Please, please stop treating Christianity (or any religion) as if it were monolithic.
Why? Religions are, by definition, delusions.
Delusions, Mr. Anderson.
That doesn't make them monolithic delusions; but I don't want this thread to descend into religious madness so please don't carry this on.. (meta-modding lol)
I'm all for choice, but we're already at the point where you can pick up a McBortion on the way home from your night of being stupid. There is something definately off about that.
Unless you're talking about the morning after pill, that's so wrong it's not even funny. Even if you are talking about the morning after pill, it's so wrong it's not even funny.
I was alluding to that yes. And that's first-gen pharm. Give it a bit and it will take far less of a toll than it does now. It's not the same as an abortion, in that it prevents attachment instead of killing off your fetal parasite or whatever, but it's already hit popular awareness as a possible alternative to contraceptives. Dangerous, dangerous ground.
It's not an alternative to contraceptives, though, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks it is. And an argument that "we have to make abortion illegal because someday, someone might think the morning after pill is a good contraceptive" is every bit as retarded as it sounds.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Why are people on this board trying to treat abortion as if it isn't a huge decision?
Hello, exactly!
No one fucking gets an abortion on a whim. It's not a got-damn trip to the dentist for a check-up. Has anyone ever seen how one is performed?
Has anyone here been with someone who has had one?
Known anyone?
Been that person?
Jesus. How many people do you really think say "Well, I got really drunk." or "Oops...ran out of condoms. Oh well, I can abort."
Edit: and the morning after pill is no walk in the park. getting it or dealing with it. and then still not knowing.
PatboyX on
"lenny bruce is not afraid..."
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm all for choice, but we're already at the point where you can pick up a McBortion on the way home from your night of being stupid. There is something definately off about that.
Unless you're talking about the morning after pill, that's so wrong it's not even funny. Even if you are talking about the morning after pill, it's so wrong it's not even funny.
I was alluding to that yes. And that's first-gen pharm. Give it a bit and it will take far less of a toll than it does now. It's not the same as an abortion, in that it prevents attachment instead of killing off your fetal parasite or whatever, but it's already hit popular awareness as a possible alternative to contraceptives. Dangerous, dangerous ground.
It's not an alternative to contraceptives, though, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks it is. And an argument that "we have to make abortion illegal because someday, someone might think the morning after pill is a good contraceptive" is every bit as retarded as it sounds.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
I'm all for choice, but we're already at the point where you can pick up a McBortion on the way home from your night of being stupid. There is something definately off about that.
Unless you're talking about the morning after pill, that's so wrong it's not even funny. Even if you are talking about the morning after pill, it's so wrong it's not even funny.
I was alluding to that yes. And that's first-gen pharm. Give it a bit and it will take far less of a toll than it does now. It's not the same as an abortion, in that it prevents attachment instead of killing off your fetal parasite or whatever, but it's already hit popular awareness as a possible alternative to contraceptives. Dangerous, dangerous ground.
It's not an alternative to contraceptives, though, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks it is. And an argument that "we have to make abortion illegal because someday, someone might think the morning after pill is a good contraceptive" is every bit as retarded as it sounds.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
Sorry, I'm not following your IF/THAN. Could you elaborate?
It's not an alternative to contraceptives, though, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks it is. And an argument that "we have to make abortion illegal because someday, someone might think the morning after pill is a good contraceptive" is every bit as retarded as it sounds.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
I'm sure abstinence-only education is helping with that. This is also like saying that Sudafed should be banned because some people make meth with it, or that cars should be banned because some people run others over.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
I really REALLY doubt anyone that's had to go through the financial, emotional, and physical brick-to-the-head as is the Morning After Pill will think about using again in hurry, much less as regular form of birth control.
A few months ago I had to acquire it myself (condom split in the act, joy). For starters, it is EXPENSIVE at the moment. £25, which Currency Converter tells me is about $50. And that is with a reasonable chance that you'll throw up within 3 hours and have to purchase it again.
Clearly, side effects will vary from person to person, but I personally went through phases of extreme nausea, some vomiting, headaches, extreme tiredness, and the most godawful period human minds can convieve of. This lasted for about 48 hours after taking the pill.
It is not a walk in the park, and I wish people would stop using the argument that OHNOES people will use it instead of condoms, because in all honesty, it isn't something any sane person would willingly put themselves through if they had other options. I would assume the vast majority of Plan-B users are women like me who had one sort of contraceptive fail on them.
I don't understand arguments for restricting availability of Plan B in the least. If the rationale is it should be denied because it's being used in place of condoms, surely the answer is a more thorough approach to sex education starting early on, rather than punishing the people who need it the most?
Floofy on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
Sorry, I'm not following your IF/THAN. Could you elaborate?
Abortion is regulated as a medical operation, just like any other. It is heavily scrutinized, and it is required to follow standards, just like any other medical operation. The health and safety you were talking about is already being looked after.
It's not an alternative to contraceptives, though, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks it is. And an argument that "we have to make abortion illegal because someday, someone might think the morning after pill is a good contraceptive" is every bit as retarded as it sounds.
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
I'm sure abstinence-only education is helping with that. This is also like saying that Sudafed should be banned because some people make meth with it, or that cars should be banned because some people run others over.
And abortion is rigidly regulated.
Can't say I disagree with any of this. Sudafed is tracked, if not outright over-the-countered in most states, and every car needs to be registered and licensed, every driver needs to be certifed that they have a working knowledge of the rules in play.
But since we dont cocklock until you get your license, its seems a good thing to keep abortions a huge pain in the ass so it remains the last resort instead of a casual one.
Abortions will always be a huge pain in the arse because they're time-consuming, expensive and sometimes not a medically nice operation. We don't have to work to make them more painful in order to punish sluts, which seems to be the vibe coming here. They already are a last resort - this myth of women popping down to the abortion clinic because they like to ride bareback is ridiculous.
Clearly, side effects will vary from person to person, but I personally went through phases of extreme nausea, some vomiting, headaches, extreme tiredness, and the most godawful period human minds can convieve of. This lasted for about 48 hours after taking the pill.
One of my friends had the same thing happen and her experience mirrors what you went through, only she termed it as "every period she was ever going to have in her life condensed into 48 hours."
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
Sorry, I'm not following your IF/THAN. Could you elaborate?
Abortion is regulated as a medical operation, just like any other. It is heavily scrutinized, and it is required to follow standards, just like any other medical operation. The health and safety you were talking about is already being looked after.
Ah, I follow. Different wavelength. I was arguing that the reasons behind one actually getting the abortion should be examined as well. Seems like something it would be a good idea to keep tabs on.
As far as the procedure is concerned, my understanding is that is fairly safe, with minimal fertility impact. Social and psych side-effects are ... tricky to evaluate without bias.
Sarcastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
Sorry, I'm not following your IF/THAN. Could you elaborate?
Abortion is regulated as a medical operation, just like any other. It is heavily scrutinized, and it is required to follow standards, just like any other medical operation. The health and safety you were talking about is already being looked after.
Ah, I follow. Different wavelength. I was arguing that the reasons behind one actually getting the abortion should be examined as well. Seems like something it would be a good idea to keep tabs on.
As far as the procedure is concerned, my understanding is that is fairly safe, with minimal fertility impact. Social and psych side-effects are ... tricky to evaluate without bias.
Why should it be different than other medical procedures? We don't look into the reasons of plastic surgery (up to a point), and honestly, there'd be no way to do this without breaking doctor-patient privilege.
Abortions will always be a huge pain in the arse because they're time-consuming, expensive and sometimes not a medically nice operation. We don't have to work to make them more painful in order to punish sluts, which seems to be the vibe coming here. They already are a last resort - this myth of women popping down to the abortion clinic because they like to ride bareback is ridiculous.
Technology changes in favor of comfort, the law remains static in favor of precedent.
Can't say I disagree with any of this. Sudafed is tracked, if not outright over-the-countered in most states, and every car needs to be registered and licensed, every driver needs to be certifed that they have a working knowledge of the rules in play.
But since we dont cocklock until you get your license, its seems a good thing to keep abortions a huge pain in the ass so it remains the last resort instead of a casual one.
Yes, because really, why would we not want to make it as hard as possible? See, we're all middle-class, so we can afford to take the time off work, drive the 400 miles to the nearest clinic in our cars, then do it again a week later, after the waiting period is over.
And I mean, really, if you can't afford to do that, then I guess you don't really need the abortion. I'm sure you'll have a much easier time affording the kid.
My friend had a condom fail. She was freaking out and decided she wanted to get a morning after pill just to be sure later that night, and I went with her as support. The first hospital we went to didn't have any doctors on staff that would prescribe it, and the second only had one. Then we had to drive across town to find a pharmacy that was open because that hospital's pharmacy didn't give it out.
And this took place in a college town in Michigan. I can't imagine what it's like to live in a less liberal state.
So, uh...yeah...really easy to get a pill that needs to be taken within 48 hours of the act which itself probably caused a decent amount of anxiety.
MalaysianShrew on
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Plan B basically do the same thing as regular hormonal BC pills (prevents implantation)?
Yeah. The one my friend got wasn't Plan B, but actually just a quadruple dose of normal hormonal BC. Exactly what the back of the box tells you NOT to do.
Just for kicks, and because I like to see my name in threads, here's one Christian's perspective on abortion:
Unborn fetuses/<insert other words to the same manner>: If they are aborted, and they truly were alive, then they led a sinless life (hard to sin when you don't have higher brain functions), and if they have a soul, that soul will go to heaven.
I'm suprised that more hasn't been made of the issues abortion creates for religion as its something that is going to get you asking complicated question about the nature of a soul. If a soul can collect sin, and that sin is a product of my choices in life how can something with no mind have a soul? If a fetus has a soul that can exist in any real way in heaven it means that our souls and what we consider to be ourselves (our minds) are completely seperate things - so when I die, everything that I consider me is gone and some other entity is going to get reward or punished based on my actions?
So yeah, soul at conception is a really bizarre concept for me.
Not to me, really. I figure no one really knows "right" from "wrong" or "sin" from... "not sin"... until they're at least 5 years old, possibly even older. So essentially your "soul" is clean until you purposely do something you know is absolutely wrong. Obviously there are shades of this. Kids will steal cookies even though mommy told them not to, etc., but I think you have to have obtained a certain level of maturity before you can "sin".
This is the age where your parents bust out the "You know better than that" type phrases. That's where you know it's a wrong thing to do, but you do it anyways.
Man, what a tangent.
This sort of paints the soul as an empty vessel. And my understanding is that the commonly held belief would be the other way - body as vessel for soul...which is? Another vessel? But what is it? What are we defining soul as if it is going to be a primary reason against abortion?
I wouldn't say "empty" so much as "pure". A soul is pure and blameless until the person first "sins" or does something wrong, in layman's terms. Now, some sects of Christianity argue that a child inherits the parent's sins, and that's why they do sprinkling when the child is still a baby, to cleanse the parent's sins from it, but I (and my "sect" if you want to call it that) disagree, and believe that a soul starts off pure.
That being said, I think when "life" occurs and when a fetus is "injected with a soul" can arguably be the same event, or again can arguably occur at roughly the same time. That specific time is the object of heated debate.
I wouldn't say "empty" so much as "pure". A soul is pure and blameless until the person first "sins" or does something wrong, in layman's terms. Now, some sects of Christianity argue that a child inherits the parent's sins, and that's why they do sprinkling when the child is still a baby, to cleanse the parent's sins from it, but I (and my "sect" if you want to call it that) disagree, and believe that a soul starts off pure.
Catholics believe that every baby born inherits Adam and Eve's sin, because besides a swat on the butt on the way out of Eden, god cursed the entirety of mankind with it.
And birth pains are supposed to be part of this curse, also.
And I agree that its a REALLY Horrible, and possibly illegal, idea to "keep tabs" on the reasons women get abortions. For so many reasons I don't think I can even count them.
In some places in South America (I believe Brazil is the place of these specific incidents, unfortunately I don't have the reader with the study in my apartment), the Catholic church actually changed that belief that newborn/unborn babies go to heaven because they found too many poor mothers committing infanticide. The mothers were either prostitutes and/or had little control over their sex lives due to poverty and the need for male protection (usually from rape/abuse from other men). They were pretty much constantly pregnant.
These women had babies about as often as you can possibly have them. Since they were so poor, they could not afford the time, energy, and money necessary to keep multiple infants alive and chose instead to put their time and energy only into the strong ones. So they began killing their babies that were sick, small, or seemed weak so that they would die pure and go to heaven. The church accepted these children at first and buried or cremated them with the appropriate ceremonies, for free, so they could go to heaven. Eventually, though, they started to refuse to perform the necessary rites to try to prevent the infanticide (and reduce the huge strain on their resources) and tried to convince the women that their babies were, in fact, not going to go to heaven. I don't really remember the grounds for the change, sorry.
Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the constant pregnancies were not changing. The children were still being born and the women could not do anything except let most of them die.
Don't you think offering contraceptives and abortion are preferable to this? This isn't hyperbole or overstatement. This is the life that some women have to lead and the choices they have to make. If you want even more horrible stories, go look into impoverished areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Considering that the US policy hugely affects funding for family planning clinics in poor countries, this debate needs to extend to people outside the US.
Right, whereas my current belief is that the "curse" is directly outlined in Genesis: Men have to toil in the field to make food grow (apparently the garden of eden took very little tending?), Women have increased pains in childbirth, and the final swat on the butt, we all return to dust (at least body-wise).
I'd be interested to see the passage which the Catholics quote as the reason for this belief. To the google-mobile with me!
With regards to WorLord's post:I'd be interested to see the passage which the Catholics quote as the reason for this belief. To the google-mobile with me!
Disclaimer: was raised Catholic, but was alcoholic for a number of years in an effort to forget as much of that insanity as possible. So if I'm wrong about something Catholic - and I might be - I'll probably be happy with that.
Also, a red letter 'A' worn by the woman in question for the rest of her days.
I think this pretty much sums up Sarcastro's arguments nicely. 'Women are too stupid and venal to make responsible decisions', with 'responsible' defined as 'Do What I Say'. Also, 'abortion providers are drugged up simpletons that hand out operations to anyone who walks past, the state ignores abortions entirely, and women love having them because they tickle!'.
Anytime you want to start arguing about the situation in the real world would be peachy by me, Sarc.
With regards to WorLord's post:I'd be interested to see the passage which the Catholics quote as the reason for this belief. To the google-mobile with me!
Disclaimer: was raised Catholic, but was alcoholic for a number of years in an effort to forget as much of that insanity as possible. So if I'm wrong about something Catholic - and I might be - I'll probably be happy with that.
Looks like you've got that much right. Methodists seem to believe the same thing.
The above link is also good for arguments for and against baptism. Baptism, in itself, can be a complicated thing. What is a baptism, what does baptism do, when should you have one, etc. etc.
Also, a red letter 'A' worn by the woman in question for the rest of her days.
I think this pretty much sums up Sarcastro's arguments nicely. 'Women are too stupid and venal to make responsible decisions', with 'responsible' defined as 'Do What I Say'. Also, 'abortion providers are drugged up simpletons that hand out operations to anyone who walks past, the state ignores abortions entirely, and women love having them because they tickle!'.
Anytime you want to start arguing about the situation in the real world would be peachy by me, Sarc.
You can go ahead and bend everything in your fantastic strawman weilding mindprism of profeminist martyrdom if you want Cat, I know you like the flavor. Give it another lick, I know you wanna. Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too - that'd be a nice rager, eh? Bah, not worth the halfbite meal it'd make.
I simply believe that people enmasse inherently contain trace elements of fucktard, and (apparantly) that men don't have exclusive rights to making poor choices.
If you read what I said, I said I'm pro choice but anti-stupid, and if men got preggers I'd say the same thing.
In answer to VC's suggestion, I would be very anti-stigma actually, it's not good precedent for the law to go about enforcing moral choices. It is good precedent to ensure that one's citizens are well informed however, and knowing what kinds of situations result in unwanted pregnancies could go a long ways in preventing them. There's a huge difference between saying 'bad girl! no abortion for you!" and simply determining cause and ensuring that people know about what they're doing, and the consequences of their life choices. Once informed, do as one will, but I think the state has an obligation to inform you here.
Abortion is part of a key information technology that will shape the face of medicine and biology for the next ten generations. This is where it all starts: eugenics, gene control, gene therapy, fetal tissue harvesting, defect elimination, post conceptional selection, stem cell research - all of these techs and issues (and tons more we haven't even conceived of yet) revolve around this little cluster of cells.
I don't think it's appropriate to set precedent placing the decisions surrounding these items firmly and irretrievably in the hands of the individual. It's just too big. The calls made in this arena now will set the stage for future issues. I don't want the cure for cancer nix'd because some middle aged housewife wants to precut the cord. I don't want my alzhiemers rendered incurable because a surrogate contractor chickened out at the last minute. See also: Cure for AIDS. Parkinson's. Stupidity. Certain issues outweigh the needs of the individual, and we are just on the brink of finding out what some of those things are.
Also, a red letter 'A' worn by the woman in question for the rest of her days.
I think this pretty much sums up Sarcastro's arguments nicely. 'Women are too stupid and venal to make responsible decisions', with 'responsible' defined as 'Do What I Say'. Also, 'abortion providers are drugged up simpletons that hand out operations to anyone who walks past, the state ignores abortions entirely, and women love having them because they tickle!'.
Anytime you want to start arguing about the situation in the real world would be peachy by me, Sarc.
You can go ahead and bend everything in your fantastic strawman weilding mindprism of profeminist martyrdom if you want Cat, I know you like the flavor. Give it another lick, I know you wanna. Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too - that'd be a nice rager, eh? Bah, not worth the halfbite meal it'd make.
I think Cat thinks that women have a little bit more intrinsically invested.
Also, Stem Cells are completely different than Abortion. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Also, a red letter 'A' worn by the woman in question for the rest of her days.
I think this pretty much sums up Sarcastro's arguments nicely. 'Women are too stupid and venal to make responsible decisions', with 'responsible' defined as 'Do What I Say'. Also, 'abortion providers are drugged up simpletons that hand out operations to anyone who walks past, the state ignores abortions entirely, and women love having them because they tickle!'.
Anytime you want to start arguing about the situation in the real world would be peachy by me, Sarc.
You can go ahead and bend everything in your fantastic strawman weilding mindprism of profeminist martyrdom if you want Cat, I know you like the flavor. Give it another lick, I know you wanna. Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too - that'd be a nice rager, eh? Bah, not worth the halfbite meal it'd make.
I simply believe that people enmasse inherently contain trace elements of fucktard, and (apparantly) that men don't have exclusive rights to making poor choices.
If you read what I said, I said I'm pro choice but anti-stupid, and if men got preggers I'd say the same thing.
In answer to VC's suggestion, I would be very anti-stigma actually, it's not good precedent for the law to go about enforcing moral choices. It is good precedent to ensure that one's citizens are well informed however, and knowing what kinds of situations result in unwanted pregnancies could go a long ways in preventing them. There's a huge difference between saying 'bad girl! no abortion for you!" and simply determining cause and ensuring that people know about what they're doing, and the consequences of their life choices. Once informed, do as one will, but I think the state has an obligation to inform you here.
Abortion is part of a key information technology that will shape the face of medicine and biology for the next ten generations. This is where it all starts: eugenics, gene control, gene therapy, fetal tissue harvesting, defect elimination, post conceptional selection, stem cell research - all of these techs and issues (and tons more we haven't even conceived of yet) revolve around this little cluster of cells.
I don't think it's appropriate to set precedent placing the decisions surrounding these items firmly and irretrievably in the hands of the individual. It's just too big. The calls made in this arena now will set the stage for future issues. I don't want the cure for cancer nix'd because some middle aged housewife wants to precut the cord. I don't want my alzhiemers rendered incurable because a surrogate contractor chickened out at the last minute. See also: Cure for AIDS. Parkinson's. Stupidity. Certain issues outweigh the needs of the individual, and we are just on the brink of finding out what some of those things are.
I... what?
I'm failing to see how not spending money supporting unwanted children leads to fewer cures for things.
Posts
Why? Religions are, by definition, delusions.
Delusions, Mr. Anderson.
That doesn't make them monolithic delusions; but I don't want this thread to descend into religious madness so please don't carry this on.. (meta-modding lol)
Don't keep up much with the teenscene do ya, Than? The notion is gaining ground, particularily in the sexually illiterate. Hell, you can catch traces of it in this very thread.
I don't think 'illegal' is the word I'm going for, so much as the word 'regulated'. As far as health and safety is concerned, the law is already involved in much less dangerous things, so why should abortion be held so sacrosanct?
Hello, exactly!
No one fucking gets an abortion on a whim. It's not a got-damn trip to the dentist for a check-up. Has anyone ever seen how one is performed?
Has anyone here been with someone who has had one?
Known anyone?
Been that person?
Jesus. How many people do you really think say "Well, I got really drunk." or "Oops...ran out of condoms. Oh well, I can abort."
Edit: and the morning after pill is no walk in the park. getting it or dealing with it. and then still not knowing.
Because the actual operation is medically very safe, and is held to medical standards?
Sorry, I'm not following your IF/THAN. Could you elaborate?
And abortion is rigidly regulated.
I really REALLY doubt anyone that's had to go through the financial, emotional, and physical brick-to-the-head as is the Morning After Pill will think about using again in hurry, much less as regular form of birth control.
A few months ago I had to acquire it myself (condom split in the act, joy). For starters, it is EXPENSIVE at the moment. £25, which Currency Converter tells me is about $50. And that is with a reasonable chance that you'll throw up within 3 hours and have to purchase it again.
Clearly, side effects will vary from person to person, but I personally went through phases of extreme nausea, some vomiting, headaches, extreme tiredness, and the most godawful period human minds can convieve of. This lasted for about 48 hours after taking the pill.
It is not a walk in the park, and I wish people would stop using the argument that OHNOES people will use it instead of condoms, because in all honesty, it isn't something any sane person would willingly put themselves through if they had other options. I would assume the vast majority of Plan-B users are women like me who had one sort of contraceptive fail on them.
I don't understand arguments for restricting availability of Plan B in the least. If the rationale is it should be denied because it's being used in place of condoms, surely the answer is a more thorough approach to sex education starting early on, rather than punishing the people who need it the most?
Abortion is regulated as a medical operation, just like any other. It is heavily scrutinized, and it is required to follow standards, just like any other medical operation. The health and safety you were talking about is already being looked after.
Can't say I disagree with any of this. Sudafed is tracked, if not outright over-the-countered in most states, and every car needs to be registered and licensed, every driver needs to be certifed that they have a working knowledge of the rules in play.
But since we dont cocklock until you get your license, its seems a good thing to keep abortions a huge pain in the ass so it remains the last resort instead of a casual one.
One of my friends had the same thing happen and her experience mirrors what you went through, only she termed it as "every period she was ever going to have in her life condensed into 48 hours."
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Ah, I follow. Different wavelength. I was arguing that the reasons behind one actually getting the abortion should be examined as well. Seems like something it would be a good idea to keep tabs on.
As far as the procedure is concerned, my understanding is that is fairly safe, with minimal fertility impact. Social and psych side-effects are ... tricky to evaluate without bias.
Why should it be different than other medical procedures? We don't look into the reasons of plastic surgery (up to a point), and honestly, there'd be no way to do this without breaking doctor-patient privilege.
Technology changes in favor of comfort, the law remains static in favor of precedent.
And I mean, really, if you can't afford to do that, then I guess you don't really need the abortion. I'm sure you'll have a much easier time affording the kid.
And this took place in a college town in Michigan. I can't imagine what it's like to live in a less liberal state.
So, uh...yeah...really easy to get a pill that needs to be taken within 48 hours of the act which itself probably caused a decent amount of anxiety.
Also, every side-effect x 10
I wouldn't say "empty" so much as "pure". A soul is pure and blameless until the person first "sins" or does something wrong, in layman's terms. Now, some sects of Christianity argue that a child inherits the parent's sins, and that's why they do sprinkling when the child is still a baby, to cleanse the parent's sins from it, but I (and my "sect" if you want to call it that) disagree, and believe that a soul starts off pure.
That being said, I think when "life" occurs and when a fetus is "injected with a soul" can arguably be the same event, or again can arguably occur at roughly the same time. That specific time is the object of heated debate.
Catholics believe that every baby born inherits Adam and Eve's sin, because besides a swat on the butt on the way out of Eden, god cursed the entirety of mankind with it.
And birth pains are supposed to be part of this curse, also.
And I agree that its a REALLY Horrible, and possibly illegal, idea to "keep tabs" on the reasons women get abortions. For so many reasons I don't think I can even count them.
These women had babies about as often as you can possibly have them. Since they were so poor, they could not afford the time, energy, and money necessary to keep multiple infants alive and chose instead to put their time and energy only into the strong ones. So they began killing their babies that were sick, small, or seemed weak so that they would die pure and go to heaven. The church accepted these children at first and buried or cremated them with the appropriate ceremonies, for free, so they could go to heaven. Eventually, though, they started to refuse to perform the necessary rites to try to prevent the infanticide (and reduce the huge strain on their resources) and tried to convince the women that their babies were, in fact, not going to go to heaven. I don't really remember the grounds for the change, sorry.
Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the constant pregnancies were not changing. The children were still being born and the women could not do anything except let most of them die.
Don't you think offering contraceptives and abortion are preferable to this? This isn't hyperbole or overstatement. This is the life that some women have to lead and the choices they have to make. If you want even more horrible stories, go look into impoverished areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Considering that the US policy hugely affects funding for family planning clinics in poor countries, this debate needs to extend to people outside the US.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/24/baptism_hum.html?category=history&guid=20070424100000&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Right, whereas my current belief is that the "curse" is directly outlined in Genesis: Men have to toil in the field to make food grow (apparently the garden of eden took very little tending?), Women have increased pains in childbirth, and the final swat on the butt, we all return to dust (at least body-wise).
I'd be interested to see the passage which the Catholics quote as the reason for this belief. To the google-mobile with me!
Actually, I think its the same one.
Disclaimer: was raised Catholic, but was alcoholic for a number of years in an effort to forget as much of that insanity as possible. So if I'm wrong about something Catholic - and I might be - I'll probably be happy with that.
I think this pretty much sums up Sarcastro's arguments nicely. 'Women are too stupid and venal to make responsible decisions', with 'responsible' defined as 'Do What I Say'. Also, 'abortion providers are drugged up simpletons that hand out operations to anyone who walks past, the state ignores abortions entirely, and women love having them because they tickle!'.
Anytime you want to start arguing about the situation in the real world would be peachy by me, Sarc.
Looks like you've got that much right. Methodists seem to believe the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism
The above link is also good for arguments for and against baptism. Baptism, in itself, can be a complicated thing. What is a baptism, what does baptism do, when should you have one, etc. etc.
You can go ahead and bend everything in your fantastic strawman weilding mindprism of profeminist martyrdom if you want Cat, I know you like the flavor. Give it another lick, I know you wanna. Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too - that'd be a nice rager, eh? Bah, not worth the halfbite meal it'd make.
I simply believe that people enmasse inherently contain trace elements of fucktard, and (apparantly) that men don't have exclusive rights to making poor choices.
If you read what I said, I said I'm pro choice but anti-stupid, and if men got preggers I'd say the same thing.
In answer to VC's suggestion, I would be very anti-stigma actually, it's not good precedent for the law to go about enforcing moral choices. It is good precedent to ensure that one's citizens are well informed however, and knowing what kinds of situations result in unwanted pregnancies could go a long ways in preventing them. There's a huge difference between saying 'bad girl! no abortion for you!" and simply determining cause and ensuring that people know about what they're doing, and the consequences of their life choices. Once informed, do as one will, but I think the state has an obligation to inform you here.
Abortion is part of a key information technology that will shape the face of medicine and biology for the next ten generations. This is where it all starts: eugenics, gene control, gene therapy, fetal tissue harvesting, defect elimination, post conceptional selection, stem cell research - all of these techs and issues (and tons more we haven't even conceived of yet) revolve around this little cluster of cells.
I don't think it's appropriate to set precedent placing the decisions surrounding these items firmly and irretrievably in the hands of the individual. It's just too big. The calls made in this arena now will set the stage for future issues. I don't want the cure for cancer nix'd because some middle aged housewife wants to precut the cord. I don't want my alzhiemers rendered incurable because a surrogate contractor chickened out at the last minute. See also: Cure for AIDS. Parkinson's. Stupidity. Certain issues outweigh the needs of the individual, and we are just on the brink of finding out what some of those things are.
I think Cat thinks that women have a little bit more intrinsically invested.
Also, Stem Cells are completely different than Abortion. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm failing to see how not spending money supporting unwanted children leads to fewer cures for things.
Unfortunately, babies never cry.
Wait........that's not right..........
I thought that was AIDS. Oh wait, no, that's virgins.