking it was an invading organism.)
3.) By saying ‘inconvenience’, you are dismissing the thought process that goes into making this decision. You are, in essence, reducing the woman’s standing, and using this reduced standing to justify taking away her rights. ‘She would have to be irrational to kill a baby! So she shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision for herself!’
“You’re the mirror image of the Operation Rescue nuts, Strowbridge. You just can’t — or won’t — admit it.”
Except I have science and logic on my side.
Even if you assume both the fetus and the woman have equal rights, which is a safe assumption, you have to admit the woman can live without the fetus, while the fetus can not live without the woman.
Equal rights, but unequal position means the woman has power over the fetus.
If you say the fetus has power over the woman, you have decided that the fetus should have MORE RIGHTS than the woman. You have made the woman less of a person. This is unacceptable.
Essentially, you are acting like a communist in this situation. You are forcing equality of outcomes, and not just equality of opportunity.
“It’s an ugly, ugly issue, with absolutely zero easy, good answers. And I get irritated with those who insist that that isn’t true.”
Except there are easy answers, as long as you are willing to look at it in a dispassionate and logical way. Granted, most people can’t do this when it comes to many topics, abortion especially, but I have that ability.
Perhaps it’s because I don’t have kids, nor do I want kids, nor do I particularly like kids. I have no emotional connection to a hypothetical fetus.
Just out of curiosity, how is it okay for a minor to carry a pregnancy to term, thereby becoming a parent responsible for the care of a child, but it isn’t okay to make the decision to NOT do that? The child of that minor is NOT the legal responsibility of the minor’s parents. It is the responsibility of the minor. The grandparents actually have no legal rights to the baby. In fact, they have no legal rights regarding how that child is raised. Not only that, but if they don’t like the fact that the girl is pregnant to begin with, they are allowed to kick her out of their home without recourse. So she could be pregnant and homeless if her parents felt like it, but she absolutely must rely on them to make her reproductive decisions for her? Providing the pregnancy is not the result of a rape, it seems to me that the girl already made her first reproductive decision without telling her parents. If they don’t have enough control to keep her from having sex, why on earth should they have enough control to force her to remain pregnant if she doesn’t want to be? The only answer I can think of is to punish her for having had sex in the first place.
I’m not sure why someone would think having an abortion and not feeling bad about it would preclude the ability to be a good parent later on. If you’re too young, poor, unstable, addicted, in a bad or abusive relationship, and/or generally unable to provide a decent life for a child, then not bringing one into that hell might be the right decision. You might even be relieved that you had enough common sense to know that you would completely screw up a child and instead decided to not wreck another life the way yours had been. Later on, when you’re older, more stable, wiser, in a loving relationship and WANT to be a parent, then it may be the right thing to do. One has very little to do with the other.
See now you are including conditions to the abortion, before you where just making it sound like women where deliberately getting pregnant so they could have late term abortions.
For all of those scenarios I recommend you trust the judgment of the woman carrying the baby, you can try to influence her decision by offering to be the primary caretaker, Finding charities and government programs that will ease the burden or providing financial incentives to the mother.
At the end of the day I feel its ultimately the one who has to actually carry the child to term’s decision. As an adult its the father’s job to only have sex with people who’s attitude towards sex and childbirth is acceptable to them. After all he is not left with the most severe burdens of a child. Part of being an adult is having an “oh shit plan” in the event of your sexual conduct having a unintended effect.
I realize you feel that fetuses have a value that cannot be measured, I feel that parenting should involve intent and that there is no shame in aborting an unwanted child. Yo Mama seems to think that women should be ashamed of themselves for having sex.
Except there are easy answers, as long as you are willing to look at it in a dispassionate and logical way. Granted, most people can’t do this when it comes to many topics, abortion especially, but I have that ability.
Perhaps it’s because I don’t have kids, nor do I want kids, nor do I particularly like kids. I have no emotional connection to a hypothetical fetus.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you C. S. Strowbridge: sociopath.
J.
“I’m not sure why someone would think having an abortion and not feeling bad about it would preclude the ability to be a good parent later on. If you’re too young, poor, unstable, addicted, in a bad or abusive relationship, and/or generally unable to provide a decent life for a child, then not bringing one into that hell might be the right decision. You might even be relieved that you had enough common sense to know that you would completely screw up a child and instead decided to not wreck another life the way yours had been. Later on, when you’re older, more stable, wiser, in a loving relationship and WANT to be a parent, then it may be the right thing to do. One has very little to do with the other.”
Oh no! Smart person alert!
J.G.Thayer and others in this thread seem to think that if a woman has a selfish reason for wanting an abortion, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
Assuming I haven’t misread your post, you would disagree. And I concur.
I realize you feel that fetuses have a value that cannot be measured, I feel that parenting should involve intent and that there is no shame in aborting an unwanted child.
rat, you realize wrongly. I said above that I don’t have a solid opinion on abortion — I’m arguing from the side that says it’s way, way too complicated an issue for simple solutions and answers like you state.
And I wasn’t placing “condidtions,” I was spelling out details in various scenarios — all very, very plausible — and your answer remains the same: “no conditions. No limitations. No restrictions.”
I’d be very curious to see if you regard the possession of a firearm with the same laissez-faire you do the possession of a fetus. With the firearm, it’s the POTENTIAL power of life and death over overs. With the fetus, it’s all too literal and real.
J.
Now for Strowbridge the sociopath’s “points:”
1.) Not a baby. A fetus.
OK, you wanna play bullshit semantic games? Fine. How about “an unborn human being.”
Because we are talking about human life yet. It might not magically have transitioned into legal personhood, but it’s still human. No matter how much it pleases your sociopathic instincts to think of it as anything besides a tumor.
2.) And its not murder to stop someone from harming you. And every pregnancy harms the woman. This is biological fact. (A woman’s immune system is weakened while she is pregnant. If this wasn’t the case, the woman’s immune system would destroy the fetus, thinking it was an invading organism.)
My apologies. A very cunning tumor that cons the host into tolerating its parasitism.
Reckless analogy time: if I place a person in a position — against their will — where they could potentially harm (not necessarily even kill) me, I can kill them and claim self-defense. How about I suspend them from the roof, walk under them, and then shoot them because the rope I used could break and they could land on me?
The mother has a hell of a lot more responsibility for the fetus’ presence within her than the fetus does, and the harm caused to the fetus is considerably greater, in most cases, than to the mother.
Of course, if you’re a sociopath that doesn’t think of the protohuman as anything more than a tumor, then that’s no problem,
3.) By saying ‘inconvenience’, you are dismissing the thought process that goes into making this decision. You are, in essence, reducing the woman’s standing, and using this reduced standing to justify taking away her rights. ‘She would have to be irrational to kill a baby! So she shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision for herself!’
In most cases, the abortion is NOT a matter of life or death to the mother. In every case, it is to the fetus. So yeah, I think “inconvenience” is a fairly accurate — but deliberately inflammatory — term.
Even if you assume both the fetus and the woman have equal rights, which is a safe assumption, you have to admit the woman can live without the fetus, while the fetus can not live without the woman.
Unless you take into account that the fetus has literallly absolutely no say in the development of the situation.
Essentially, you are acting like a communist in this situation. You are forcing equality of outcomes, and not just equality of opportunity.
Actually, head on over to Communist China. Their position on abortion is remarkably similar to your own. Except they make it mandatory in many cases.
Again, I’m not taking a stand here. I’m just poking holes in others who — for whatever reason (such as sociopathic tendencies) — blind themselves to the complexities of an issue with no easy answers.
J.
1.) Not a baby. A fetus.
You’re splitting hairs. If saying ‘fetus’ makes you feel better about your position, then fine. But it’s an inconsequential point in the debate.
Even if you assume both the fetus and the woman have equal rights, which is a safe assumption, you have to admit the woman can live without the fetus, while the fetus can not live without the woman.
This is an absurd and ultimately dangerous line of thinking. A 6 month old baby cannot survive without a mother. Does that diminish the right that child has to its own life? What about those who are severely handicapped both be it physically or mentally or both and rely on assistance to meet their every day needs?
There is no greater threat to liberty than the encroachment upon the right to ones own life. It is something that can only be taken by force. That leads us to this statement:
If you say the fetus has power over the woman, you have decided that the fetus should have MORE RIGHTS than the woman. You have made the woman less of a person. This is unacceptable.
Completely and 100% wrong. Your rights end where mine begin. Simple as that. For me, I personally believe that life begins at conception. But in looking at it from a scientific point of view, once that unborn child reaches the point of viability, it has now reached the point where the right to live can only be taken by force. If the mother chooses to abort at that time or any time after, she is infringing upon that child’s right to their own life. It is in no way shape or form an an infringement upon her rights to prevent her from infringing upon that child’s right to their own lives.
Again, I’m not taking a stand here. I’m just poking holes in others who — for whatever reason (such as sociopathic tendencies) — blind themselves to the complexities of an issue with no easy answers.
You’re an idiot.
And I’m not taking a stand here, I’m just poking holes in the high regard in which you seem to hold yourself.
To suggest that it’s “sociopathic” to use the term “fetus” instead of “unborn baby” when discussing abortion is to take a side.
To suggest that there’s something “abnormal” or “sociopathic” in treating an abortion as an elective medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue is to take a side.
To fail to understand this and then turn around and complain about people “blinding themselves to the complexities of the issue” is just, well, the height of arrogant stupidity.
I’d be very curious to see if you regard the possession of a firearm with the same laissez-faire you do the possession of a fetus. With the firearm, it’s the POTENTIAL power of life and death over overs. With the fetus, it’s all too literal and real.
First of all, there is no “possession” of a fetus. It is fully dependent upon the woman carrying it. Her body may reject it at any time, and most pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion without the woman even having been aware that a fertilized egg had implanted in her uterine wall. Biology 101, folks. Check it out.
Further, the fetus might develop in the wrong place. Darn those fallopian tubes for not magically becoming a uterus! I guarantee you, if I’d been in “possession” of that fetus, I would have made sure to put it in the proper place so I could have had a baby instead of hemorrhaging all over the office, spending ten hours in the hospital, undergoing multiple surgical procedures and spending the following 5 days hopped up on morphine. But maybe that’s just me. Strangely, despite the danger it presented to me, I went ahead and got pregnant a few more times, not always successfully. Each time, I put my life at risk. Here’s the important part. No one MADE me do that. I sure as hell would have objected if I hadn’t wanted to risk my life and someone told me I had no choice in the matter. Especially if they discounted the danger and said I was just being “selfish.” EVERY pregnancy is dangerous, people. It’s a miracle any of us survive it.
Not sure why Strowbridge is considered a sociopath for being aware of the lack of desire to procreate. I wish MORE people were aware that they do not want or should not have children. Parenting is and will remain the most difficult thing I do. I find it rewarding, entertaining, educational, and fascinating but, much like the study of history, I don’t expect others to feel the same way.
There’s a difference between owning a gun because you know what you’re doing and like to shoot and being forced to carry and use a gun because someone else thinks you should have it. Also, you can sell a gun if you decide you don’t want to have it around anymore. They frown on you doing the same with kids.
Another analogy, please?
J.G.Thayer: “Now for Strowbridge the sociopath’s ‘points:’”
Not sociopath, but correct according to the dictionary.
Me: “1.) Not a baby. A fetus.”
J.G.Thayer: “OK, you wanna play bullshit semantic games? Fine. How about ‘an unborn human being.’”
No. How about the correct term, “Fetus”.
Can’t handle using the correct term? Don’t give a fuck.
Me: “2.) And its not murder to stop someone from harming you. And every pregnancy harms the woman. This is biological fact. (A woman’s immune system is weakened while she is pregnant. If this wasn’t the case, the woman’s immune system would destroy the fetus, thinking it was an invading organism.)”
J.G.Thayer: “My apologies. A very cunning tumor that cons the host into tolerating its parasitism.”
Way to ignore the point.
J.G.Thayer: “Reckless analogy time: if I place a person in a position — against their will — where they could potentially harm (not necessarily even kill) me, I can kill them and claim self-defense. How about I suspend them from the roof, walk under them, and then shoot them because the rope I used could break and they could land on me?”
I wouldn’t call that a reckless analogy. I would call that a stupid one. You could simply walk out from under the person without harming you at all.
The same is not true for pregnancy. There is no way to remove a fetus from a woman without causing harm to one of them.
But I will take you analogy and come up with one that is closer.
Say you are a lifeguard. This was your choice.
You see someone drowning, so you swim out into the ocean to rescue them. This was your choice.
When you get there, they panic. In panicking, they drag you under the water.
Are you allowed to kick them away and let them drown in order to save your life?
YES! In fact, that’s what lifeguards are taught to do.
Me: “3.) By saying ‘inconvenience’, you are dismissing the thought process that goes into making this decision. You are, in essence, reducing the woman’s standing, and using this reduced standing to justify taking away her rights. ‘She would have to be irrational to kill a baby! So she shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision for herself!’”
J.G.Thayer: “In most cases, the abortion is NOT a matter of life or death to the mother. In every case, it is to the fetus. So yeah, I think ‘inconvenience’ is a fairly accurate — but deliberately inflammatory — term.”
So you admit to being a troll. Nice.
Me: “Even if you assume both the fetus and the woman have equal rights, which is a safe assumption, you have to admit the woman can live without the fetus, while the fetus can not live without the woman.”
J.G.Thayer: “Unless you take into account that the fetus has literallly absolutely no say in the development of the situation.”
Whose fault is that?
Seriously. The woman has the power to make the decision, because she has more power. The fetus and the woman are not equal, because the woman can survive without the fetus, but the fetus can not survive without the woman.
Me: “Essentially, you are acting like a communist in this situation. You are forcing equality of outcomes, and not just equality of opportunity.”
J.G.Thayer: “Actually, head on over to Communist China. Their position on abortion is remarkably similar to your own. Except they make it mandatory in many cases.”
Way to miss the point, again.
J.G.Thayer: “Again, I’m not taking a stand here.”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
…
Oh, you are being serious.
No one here believes you don’t have a position and that you are not taking an stand here. Don’t even try and lie about that.
J.G.Thayer: “I’m just poking holes in others who — for whatever reason (such as sociopathic tendencies) — blind themselves to the complexities of an issue with no easy answers.”
Saying, ‘It’s a complex issue with no easy answers.’ is a cute way to avoid admitting your answers are wrong.
To suggest that there’s something “abnormal” or “sociopathic” in treating an abortion as an elective medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue is to take a side.
What’s abnormal is describing abortion as “an elective medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue.” That describes getting an ingrown toenail treated.
You falsely claimed that people said women should feel guilty when getting an abortion and nobody said any such thing (search the thread. You’re the only one that used the word “guilt”). It does seem strange however to have such an emotional detachment from the whole thing. What’s interesting is that the people who often argue the pro-choice side often cite the fact that it’s this huge emotional choice the woman makes. Obama said in his speech, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.” You however, seem to think it’s nothing like that and has the emotional equivalent of removing a wart.
The irony is that all the right wingers here who want government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would go ballistic if they had to pay a penny for that breathing child’s healthcare, education, or even food.
It’s been said before: Right winger’s love the fetus, hate the child.
I’ll give the minority of left wingers who want government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term a little more credit.
But not much.
Ultimately folk like Oliver end up helping right wingers use government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term but then while he’s (presumably) concerned about using government to make sure that breathing child has food, healthcare, and an education, those same right wingers he helped are trying to ‘drown government in a bathtub.’
The Right Wing is the Deadbeat Daddy Party.
If the Right Wing wants to use THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, they can stand up and immediately accept government intruding in all kinds of things.
First and foremost: those right wing dead bead daddies’ pockets can start immediately supporting the generation of children that are already struggling because mothers and fathers don’t have good jobs or stable life circumstances.
“Nikki” takes what would normally be the right wing position: “the government should get OUT of that decision.”
Despite what right wingers say, the right wing has always found reasons to have government intrude on people’s personal decisions. Even purported “Libertarian” Ron Paul would use the force of government to force women carry pregnancies to term.
Right wingers just believe those rules should be applied to Other People.
Wealthy right wingers and Republicans will always have the choice that they would withhold from those of less fortunate circumstances.
As “Nikki” says, fix the long list of reasons why women get abortions “and then we can talk about the abortion rate. But get out of the [medical] exam room.”
“Evie” brings up another excellent point: “Being pregnant emancipates a minor for good reason.” While she brings up the most troubling reason that parents shouldn’t be allowed to coerce a child into carrying a pregnancy to term, molestation, “Reba” brings up other very important points.
“Reba”: Just out of curiosity, how is it okay for a minor to carry a pregnancy to term, thereby becoming a parent responsible for the care of a child, but it isn’t okay to make the decision to NOT do that? The child of that minor is NOT the legal responsibility of the minor’s parents. It is the responsibility of the minor. The grandparents actually have no legal rights to the baby. In fact, they have no legal rights regarding how that child is raised. Not only that, but if they don’t like the fact that the girl is pregnant to begin with, they are allowed to kick her out of their home without recourse. So she could be pregnant and homeless if her parents felt like it, but she absolutely must rely on them to make her reproductive decisions for her? Providing the pregnancy is not the result of a rape, it seems to me that the girl already made her first reproductive decision without telling her parents. If they don’t have enough control to keep her from having sex, why on earth should they have enough control to force her to remain pregnant if she doesn’t want to be? The only answer I can think of is to punish her for having had sex in the first place.
I’m not sure why someone would think having an abortion and not feeling bad about it would preclude the ability to be a good parent later on. If you’re too young, poor, unstable, addicted, in a bad or abusive relationship, and/or generally unable to provide a decent life for a child, then not bringing one into that hell might be the right decision. You might even be relieved that you had enough common sense to know that you would completely screw up a child and instead decided to not wreck another life the way yours had been. Later on, when you’re older, more stable, wiser, in a loving relationship and WANT to be a parent, then it may be the right thing to do. One has very little to do with the other.
[emphasis added]
The right wing want to use government to force women to have children and then those same right wingers abandon their responsibility of their use of government force to force that pregnancy.
I take the right wing position that government should stay out of this very personal medical decision.
I also take the right wing position that if government force is used to force a pregnancy be carried to term, then that government and it’s citizens have responsibility for that breathing child until the age of at least 22, from feeding that breathing child, clothing that breathing child, educating that breathing child, and providing that breathing child with healthcare.
Ultimately there is a generation of children that deadbeat right wingers like “yo mama”, “amused observer”, “Jay”, and “Jay Tea”, already owe support to.
Those deadbeats should start taking care of those struggling, breathing children that already exist before they start forcing additional women to carry more unwanted pregnancies to term.
Right wing deadbeat daddies and the Republican Deadbeat Daddy Party has been avoiding their responsibilities for over 30 years.
The next time a right winger demands that government force be used to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, remind that right winger that they are now responsibility for their use of government force and they are now responsible for paying for that child’s food, clothing, health care, and education.
And remind them that their use of government force to intrude on such a personal medical decision eliminates their complaint when the use of government force is used to make them pay for the children they used government force to force on women they’ve never met.
Jay Caruso: “This is an absurd and ultimately dangerous line of thinking. A 6 month old baby cannot survive without a mother.”
Yes it can. Otherwise no baby whose mother died in childbirth would survive. Clearly this is not the case.
Since you are wrong on this point, the rest of your argument becomes moot.
“For me, I personally believe that life begins at conception.”
And what basis do you have for this?
What’s abnormal is describing abortion as “an elective medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue.” That describes getting an ingrown toenail treated.
Like it or not, Jay, it describes an abortion.
It does seem strange however to have such an emotional detachment from the whole thing.
Not to me, it doesn’t.
You however, seem to think it’s nothing like that and has the emotional equivalent of removing a wart.
No, I’m saying that it can be an emotional decision for a lot, maybe even most women. It could a traumatic experience for some of them.
Some people, men and women, respond to getting a blood test with extreme fear and anxiety.
My point is that there is nothing abnormal, odd, disturbing or cold, about a pro-choice woman who approaches abortion as a routine, elective medical procedure and who walks away from the procedure feeling relieved instead of guilt ridden.
Oh and Jay, please, stop with this:
What emotion would you all have women feel after an abortion? Ennui?
Yes it can. Otherwise no baby whose mother died in childbirth would survive. Clearly this is not the case.
But you’re changing your point of view. This is what I responded to:
you have to admit the woman can live without the fetus, while the fetus can not live without the woman.
A fetus CAN live without the mother. It’s been documented before. Women have died and the fetuses have been saved. Unless this is another case of your hair splitting.
You don’t want to address the rest of what I said because you have nothing to respond with. That’s lame.
And what basis do you have for this?
Like I said, it’s a personal viewpoint and was not used in furthering the debate at all.
Southern Quaker:
Two questions, which I am honestly interested in the answer to.
Should a fourteen year old boy who decides he never wants to have a child be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental permission?
Should a fourteen year old girl who decides to carry her pregnancy to term be allowed to do against the wishes of her parents?
The difficulty is those two situations aren’t really analogous.
Yes, they both involve minors and surgical procedures. But the pregnancy is a now or never situation while the vasectomy could be done at a later date without any significant change in the outcome.
But more notably the pregnancy also involves others. The potential father who gets little if any say (and I don’t really have a problem with that given the inherent biology but can see where some do) and, of course, the fetus. Which is where the real crux of the debate lies.
Perhaps a better (maybe?) comparison would be co-joined twins. What if one wants the operation to get separated and one does not? Should only one of the beings involved be allowed to decide?
Like it or not, Jay, it describes an abortion.
Uh, no it does not. There’s more than just ’tissue.’ It’s not a scab.
My point is that there is nothing abnormal, odd, disturbing or cold, about a pro-choice woman who approaches abortion as a routine, elective medical procedure and who walks away from the procedure feeling relieved instead of guilt ridden.
Terrific. Except nobody said she should feel “guilt ridden.”You’re continuing to argue against a point that NOBODY has made. But yes, there is something wrong about somebody approaching the decision of getting an abortion with such a casual attitude as you describe. There just is.
But yes, there is something wrong about somebody approaching the decision of getting an abortion with such a casual attitude as you describe. There just is.
Oh pray tell then Jay what is the appropriate emotional response to getting an abortion?
faux: Just as the government should never be ending someone’s life, they should never be forcing the beginning of one.
But where does that life actually begin?
The idea of forcing someone to carry an unwanted child to term is repugnant. But so is the idea of killing a child.
There are a lot of milestones along the way in a pregnancy that you can point to (lungs are developed enough to breath on their own, brain activity has reached a certain point, cells have implanted in the uterine wall, etc) but the only two that are really clear on being a definite change in state at a particular moment are conception and birth. Between those two it’s really hard to draw a line and say on one side nothing yet, on the other there is something.
Sean: “Perhaps a better (maybe?) comparison would be co-joined twins. What if one wants the operation to get separated and one does not? Should only one of the beings involved be allowed to decide?”
Except conjoin twins are equals, in most cases. You don’t have one utterly dependent on the other, with the dependent one harming the other.
CSS: Except there are easy answers, as long as you are willing to look at it in a dispassionate and logical way. Granted, most people can’t do this when it comes to many topics, abortion especially, but I have that ability.
As noted as you are for your dispassion on subjects, I think you’re cramming things here into a black/white box and that just doesn’t match up with reality.
As long as folks are willing to look at it in a dispassionate and logical way that works but the fact is, clearly folks are not. So saying, in effect, here is a solution that will work if only all of you people will be reasonable, just isn’t going to work. It’s like if only the rules of physics were different this pig would fly.
Oh pray tell then Jay what is the appropriate emotional response to getting an abortion?
Don’t attempt to turn this around. That’s a bogus question. There’s no one size fits all answer.
CSS: Except conjoin twins are equals, in most cases. You don’t have one utterly dependent on the other, with the dependent one harming the other.
In most cases. What about where it is not?
I said at the outset that it wasn’t a perfect anology (there is no such thing). But what about the situation where twin A (having a key organ?) and is more likely to survive the procedure while twin B would very likely die?
No, Sean, it’s like saying if people approach it with a certain type of reason, then their ability to see it as a reasonable solution to an unwanted pregnancy is not “abnormal” and will not necessarily be in any way traumatic. If I were to get pregnant now, I would likely choose not to have the child. I am an older woman with a history of extremely risky pregnancies, in a family that is just managing to pay the bills each month, with two adolescent boys who will be headed to college in a few years and a husband with serious medical issues. Some people might see my reasons as being “selfish” and dictate that what I am doing is “sociopathic.” I would see it as a practical solution to a rotten situation and be grateful that I was considered enough of a fully functional human being to be allowed to make my own medical decisions.
It’s like if only the rules of physics were different this pig would fly.
Right. Because when someone calls a woman abnormal, odd, disturbing, cold and unworthy of having children in the first place, just because they have a dispassionate response to getting an abortion, there’s simply nothing to be done except to agree with them. It’s like totally beyond our control to do anything else.
Even on giving the comment a “re-read” our hands are tied, because such a characterization is not a personal attack.
Accordingly, there is nothing to do but concur.
Look y’all, it’s simple. If you don’t give the abortion issue a second thought and it’s like nothing more than gettin an ear ring, you are unusually cold and callous towards this issue. I’m not telling anyone how they *should* feel. I’m just pointing out that it’s unusual. On this post right here is the first time I’ve ever actaually seen that attitude diaplayed. But People feel what they feel. Emotions, or sometimes the lack of, are irrational. This applies to the abortion issue as well.
The idea of forcing someone to carry an unwanted child to term is repugnant.
Indeed it is. But except in cases of rape, noone forced the mother to engage in potentially child-creating activities. Which is where that whole “responsibile for your actions” issue that rat bastard brought up comes into play.
Reba: <i.I would see it as a practical solution to a rotten situation and be grateful that I was considered enough of a fully functional human being to be allowed to make my own medical decisions.
As would I. And I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest I wouldn’t.
I’m not telling anyone how they *should* feel. I’m just pointing out that it’s unusual.
So unusual in fact that any woman who feels this way is suspect as a mother forever, should she eventually decide to have a child at some point.
Indeed, we should hope that never has children because such an abnormal, odd, disturbing cold person could never adequately love and care for them.
How big of you to allow people the right to their feelings.
SaveFarris: Indeed it is. But except in cases of rape, noone forced the mother to engage in potentially child-creating activities. Which is where that whole “responsibile for your actions” issue that rat bastard brought up comes into play.
Indeed. But if you take a step further back for a slightly broader view of more of the abortion debate, there are those who, while not forced to have sex, lacked the knowledge that the activity had potentially child-creating activities. “I didn’t think you could get pregnant if you do it standing up.”
The whole “Can we hold her fully, solely responsible if we’ve made sure she doesn’t have the info we’re now holding her responsible for?” can of worms.
So unusual in fact that any woman who feels this way is suspect as a mother forever, should she eventually decide to have a child at some point.
There you go again. Reaching absurd conclusions that for whatever reason, you’re attributing to others.
Indeed, we should hope that never has children because such an abnormal, odd, disturbing cold person could never adequately love and care for them.
And again.
How big of you to allow people the right to their feelings.
Dude stop with the passive-aggressive nonsense already.
There you go again. Reaching absurd conclusions that for whatever reason, you’re attributing to others.
You’re right, Jay. Yo Mama did not write:
Jay, please stop with the stupid, already.
I agree with you save farris in an idealistic kind of way, but unfortunately we have too many people in our soceity that haven’t figured out that penis + vagina = baby. I’d rather them have the option to terminate the pregnancy early and before the fetus looks anything like a human instead of having the kid, and inevitably screwing it up because mommy hates he or she for ruining her life.
Bottom line Fafaroo is that you’re in the minority here. You’re basically equating abortion with the simplest of medical procedures that don’t involve anything beyond getting rid of something that’s a nuisance like a big mole or ingrown toenail.
Others think that for somebody (especially a woman) to think so casually about it is off. Odd. Strange. Cold. Not normal.
For some reason this offends you and instead of dealing with your own issues, you’re going off the deep end and accusing people of saying all sorts of goofy things nobody is saying and asking idiotic questions to justify in a lame attempt to turn the issue back on everybody else.
“ndeed it is. But except in cases of rape, noone forced the mother to engage in potentially child-creating activities. Which is where that whole “responsibile for your actions” issue that rat bastard brought up comes into play.”
Right, and getting an abortion is definitely an applicable way one can take responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy. It does not work for all people, some people might decide that having a kid is a pretty decent option, others might go with Adoption, but I don’t see a good reason to ever deny a woman a abortion short of temporary insanity.
For some reason this offends you and instead of dealing with your own issues, you’re going off the deep end and accusing people of saying all sorts of goofy things nobody is saying and asking idiotic questions to justify in a lame attempt to turn the issue back on everybody else.
Jay, of everyone here who has agreed that yes, yes, abortion is a complicated, complex, “ugly, ugly” issue with no easy answers, most of those people seem completely unable to accept that some people don’t think that getting an abortion needs to be some huge fucking deal.
It’s the hand wringing complexity seems to stop and everything becomes black and white once someone refuses to concede that it always has be some kind of emotional ordeal for everyone.
And Jay, Yo Mama said exactly what I said he said.
And Sean agreed with what Yo Mama said.
fafaroo…..
Yes, I feel that an attidude this callous towards terminating a potential human life does reflect on a person. They’d be last on my potential list of all-star moms. And those are my *feelings,* and as you’ve been saying, we’re all entitled to them.
Yes, I feel that an attidude this callous towards terminating a potential human life does reflect on a person. They’d be last on my potential list of all-star moms.
And I feel that this makes you a douchebag.
Oh, and Jay, you wanna STFU now?
US: National Survey (CNN-5/14-15)
The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?
30% Yes, overturn
68% No, not overturn
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_cnn51415.php
Bottom line, those that want to eliminate abortion are outnumbered by more than 2 to 1.
And while Oliver would be fine with using the force of government to force women to carry pregnancies to term, the majority of liberals don’t and the minority of principled conservatives don’t either.
What’s especially astonishing is to read right wingers denigrate pregnant women who would chose to have an abortion in all kinds of very vicious ways, but even while they are denigrating those women they would still use GOVERNMENT to force those women to carry that pregnancy to term.
Essentially the right wingers are saying that women who would chose to have abortions are bad people, bad women, and would make horrible mothers.
And then those same right wingers assert that it’s their right to force those women to have children.
And as soon as those right wingers force the birthing of those children the right wingers disappear.
Right Wing Deadbeat Daddies.
It’s right wing pretzel logic.
Good thing no one told me I was disqualified as a candidate for mom of the year, simply because I decided to not bring a child into the world when I was seriously messed up. I think my kids would disagree with the assessment that I’m abnormal, cold, or ill suited to raise another human. And, for the record, faf may be in the minority in THIS discussion, but I have known plenty of women who were relieved and grateful that they had abortions rather than carry unwanted pregnancy to term.
Here’s the key, yo mama – every time we get our periods, the chances that “potential” human life has been terminated is bloody obvious. When we wanted to be pregnant and spontaneously aborted (miscarried), it’s pretty obvious. I can’t see getting really worked up when what we want is to NOT be pregnant, and then having that come true. Making the decision may be emotional, but one assumes that the decision was made (alone or in concert with the man involved) prior to showing up for the procedure.
It’s not all that difficult for those of us with a uterus to think of things done to the uterus by doctors as medical procedures, regardless of how YOU think we should feel about our reproductive organs. Trust me, when a bunch of doctors feel free to lift my internal organs out of my body so that everyone in the operating theater can marvel that I produced a kid at all, I’m fairly clear that getting a c-section or having an abortion are medical procedures. Getting a swollen ovary removed is a medical procedure. Having your uterine wall scraped to prevent continual bleeding is a medical procedure. A hysterectomy is a medical procedure. I have known women who have had these things done and saw them as medical procedures. These are our parts. We have them worked on, just like other people have their parts worked on.
Your problem seems to be the inability to understand that not everyone agrees with you on when a zygote becomes a human. And yes, that is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think you are entitled to dictate what I do with my body based on your opinion nor should you judge how any woman reacts to situations in her life based on what SHE feels is the right thing to do.
Right winger “Jay” citing “Others”: “for somebody (especially a woman) to think so casually about it is off. Odd. Strange. Cold. Not normal.”
And yet “Jay” would force that woman to have a child and then “Jay” would disappear.
“Jay” you are a Right Wing Deadbeat Daddy.
How many kids do you think your Government Policies have abandoned, “Jay”?
A million? 20 million? More?
I know it’s pointless bringing it up here, but it’s not the government’s job to take care of everyone’s kids.
Reba, I’m pretty much done with this thread. I summed my views up a couple times already. I’m with the majority of Americans on this issue, and that is pro-choice with some restrictions. On this we’ll have to agree to disagree. As far as the accusation that I *tell people how to feel,* it’s just not true. People feel what they feel. And on this issue, most don’t treat it as your routine trip to the Doc for a checkup. And to treat an abortion as such *is* abnormal and unusually callous. That is the way I most others feel, and as one previous commenter stated, no one can tell someone else *how to feel.* People can, should and do however make judgements about someone’s character by how they feel about certain things. Obvious example: A sociopath feels *nothing* when he screws other people over. I’m not telling him how to feel, but it’s my personal judgement to not want to associate with individuals like this. (And no, I’m not equating everyone that’s had an abortion with psychotic sociopaths, only a very select few)
Thank you all for the debate.
Have a good evening.
Right winger “yo mama”, who brags about not paying their taxes, now demands that GOVERNMENT FORCE be used to force women to carry pregnancies to term.
Classic right winger: they evade taxes and then demand that the government they didn’t pay for use force to invade the personal lives of strangers.
“yo mama”, your Deadbeat Daddy Party owes some back child support in the form of taxes.
At least every time deadbeat daddies like “yo mama” use the internet it makes it easier to track them down.
Sorry, can’t help myself.
Wow! You’re so mad at me you typed in blue! And went completely off topic!
I rule.
Reba: “Your problem seems to be the inability to understand that not everyone agrees with you on when a zygote becomes a human.”
I think that’s the key.
Also, if you have faith that life begins at conception, and that is certainly a product of faith, then odds are this ‘late term’ abortion talk is all a smokescreen.
How can you say late term abortions are wrong but first trimester abortions are not, when life begins at conception?
However, you know that banning all abortions is a losing argument, so you try to chip away a free choice as much as you can now, hoping to further restrict it down the road.
“And yes, that is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think you are entitled to dictate what I do with my body based on your opinion nor should you judge how any woman reacts to situations in her life based on what SHE feels is the right thing to do.”
This seems obvious to me.
One thing I’ve noticed is paranoia on the left that abortion may be outlawed. My opinion is this is because the smartest of the prochoice people understand that legal abortions rest upon a foundation of sand. The decision of the Supreme Court on abortion was a travesty.
This is most properly a state’s right issue. If the prochoice side had any brains, after their illegitimate victory through judicial activism, they would have tried to legislate proabortion laws at the state level. They would have won some and they would have lost some but they would have a much stronger backstop then they have now.
As it is now abortion remains an extremely controversial issue. LOL what if Obama picks a Souterstyle justice who turns 180 on him. The very idea that one supreme court justice over another could make a difference on an issue like abortion shows how much the idea of a government of laws not men has been corrupted by judicial activism.
Lest the rabid who dwell here heap more flame upon me than usual let me make my position clear. We as a nation would be much better off with fewer rather than more abortions. I believe the option for an abortion should exist. I don’t believe it is a constitutional issue on the federal level. Wade vs. Roe is an illegitimate decision and I wish the women who harp the loudest about this would have done the right thing and secured abortion rights on a state by state basis. Look to the homo lobby, thier greatest achievements come from successful legitimate legislative action.
most of those people seem completely unable to accept that some people don’t think that getting an abortion needs to be some huge fucking deal.
It’s the hand wringing complexity seems to stop and everything becomes black and white once someone refuses to concede that it always has be some kind of emotional ordeal for everyone.
Once again you’re raising it to this ridiculous level man! Cut that shit out already. Nobody said a woman has to walk around sobbing hysterically for weeks or months on end or pace endless until the carpet in their house wears out deciding whether or not to get an abortion.
But you (and greystoke or whatever the hell her name is) seem content with treating getting an abortion and the aftermath like removing a hangnail.
And I’m saying that’s kind of cold. You don’t like that point of view? TOUGH SHIT. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I am to mine.
And yeah, you know what? For somebody to treat pregnancy so flippantly that deciding whether to keep the baby or not is the equivalent of deciding whether or not somebody wants Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi makes me think in some small way they don’t deserve the privilege of motherhood/fatherhood.
But then again, look who I’m talking to? The person that believes getting abortion is a responsible action after a roll in the hay produces offspring.
And News Reference?
Back in the cage, ok?
Freak.
Nobody said a woman has to walk around sobbing hysterically for weeks or months on end or pace endless until the carpet in their house wears out deciding whether or not to get an abortion.
Jay, if a woman doesn’t have to “walk around sobbing hysterically for weeks or months on end” because she got an abortion, why should she have to feel bad about it at all?
And yeah, you know what? For somebody to treat pregnancy so flippantly that deciding whether to keep the baby or not is the equivalent of deciding whether or not somebody wants Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi makes me think in some small way they don’t deserve the privilege of motherhood/fatherhood.
Now look who’s raising, or rather lowering, things to a ridiculous level, man!
Deciding to carry a pregnancy to term can be a difficult choice if it wasn’t planned but if you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then any anxiety over “ending a human life” doesn’t really enter into the equation, does it?
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the decision was made flippantly. It just means that there’s no reason to treat abortion as anything other than an elective medical procedure, when weighing one’s options.
Finally, Jay, you previously wrote:
Of course, now your espousing the exact same sentiment that you called “goofy” when you assumed I was making it up and that Yo Mama had not actually said it.
And yeah, you know what? For somebody to treat pregnancy so flippantly that deciding whether to keep the baby or not is the equivalent of deciding whether or not somebody wants Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi makes me think in some small way they don’t deserve the privilege of motherhood/fatherhood.
And yeah, you know what? This makes you a douchebag, too.
Two things the right wingers here have shown a complete indifference to:
– The breathing child.
– The pregnant woman.
To the right wing it’s not about the breathing child nor is it about the pregnant woman.
—————-
Reducing unwanted pregnancies can happen in numerous ways.
Right winger’s solution is to use Government to force women they’ve never met to carry pregnancies to term.
But reducing unwanted pregnancies can start with better education.
But right wingers are generally against sex education.
——–
Reducing unwanted pregnancies could be done by reducing the circumstances in which they happen: poor support of the women who make those choices.
A list of those circumstances would include poverty.
But right wingers don’t have any interest in reducing poverty, they are still fighting against having even a minimum wage let alone having government provide health care.
——–
Right wingers who have never adopted talk about adoption as if there weren’t long lists of unadopted children.
Instead of talking about it those right wingers could act and actually adopt.
——–
With rare exceptions right wingers are against sex education, against minimizing poverty, don’t adopt, have little concern for the breathing child and even less concern for the pregnant woman.
But right wingers still want to use the force of government to force women they have never met to carry pregnancies to term.
This coming from a right wing movement who has simultaneously been trying to ‘drown the US government in a bathtub’ for the last 30 years.
As has been said elsewhere,
The Republican Party is the Party of No: The Party of NO EMPATHY.
Uh, hope I’m not regurgitating something someone said, but this bothered me mid way through the comments. It’s about “parental notification”. Seems many are for it, except in the case of parents raping the kids.
So…before this girl can get an abortion, she has to get a lawyer, go to court, and plead her case? Doesn’t anyone see how insane that is?
Oliver: If you admit that “1st trimester” is arbitrary, like 18 is an adult, then you lose that point automatically. You are basically admitting that you don’t have a reason, but you’ll stand by the position anyway. Not good enough.
rat_bastard said “The minimum that we as a society ask people who are going to have consensual sex is that they are adults. This is because Sex has consequences that cannot be simply waved away. If the man has consensual sex with someone who has no intention of having his children then he could have at least found that out before having sex.”
Seriously, what the hell??? You don’t have to be an adult to have consensual sex, and despite your seemingly strange assertion, consensual sex isn’t just for procreation.
And yes, sex does have consequences that can be waved away. The morning after pill, early abortion that is induced with a pill. You may not like it, but that is “waving” away the consequences. And the use of the word consequences reveals how you feel about sex in general (well…that whole paragraph did). Sex is very serious…you have to think long and hard (really really really hard) before doing it…well…it isn’t. You shouldn’t get punished for doing something that you find fun and enjoyable. Not every action deserves “consequences”. This isn’t the 50’s.
Kevin….
I’d say that sex should probably be taken a bit more seriously than it is now. Look @ the out of wedlock births and STD’s being spread around the world. You displayed a very irresponsible attitude with the last part of your post. It isn’t about “deserving” a consequence. It’s about the fact that a lot of times, there *are* consequences. Being put in the position to either have a child or to opt for an abortion is a consequence. So are AIDS, Herpes, etc. It doesn’t matter what decade we’re in here.
I’d say the whole “do what you want, when you want, how you want” type of attitude has harmed our society in some ways.
Man. Normally I wouldn’t bother reading through 136 (as I type this) comments, but this was some seriously popcorn worthy stuff. Watching people go “YOU HATE WOMEN” after someone says “I don’t think you should be able to abort fetuses which can live outside the womb” is amusing. And the whole “women should feel guilty” would be worth its own thread.
But the tops really should be News Reference first telling Oliver he’s basically a right wing shill, and then him devolving into the ape-like flinging of poop. Only that could top CSS saying that he’s capable of being an indifferent and dispassionate observer of ANYTHING. I’m pretty sure CSS would fly into a chair-throwing rage if a cashier accidently gave him the wrong amount of change.
This is an issue where the left generally supports people making their own choices without government interference.
And the right generally supports government interfering with the personal choices of people.
It’s always interesting to see where right wingers honestly stand with their call for a small government that doesn’t interfere with people’s personal choices.
The fact is that most right wingers claims of wanting a smaller government that doesn’t interfere with people’s choices are hollow and false.
Most right wingers actually want a strong government to enforce their will on everyone else but themselves.
It’s Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules are for Other People.
LOL
News Reference is a piece of work. Liberal, progressive, and tolerant.
News Reference: Independent with a Conservative streak.
I’m one of those independents that the Republican Party lost because people like “yo mama” and “Amused Observer” became the essence of the Republican Party: the ‘No Empathy’ Party completely indifferent to anyone but themselves.
Grow a conscience guys.
“Newsy” reminds me of one of the things that bugs me about most liberals. Yes, they are all about “choice” — as long as the matter being chosen involves sex. Otherwise, “choice” is a bad, bad thing.
Can I “choose” whether or not I can possess firearms?
Can I “choose” to not have health insurance?
Can I “choose” to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?
Can I “choose” whether or not to wear a seat belt?
Can I “choose” to fund my own retirement entirely on my own?
(For the record, I don’t own any guns, have health insurance, don’t ride a motorcyle, and always wear my seat belt. I have a 401K, but don’t expect to ever get a penny back from Social Security.)
“Newsy” repeatedly describes himself/herself/itself as having a “conservative” streak.” I apologize if I ever said “Newsy” didn’t have a sense of humor — that’s quite the knee-slapper.
J.
SFC B: <i.Only that could top CSS saying that he’s capable of being an indifferent and dispassionate observer of ANYTHING.
You noticed that, did you? Yeah, that one I’ve had to bookmark, right next to Evolution of Dance and other online comedy classics.
And yeah, you know what? This makes you a douchebag, too.
No Fafaroo. YOU’RE the douchebag. Because only a douchebag would think about pregnancy and the decision to keep or not keep a child in the same mindset one thinks about whether to have regular fries or seasoned fries.
Woman: Fafaroo, I’m pregnant
Fafaroo: Huh. Keeping it or not?
Woman: I think I am going to get an abortion.
Fafaroo: Great. What’s for dinner?
You shouldn’t get punished for doing something that you find fun and enjoyable. Not every action deserves “consequences”. This isn’t the 50’s.
And you may not think that actions deserve consequences, but there are actions taken that sometimes HAVE consequences and the people involved should faced up to those consequences.
Sorry, but I find it kind of repugnant that people utilize access to abortion as a means of birth control.
I halfway expected CSS’s next comment to involve wishing someone would swallow bleach. He’s so amusing when his dispassionate nature gives way to his complete inability to control his boundless rage at anonymous people on Teh Intertoobz.
Jay: Sorry, but I find it kind of repugnant that people utilize access to abortion as a means of birth control.
As long as it isn’t the only form of birth control made available to them.
If there was universal, single payer health care provided by government there would be an immediate and sharp reduction in abortions.
Right winger “Jay Tea” vigorously argued on behalf of government forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to term but then managed to claim he wasn’t taking a position.
Then right winger “Jay Tea” obliquely brings up multiple (and off topic) right wing complaints including being forced by government to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle (something an EMT* aqcuaintance used to call a “donor cycle” after he’d responded to a few crashes) and whether or not he should be forced to wear a seat beat.
Isn’t wearing a seat belt while in a car and wearing a helmet while on a motorcycle the conservative thing to do?
It’s also conservative to have insurance programs (whether it’s health insurance or retirement insurance) provided by a provider that isn’t looting the programs.
Private insurers loot the insurance programs they offer. Private insurers loot billions in profit and return less in insurance claim benefits, it’s the essence of private insurance.
Government insurance programs are cheaper and provide better benefits because they aren’t taking out billions in private profits.
Conservatively speaking, government does a better job providing insurance programs (health insurance and retirement insurance). That’s a mathematical fact.
Government run Social Security insurance is more conservative than private retirement plans like 401k, most 401ks lost 40% to 60% of their value and will likely take decades to repair (some who have retired on their 401ks don’t have decades to wait for those investments to repair their value).
With some conservative fixes Social Security insurance will be good for another 70 years.
Conservative: wearing a seat belt, wearing a helmet, having health insurance, having retirement insurance.
All conservative things that conserve the lives of air breathing human beings.
Again, getting back to the topic:
If there was universal, single payer health care provided by government there would be an immediate and sharp reduction in abortions.
Right wingers are awful quick to use government force to force strangers into carrying pregnancies to term…
… but when it comes to any number of things that would reduce abortions, right wingers don’t want anything to do with those things if it reduces the profits of private medical-corporations or it costs them a penny.
It’s the Right Wing Deadbeat Daddy Party.
*EMT: Emergency Medical Technician
Right winger “Jay”: “And you may not think that actions deserve consequences, but there are actions taken that sometimes HAVE consequences and the people involved should faced up to those consequences.”
Which is exactly the point: Right wingers use the force of government to force strangers to carry pregnancies to term.
Those right wingers then disappear, taking no responsibility for the consequences of their actions of using the force of government to force the birth of a child.
The person who chooses abortion is facing the consequences of their actions.
But that choice is taken away from them by the force of government.
The right wing has repeatedly asserted the use of government force requires government to take responsibility for what the government has forced to happen.
Well, right wingers want to use government force to force the birth of a child.
That child is now partially their (right wingers) responsibility.
But right wingers duck out on that responsibility.
Right wingers use government force to force the birth of a child and then evade the consequences of those actions.
Right Wingers are the Deadbeat Daddy Party.
Right wingers refuse to face the consequences of their actions.
I’m probably going to deeply regret asking News Reference to explain something, but I’d really like the explaination how gov’t single payer will result in fewer abortions.
I’d really like the explaination how gov’t single payer will result in fewer abortions.
Because education regarding contraception and prescriptions for birth control pills/diaphragms/depo provera, etc. would become affordable for a lot of poor people who currently have no access to health care. It’s fairly simple, really.
First: people would have better access to appropriate birth control and considerably better access to health care professional’s advice, so there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Second: it reduce the concerns of potential parents of the overwhelming costs of having children.
As much as right wingers don’t see ‘costs’ of having children as a legitimate reason not to have an abortion, facing those consequences is a realistic evaluation that a potentially expecting parent needs to face.
As I recall, a friend’s insurance company paid considerably over $10,000 dollars to the medical-corporation that oversaw his wife’s pregnancy.
That’s just costs for the pregnancy. That didn’t include healthcare costs after birth.
My friend was quite explicit. Without those costs being covered by his health insurance plan he and his wife would have had an abortion.
There are a lot of people that make that same difficult choice.
Parents make the painful calculations of when it’s best to bring a child into the world all the time.
One of those calculations is whether they can afford what’s best for the breathing child.
Remove the concerns about the crushing costs of health care (amongst other things) and more people would chose to carry pregnancies to term.
Thank you, Reba.
[corrected]
Remove the concerns about the crushing costs of health care (amongst other things) and more people would choose to carry pregnancies to term.
As long as it isn’t the only form of birth control made available to them.
Oh I know. Rubbers are just way too expensive for people and are only sold in remote locations.
SDM: As long as it isn’t the only form of birth control made available to them.
jay: Oh I know. Rubbers are just way too expensive for people and are only sold in remote locations.
Actually, yes, There are some places where birth control is not readily available. Or some people for who it is harder to obtain. Add those pharmacists, for example, who refuse to fill prescriptions that they are “morally” opposed to. And even where birth control is available an uncomfortably large number of folks are not aware they need to make use of them (“I thought you couldn’t get pregnant if she’s on top.”)
So if you want to make sure abortion isn’t used as a method of birth control, you have to support education and availability.
News Reference
I am starting to think you are a plant here to make the left look insane. If you are, you’re doing a fine job of it. If not, well then, you’re just batshit crazy.
Going to need to call bullshit on that. The birth control methods you listed Reba cost anywhere between $8 and $30 a month, with an additional fee for a visit to the Dr. to get a prescription. Of the 800,000+ women who got an abortion in America last year, how many of them do you think are at the far left end of the income curve so that they cannot afford the $15 a month to reduce their likelihood of getting pregnant (but can still afford an abortion)? And that’s before we even factor in the cheapest form of birth control, the condom, which is given away for free. I’m sorry Reba, but the “universal healthcare will reduce the number of abortions because of better access to birth control” theory just doesn’t seem to work.
Again, bullshit. The cost to carry a child to term and have it delivered is a small part of the cost of raising a child. If a woman makes the choice that she cannot afford to raise the child (which universal healthcare who have little effect on) then she would still be likely to choose to have the child aborted, whether or not the actual cost of the delivery will be passed on to everyone else.
Just for giggles though I did some simple research and back-of-the-napkin math comparing US abortion rates and that of other countries with the healthcare systems News Reference is stroking himself to.
2002 (the only year I could get all the info I was looking for on all the countires I checked)
USA: 142,000,000 women, 854,000 abortions, 1:167 women
ENG: 25,000,000 women, 176,000 abortions, 1:142 women
CAN: 15,800,000 women, 105,000 abortions, 1:150 women
SWE: 4,500,000 women, 33,000 abortions, 1:136 women
FRA: 30,000,000 women, 130,000 abortions, 1:230 women
So, despite not having the sort of national healthcare programs of nations like England and Canada, US women are less likely to have an abortion than women in those countries. I suppose a second-level of research would be to compare the abortion rates for women in the child bearing years, but given that France, Canada, England, and Sweden all have a higher median age than Americans I doubt that will support the theory that “Government Healthcare reduces abortions”.
Oh, gosh, “Newsy” singled me out again! With scare quotes and everything! I feel so SPECIAL.
Right winger “Jay Tea” vigorously argued on behalf of government forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to term but then managed to claim he wasn’t taking a position.
No, you gibbering dolt, I challenged others’ arguments. I didn’t put forth any of my own. Look up “Socratic Method.”
Then right winger “Jay Tea” obliquely brings up multiple (and off topic) right wing complaints including being forced by government to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle (something an EMT* aqcuaintance used to call a “donor cycle” after he’d responded to a few crashes) and whether or not he should be forced to wear a seat beat.
No, they were not off-topic. They were examples of where “choice” is NOT considered a good thing by those who argue for “choice.” Would you care to cite examples NOT related to sex that the left is the side of giving people the right to choose for themselves?
Isn’t wearing a seat belt while in a car and wearing a helmet while on a motorcycle the conservative thing to do?
No, it isn’t. And it isn’t the “liberal” thing to do. It’s the SMART thing to do.
I happen to believe in letting idiots act like idiots if they insist upon it.
As I said above, I am a seat belt use militant. I always wear one. If you ride with me, you wear one, too.
I do that because I don’t want to die that way. If you want to be an idiot, I will call you one, but I won’t try to protect you from your own idiocy. And I don’t think it’s the government’s job to do that, either.
New Hampshire has a mandatory seat belt for those under 18, and I think that’s right. But once you’re a legal adult, you’re responsible for yourself.
The same principle holds for motorcycle helmets and NH law.
My 401K took about a 25% hit last fall. I still have more faith in it than the Social Security system, and recently upped my contribution to it (for a couple of reasons that make financial sense for my circumstances).
If my 401K tanks, that’s my problem. Because it was MY CHOICE.
Something that “Newsy” can’t quite grasp, it seems.
J.
SFC B,
I must say you have an interesting take on this aspect of this issue. And I will have to think more about it.
Question where did you get those numbers? Would you be so kind as to provide a link so I can read the background information on them?
Honestly, I just Googled “number of abortions” and named some countries which I know are held up as paragons of universal healthcare. I did round up on the female populations and rounded down on the # of abortions since round numbers make math easier for me. Again, back-of-the-napkin.
I also checked the numbers on some other western nations to see if I just happened to pick some which make the US look good.
Germany 1:323
Belgium 1:333
Denmark: 1:183
Italy 1:223
Netherlands: 1:253
Spain: 1:223
This actually kind of surprised me. I figured that France was just going to be a huge outlier, but turns out they’re no where near the top.
Like all European countries these six have universal health care, however The Netherlands has private insurance for those who do not require long-term care (long-term care is paid for by the gov’t). Since the issue at hand is abortions for women in the child-bearing age group, they would be mostly covered by private insurers.
All of these nations have populations older than the US, and have lower birth rates (this is true for all the the nations I’ve listed so far, not just these five here). So, they have fewer women in their child-bearing years to begin with, and fewer of those they have are getting pregnant. Maybe sex education programs have something to do with it, but I’d be curious why Denmark and The Netherlands have such higher rates when compared to neighboring nations like Belgium, Germany, and France. It wouldn’t shock me if the heavily Catholic Italy had some cultural issues at play as well, but that’s just guessing on my part.
I’m going to stand behind my calling of “bullshit” on News Reference’s claim that universal, single-payer health care will reduce the number of abortions in the US. The US’s abortion rate is similar to (and lower than) many of the nations often cited as having the sort of health care system we should adopt. And this is despite having a population which is younger, larger, and more-likely-to-procreate.
SFC B, please post a link to a credible source and I’ll look them over them.
My quick check suggests your stats are wrong (see below *).
As for someone not having $15 to $30 extra a month, you clearly don’t know anyone struggling financially.
I know folk, who are very careful with their money, who feel lucky if they are only in the red by $15 to $30 every month.
And last I heard, a half a million people a month were losing their jobs (with the associated loss in their healthcare).
And again, the last person I knew whose wife had a scheduled pregnancy at a hospital cost his insurance company $10,000.
That figure seemed outside the norm but he insisted that without health insurance the hospital would have charged him more. Perhaps there were complications I’m not aware of.
While it’s only an anecdote, my friend was quite sincere that if he didn’t have good health insurance he and his wife would have chosen an abortion.
But he did have good health insurance and a good union job to back it up.
——
* Some ‘quick research’
My copy of the 2001 CIA World Factbook has the UK’s population at:
Population: 59,647,790 (July 2001 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 18.89% (male 5,778,415; female 5,486,114)
15-64 years: 65.41% (male 19,712,932; female 19,304,771)
65 years and over: 15.7% (male 3,895,921; female 5,469,637) (2001 est.)
=================
The total UK female population recorded in the 2001 World Factbook: 30,260,522, you list 25,000,000 women in the UK in 2002.
Are you only listing women under 65 for the UK?
Was there a horrible accident in the UK where 5,000,000 women left or died?
Do I need to check all your other statistics?
Is my 2001 Factbook wrong?
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “I happen to believe in letting idiots act like idiots if they insist upon it.”
I happen to take the conservative position that when idiots risk their lives it hurts more than just themselves. Beyond the idiot’s family losing their family idiot it also means that when the idiots have accidents and weren’t wearing their auto seat belts and car helmets it puts a demand on medical care that I’m comfortable reducing by insisting that the idiot at least wear a car seat belt of motorcycle helmet.
But then I’m conservative that way.
If you want to be an idiot, “Jay Tea,” I might call you an idiot, but I would also try to protect you from your own idiocy.
Again, I’m conservative that way.
Yes, I’d even go out of my way to conserve your life, you idiot, “Jay Tea.”
As for you losing 25% from your 401k, I think you did considerably better than the average. As I understand it, most 401ks lost between 40% to 60%. In any case, if you had been planning on retiring on your 401k this year, you would be doing so with 25% less than you had just last year.
If you had had a job with fixed benefits, say a good union job, you would have a better chance of still receiving 100% of your benefits instead of having them arbitrarily cut by down to 75%.
Instead, you’ve had to increase your contribution to your 401k because 25% of it’s value was arbitrarily wiped out of it (by the magic of the free market).
You have to replace what was lost. It’s impossible to even calculate how long that will take because unless you liquidate to a cash only position your portfolios might take other losses in the coming years.
Social Security is there just in case you completely lost your retirement nest egg.
Social Security is still paying out 100%. But it’s largely an emergency retirement insurance.
Oh, and Social Security could be fully funded for the next 70 years with very conservative fixes.
Social Security insurance is there as a ‘just in case’ your retirement portfolio is completely wiped out.
SFC B, you list the 2002 UK’s woman population as 25,000,000
————
Found a copy of the 2002 World Factbook:
Population: 59,778,002 (July 2002 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 18.7% (male 5,732,385; female 5,443,900)
15-64 years: 65.5% (male 19,803,478; female 19,381,734)
65 years and over: 15.8% (male 3,931,463; female 5,485,042) (2002 est.)
============
30,310,676 women are listed as UK’s female population in 2002.
Please cite your sources, SFC B. So far you are zero for two.
Mine were the 2001 and 2002 CIA World Factbook, respectively.
Aw, thanks for your concern, “Newsy.” But I would be most appreciative if you’d just butt the fuck out and let me live my own life the way I wish. And if I wish to endanger myself, then that’s none of your fucking business.
Unless, of course, you’d reciprocate and let me audit the way you live and tell you what you need to stop doing.
No, not even then.
Social Security is still paying out 100%. But it’s largely an emergency retirement insurance.
Oh, and Social Security could be fully funded for the next 70 years with very conservative fixes.
Social Security insurance is there as a ‘just in case’ your retirement portfolio is completely wiped out.
So, everyone gets taxed equally, but it’s only guaranteed for those who screw up and don’t save for their own retirement? It’s only for the inept, and the responsible get to pay for them? That ain’t how I understood it.
If that’s the case, can I opt out of Social Security? There’s a talk show host who has an interesting idea: he’ll cheerfully sign over all the money he’s paid into Social Security if he can only opt out of it and manage his own retirement money. He’s in his 50s and very successful, so he’s paid a LOT into the system. He’ll give that up entirely, pledge to never ever ever request a penny of it back, if he can only stop paying in. Doesn’t that sound fair? Hell, I’d go for it.
Kindly phrase your answer without sounding too patronizing, without talking like the nanny state, without saying (implicitly or explicitly) that we’re all just too stupid or inept to manage our own money, and we all need to be protected from our own mistakes and let our money be managed by the government.
J.
Actually, I’m not. I used England (technically England and Wales). The CIA Factbook you’re citing lists the UK as a whole. Including Scotland and Northern Ireland accounts for most of the disceprancy. The rest is the result of my ghetto rounding. And, as I said, quick and dirty. I just took the total listed population for the particular country and went w/ 51% of that as representing the number of women. It actually holds up halfway decent for being so inaccurate, but since there are better sources I should use those.
Since I have the time now, and apparently people have the interest… I guess I can see what happens with more accurate numbers…. let’s see…
Source on number of abortions:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm
Source for population:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/geos/it.html (thanks News reference)
Since the World Fact Book breaks it down by age group and gender, I’m going to make an assumption that the number of 65+ women having abortions is negligible, and that instances where it does happen are most likely related to the health of the mother. With that in mind I’m only going to use the women under 65 for the female population. If anyone objects to that feel free to run the numbers yourself.
The theory put forward by News Reference and supported by Reba is that the US would have fewer abortions if it went to a universal health care with the gov’t as the single payer because more women would have access to health care options like birth control, thus having less need to terminate unwanted pregnancies. All of the countries I’m citing have such a health care system. I suggest that, if Reba and News Reference are right, the US will have an abortion rate higher than these countries for the population of women in their child-bearing years.
All of this is from 2002 which is the last year for which I have info on all the countries.
(apologize for possibly issues w/ how the columns line up)
COUNTRY; FEMALE <65; ABORTIONS; RATIO; BR/1000
BEL; 4213006; 14791; 285; 10.58
GER; 33922687; 130,387;260; 8.99
SPA; 16405215 75,419; 218; 9.29
NET; 6799553; 34,168; 199; 11.58
FRA; 24881307; 137,497;181; 11.94
ITA; 23446207; 131,039;179; 8.93
DEN; 2248270; 14,991; 150; 11.74
USA; 122751651; 854122; 144; 14.1
CAN; 13768072; 105154; 131; 11.09
UK; 24825634; 198616; 125; 11.34
SWE; 3600788; 33,365; 108; 9.81
Well, that tightened things up a bit. Factoring out the population of women likely too old to get pregnant brings Germany and Belgium a lot closer to the rest of the group. While the US has an abortion rate higher than most of the countries with gov’t, single payer, it is only about 20% higher than the mid point, and is lower than the two countries I usually see it’s health care system compared to in commentary on the subject. Then there is also the fact that more people in the US are getting pregnant in the first place, which would increase the chances for abortions to occur. So, I continue to stand by calling News Reference’s theory “bullshit”.
I apologize for how the chart came out. It looked fine in my text box, but posted w/o the extra spacing.
Since I’m not happy with providing only one year’s worth of data I went ahead and pulled data for other years. While looking for the data not listed for some countries in my original source for the abortion numbers I found something kind of interesting.
http://www.ined.fr/en/pop_figures/france/abortion_contraception/abortions/
It seems that France has two different sets of numbers for abortions. I’m using the lower one since that’s the one put out by the French Health Ministry, but if you use the one which apparently counts the number of abortions performed in hospitals it is signifigantly higher. I have no idea why this difference exists as my French sucks.
Here is the same chart for the year 2005. Hopefully it will present better this time.
COUNTRY; FEMALE <65; ABORTIONS; RATIO; BR/1000
GER; 32,770,023; 124,000; 264; 8.99
BEL; 4,229,094; 16,696; 253; 10.48
NET; 6,945,034; 32,982; 211; 11.14
SPA; 16,480,218; 91,664; 180; 10.1
FRA; 25,192,492; 144,856; 174; 11.94
ITA; 23,093,917; 137,140; 168; 8.89
USA; 129,028,123; 820,151; 157; 14.14
DEN; 2,278,590; 15,103; 151; 11.36
CAN; 14,113,600; 97,254; 145; 11.09
UK; 25,085,553; 207,004; 121; 10.78
SWE; 3,652,494; 34,978; 104; 10.36
If you’re curious, using that unofficial number from France makes its ratio 1:122 women and dropping it all the way to third from the bottom.
So, between 2002 and 2005 the US managed to reduce it’s abortion rate by 5%, move up into the middle third of the listed nations, and reduce the gap between the US and the top third to less than 25%. All with no changes to how national health care in the US is done regarding abortions. And since the population of the US continues to increase, while the number of abortions has decreased, I’d be willing to bet that this trend would hold true to the current year.
Again, News Reference’s theory on how single-payer will reduce the number of abortions is bullshit.
If you admit that “1st trimester” is arbitrary, like 18 is an adult, then you lose that point automatically. You are basically admitting that you don’t have a reason, but you’ll stand by the position anyway. Not good enough.
Huh? These guidelines are all arbitrary. But we’ve decided as a society what an adult’s age is. At that age you’re free to choose your own medical decisions. And under that age you’re under your parent/guardian’s care. That’s how it works.
There are some 10 year olds that can drive a car. But the law says 10 year olds can’t drive. So they can’t.
If they don’t have an extra $15-30 in a month, how the heck do they scrape together the $500-1000 that an abortion can cost (in the first trimester, gets more expensive the further along the baby is). So, yet again, universal health care will reduce abortions takes a hit because those who would use it because they’re too poor otherwise already can’t afford the abortion, so they have the baby.
Quite frankly, if a woman is in her child-bearing years, is sexually active, doesn’t want to get pregnant for whatever reason, and isn’t using any of the plethora of birth control methods available to her for a negligible expense already, I doubt that having everyone else pay for her doctor’s visit, and subsequent prescription, is going to make a lick of difference in whether this hypothetical woman will use BC.
And then we even have to consider human behavior. Let’s assume that a young, sexually active woman who doesn’t want children, and is too poor to pay the monthly expense of refilling her BC pills, now lives in an America with gov’t single payer. She’s already living paycheck-to-paycheck, as evidenced by her not even able to afford the free or minimal cost condoms available at just about any health clinic. To get her BC she will need a doctor’s appt. That appt will likely require her to miss work. Missing work is taking money out of her pocket. So she needs to go on a day off. Maybe her day off coincides w/ a day the doctor is available, maybe it doesn’t. This even assumes that this hypothetical woman wants to spend a day at the doctor’s office waiting to get an examination and a prescription.
Birth Control is affordable and readily available for anyone who wants to use it. Single payer gov’t healthcare will not improve that situation, and will likely make it worse by increasing the time it takes for a woman to get the necessary appointments to get the prescriptions necessary for the female-oriented BC methods.
“SFC B”, interesting analysis and very commendable effort.
Yet even your own accounting forces you to concede that “the US has an abortion rate higher than most of the countries with gov’t, single payer”.
The numbers you cite further indicate that more than half countries you list with some form of nationalized health care have lower abortion rates than the US.
And I’m still skeptical of your numbers, especially since the first figure I checked of yours was wrong by 15% in a way that falsely bolstered your argument.
Also, the Wm. Robert Johnston of johnstonsarchive.net that you cite isn’t a credible source, Johnston went out of his way to alter a transcript of Obama talking about “the Democratic Party” to the slur “the Democrat Party”.
If the guy is going to alter a clear transcript to push his agenda then all his numbers become suspect, especially when he has a clear anti-choice agenda as well.
The CDC.gov report you cited is interesting except that it covers 2005, not the year 2002, for which you did your initial analysis.
———
By the way, what does BR/1000 stand for?
Oliver: “we’ve decided as a society what an adult’s age is. At that age you’re free to choose your own medical decisions. And under that age you’re under your parent/guardian’s care.”
And yet you miss the excellent point Reba makes that “how is it okay for a minor to carry a pregnancy to term, thereby becoming a parent responsible for the care of a child, but it isn’t okay to make the decision to NOT do that?”
As Evie points out, “Being pregnant emancipates a minor for good reason.”
You would force a child to bear a child but not give that child the rights as a parent that you assert is a parent’s rights to have.
Oliver: “There are some 10 year olds that can drive a car. But the law says 10 year olds can’t drive. So they can’t.”
10 year olds aren’t allowed to have sex but God forgot to tell their biology that.
It’s not a hypothetical question to ask, would you allow a parent to force their 10 year old child to have a baby?
http://google.com/search?q=9+year+old+Brazil+Catholic+girl
In the case of the Brazillian 9 year old, the alleged father was the child’s step-father. That’s who you would be giving the power to.
Twisted.
But beyond that, as Reba eloquently put it “Providing the pregnancy is not the result of a rape, it seems to me that the girl already made her first reproductive decision without telling her parents. If they don’t have enough control to keep her from having sex, why on earth should they have enough control to force her to remain pregnant if she doesn’t want to be? The only answer I can think of is to punish her for having had sex in the first place.”
If you want to stake your claim about single-payer and abortion rates to the fact that half the nations on that list have a lower abortion rate than the US, more power to you. Personally, if I was going to make a sweeping declaration about nationalized health care and abortion I’d much rather see it being clearly the better option. As is, the US is in the middle of the pack of European nations, with a significantly higher rate of birth. Increase the average age of Americans and reduce to birth rate to Western European levels and you’d likely see America’s abortion rate lower to similar levels as Germany and Belgium.
Um, no. First off, as I said in a previous comment. I gave the number for England. The CIA World Fact Book, which you cited, gives the population for the UK (which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland). I also freely admitted that I didn’t exactly break my back getting the numbers for my first comment on this. If you see an error with the posts after I stated I’d use the WFB’s number for females < 65, please point it out so I can see where I went wrong. As it is, crowing about finding an error in a post where I openly admitted errors were likely, and finding that error because you used a different value, isn’t exactly a winning point.
If you’re going to claim that a few decades worth of complied abortion data isn’t credible because the person whose name is on the website altered a transcript concerning President Obama, you might want to provide a source for it. Fortunatly, the Johnston webpage is simply a clearinghouse for the data I was using. You’re more than welcome to cross check the data Johnston provided by going to the respective national sources for the years given. You’ll find they match (the only exception I found was the French discrepancy I noted earlier).
Check the tables in the report for previous year’s data.
Birth rate oer 1,000 people. The higher the number the more people being born, which means more women are getting pregnant, and thus a greater number of women who could potentially have an abortion. The US has the highest birthrate of any of those countries, by a large amount.
As I had inferred earlier, I’d be willing to bet that the lower abortion rate in nations like Germany and France is far more attributable to their older populations and fewer women getting pregnant than anything to do with their health care systems providing birth control. You’d think it would be common sense to think that things like demographics and culture would pay a far greater role in pregnancy and abortion stats than anything to do with who is paying for the depo shot.
Not to attempt to speak for Mr. Willis, but the point he was making (I think) isn’t specifically about 10 year olds, but about the arbitrary nature of there being certain age limits.
SFC B,
Thank you I will take a look when I have more time.
Once again it is a very interesting take thank you for providing it.
News Ref: but I would also try to protect you from your own idiocy.
Again, I’m conservative that way.
Limiting my personal freedom because you don’t like what I may do to myself. This is must be some new definition of “conservative” with which I’m unfamiliar.
SFC B: The theory put forward by News Reference and supported by Reba is that the US would have fewer abortions if it went to a universal health care with the gov’t as the single payer because more women would have access to health care options like birth control, thus having less need to terminate unwanted pregnancies. All of the countries I’m citing have such a health care system. I suggest that, if Reba and News Reference are right, the US will have an abortion rate higher than these countries for the population of women in their child-bearing years.
Not a bad approach, but to truly disprove (or prove) whether adding universal health care (UHC) would have an effect on the number of abortions you’d have to look at how many were performed in those countries before they had UHC and after.
For example, if Latveria has a 1:135 ratio and the US has 1:150 it suggest implementing a Latverian-style UHC won’t reduce the abortion rate in the US. But if Latveria had a ratio of 1:75 before instituting a UHC system then that would suggest the rate in the US would drop.
News Ref: And I’m still skeptical of your numbers, especially since the first figure I checked of yours was wrong by 15% in a way that falsely bolstered your argument.
Translation: Your first numbers didn’t support the conclusion I wanted so even though you’ve managed to explain some of the discrepancy I found with them and provide more supported data I’m not going to believe them either because they still don’t support the conclusion I like.
*sigh* Whatever happened to the comment preview? That’s twice now I forgot to put a slash in my closing “i” tag. Clearly this is OW’s fault.
Very true, but I think that it will be very difficult to separate the effects of the health care options from the demographic ones. Also, the nations I checked have had some form of single-payer, gov’t health care for years. These are not recent developments. While looking over the numbers through the years thought two things jumped out. In 1989 France had a huge spike in the number of abortions performed. This was the year RU-486 (The morning after pill) was released. Also, in 1998 the US went from over 1,000,000 abortions being performed to a little over 800,000, which is where it remains to this day.
SFC B: Very true, but I think that it will be very difficult to separate the effects of the health care options from the demographic ones.
I agree. Which is while, despite all the numbers and references being supplied, I don’t think it’s meaningful at all to compare just a single thing (existence of UHC) to the abortion rate. Too many other cultural factors may be at play. (Availability of birth control, levels of education (do they understand they need to use it?), religion (heavily Catholic country?), government policy (China’s “one child”), average age at which people become sexually active, age at which they start having kids just to rattle a few off the top of my head.)
Concern Troll Sean D. Martin: “Limiting my personal freedom because you don’t like what I may do to myself. This is must be some new definition of “conservative” with which I’m unfamiliar.”
And yet you manage to miss the half dozen plus “conservatives” here who would limit personal freedoms in this thread alone.
Clearly, Sean, you don’t know what the words “conservative” OR “conservatism” mean*. But thank you for revealing your profound ignorance in combination with your high handed willingness to assert things you clearly know nothing about.
Sean, “SFC B’s” first numbers I checked were FALSE numbers. I dug into them, they were false, they came from faulty sources, and yet Broderite Concern Trolls like yourself expect me to continue to take him for his word?
“SFC B’s” first numbers were Republican Math: The Error Magically Fell in His Favor.
Even if “SFC B’s” errors were accidental, he still asserted falsehoods in excess of my patience to correct them in just a few posts.
Still, “SFC B’s” effort is a more interesting analysis than anything any of the other right wingers have ever offered here and it’s genuinely commendable that they are trying to correct their errors, it’s the reason I spent the time looking through his numbers and sources.
His argument is interesting and he makes a strong case for it.
Yet even after his false numbers were corrected, his supplemental data provided evidence against his assertions.
Of the list of countries that have some form of government health care, more than half have fewer abortions than the US.
The data that “SFC B” himself provides supported my assertion.
But there might not be enough data to make an accurate analysis and as you yourself noted, Sean, their are still conflating factors that might be muddying up the arguments (both his and mine).
For instance, while the majority of countries that provide some form of government health care have lower abortion rates, my argument for government health care doesn’t rest on that alone.
Countries that have some form of government health care also have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies, both things that those that believe in “life” should be supportive of but curiously, as soon as it might cost them money, they disappear or change the subject.
Suddenly then it’s about costs, not “life”.
———
* In many ways, “conservatism” is the essence of limiting personal freedoms. “Conservatism” and “conservative” is about maintaining the existing social order which almost inherently requires the limitation of personal freedoms.
On the other hand, “liberalism”, at it’s heart, is definitively about ‘personal freedoms’ and the ability to exercise those ‘personal freedoms’.
“News Ref”: And yet you manage to miss the half dozen plus “conservatives” here who would limit personal freedoms in this thread alone.
Which has what exactly to do with your saying you want to limit my freedom?
and yet Broderite Concern Trolls like yourself expect me to continue to take him for his word?
No. I would hope (but not expect given the way disussions here often go), when he’s explained what caused the difference you noted (England vs England/Scotland/N. Ireland, he was making “back of envelope” quick calculations) and provided more numbers and support, that you’d respond to those. What we got (and unfortunately I’m not suprised by) was you harping on the original difference and dismissing anyone (him then, me now) who hoped for a more reasoned response.
More happily at least you are now at least acknowledging that “his argument is interesting and he makes a strong case for it.” and “as you yourself noted, Sean, their are still conflating factors that might be muddying up the arguments (both his and mine).”
Just wish we could get to that point without the other crap first.
Man, I can’t believe I missed this earlier:
“Newsy” blathered:
No, “Newsy,” I did not raise my 401K contribution because I had to replace my losses. I raised it because my second job doesn’t withhold taxes. I wanted to reduce my taxable income.
And if I lose it, so be it. I’d rather lose my money in my 401K than give it to the government to waste. With the 401K, I can control how it is invested, generally. With tax money to the government, I can sit and fume while Obama uses it to buy up auto companies and give them away to his political supporters, send Joe Biden around the world to keep him from saying more stupid stuff, build another airport for Jack Murtha, or subsidize ACORN rigging elections.
That’s my CHOICE. And that really bothers you, doesn’t it, “Newsy?” That I want to have a CHOICE that doesn’t revolve around sex, and I might CHOOSE something that doesn’t meet with your approval.
Tough shit.
J.
or subsidize ACORN rigging elections
Please stop with that nonsense. I know it’s your version of Southern Strategy, but still. You just end up watering down the credibility of other points you may make.
Going to need to agree with SDM on that. Cutting references to “ACORN” and “birth certificates” will do wonders for the clarity and credibility of an argument.
But here’s where fun with statistics comes in. The US has a stricter definition of a “live birth” compared to other nations, some of which are ahead of it on the infant mortality list.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php
BLUF: The live birth of premature, low weight babies in the US would be considered a stillbirth in other nations, which lowers their infant mortality rate.
Some of this difference between the US and other nations is due to stats, not due to a difference in how health care is paid for.
And, as far as life expectancy goes, the difference between the US at 50 and France at 9 is three years. And the US also have a significantly larger and more diverse population than the other nations above it. In fact, on the WFB list, the only entity larger than the US w/ a higher life expectancy is the EU. And the EU’s life expectancy is 78.6 years. So, all of that nationalized health care results in a life expectancy increase of a stunning… six months. Wow… I’d happily sign away my freedom of choice over my own health in exchange of living from 78 to 78 and a half.
Oh, and hey News Reference, do me a favor a Google the phrase “population of England 2002″.
Fine, delete the ACORN reference (never mind that they’re under investigation in 14 states, and have numerous convictions for voter fraud). Got anything else?
J.
You just end up watering down the credibility of other points you may make.
sigh.
Fine, fafaroo. Let’s keep it real simple:
It’s MY fucking money, and if it’s going to be pissed away, I’LL be the one to decide where it’s pissed.
Oh, and I checked my 401K after my last comment. Turns out I’ve only lost about about 12% from peak. Turns out putting a quarter into Money Markets and half into a long-term growth fund was a relatively safe move.
Now, who was that Democrat who proposed ending the 401K tax deductions and folding them into Social Security?
J.
Fine, fafaroo. Let’s keep it real simple:
Great, Jay Tea! Now just tell me what you’re talking about.
Well, fafaroo, it started with how I don’t get to “choose” how to fund my retirement, and kinda meandered from there… the crux of it was how the only place where most liberals value “choice” is in matters related to sex. In a host of other areas, the traditional liberal position is to “protect” people from making bad choices. Retirement funding was one. I also tossed in seat belt and helmet laws, health insurance, and now I’ll add in smoke-free places like bars and the like.
J.
But back to the topic at hand… Oliver, I trust you’ve learned your lesson? That to the truly rabid on the “pro-choice” side, “pro-choice with restrictions” is NOT an acceptable position. If you’re “pro-choice,” then it’s with virtually NO restrictions, or you’re a woman-hating oppressor who wants to make them slaves to their uteri.
Much like the extreme on the other end.
J.