.

Dirtie_Frank

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

oftenreading

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

Well, I did specify reliable contraception. It's also helpful if the method doesn't rely on the agreement of the guy.

what dreams

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

The choice is to terminate a life. Any scientist worth a damn will tell you that life begins at conception when cells begin to divide. Isn't that what we all fucking learned in 7th grade biology? Any mother will tell you that her life changed the moment she found out she was pregnant. Rgambs himself said his life changed as soon as he found out they were pregnant. THAT is how we know the fetus is a life.

Rgambs went on to say that he and his wife ultimately could not have an abortion because it was way too selfish . . . oh no, don't say that feeling out loud, rgambs, because the pro-lifers will shout you down. Right? Isn't that what you said? That you decided *not* to abort because of your emotions? So how dare you tell me what arguments I can or cannot use while I am discussing my pro-choice position?

The debate is NOT "Is it life?" Of course it is. The debate is about the quality of the life -- and the role of the mother's own blood, oxygen, and other nutrients in sustaining it. A woman ought to be able to decide what she wants to do with her own body. THAT is the debate, and of course, the basis of my pro-choice position. If I choose to do something that at some level IS morally reprehensible, then I guess I just happen to join the filth pot of humanity in doing so. (My discussion with my priest was the most enlightening of all, and in ways none of you would expect). . . . But I'm not going to pretend it was a rational, clinical decision just to satisfy someone's perceived need to counter-argue the right-wing with an opposing style of argument.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think people shouldn't share their feslings, or that those feelings aren't valid.
Everyone should feel free to share what they wish, and I am not trying to stop that in any case, I am simply stating, again, that the strength (and strength of expression) of one's feelings shouldn't bear heavily in the legislative process, which is where this debate ends up.

Well, I'm pretty sure that the current legal strategy of the pro-choice coalition has led us to a place where women have to drive 400 miles and wait 48 hours to see a doctor with privileges in a retro-fitted surgery-styled clinic. In case you haven't noticed, NARAL and NOW and all the other advocacy groups are losing the legal debates in both the legislatures and in the courtrooms. The people winning *are* highly emotional and highly irrational. I am simply stating, again, that it's past time to reconsider the strategy. The last I looked, your way isn't working.

Dirtie_Frank

oftenreading said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

Well, I did specify reliable contraception. It's also helpful if the method doesn't rely on the agreement of the guy.

So a woman can trust a guy enough to put his Tab A into Slot B but not enough to use protection. Maybe they both should reevaluate what is going on? You are questioning the reliability too, well the CDC states that condoms are 98% effective when used correctly so what is the problem with that?

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

PJ_Soul

Dirtie_Frank said:

I just do not believe abortion should be used as a form of contraception. Any choice is going to change at least the women's life. I read a few times it is not a man's decision. I find that a bit odd because if the man did not want the kid he still will have to pay, but if a woman wants an abortion the man has no say. Either way it is not an easy choice. I am not sure there will ever be a perfect answer.

That's the price men pay for women being the ones who carry the babies inside them. Sorry you're not happy about it, but that's just how it is. BTW, I believe that if men were the ones who carried the babies, with all other things being equal, abortion wouldn't even be a controversial issue.

PJ_Soul

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

With as much as a 5% chance of getting pregnant anyway, assuming they're used properly.

Dirtie_Frank

PJ_Soul said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

With as much as a 5% chance of getting pregnant anyway, assuming they're used properly.

or a 95% chance of not getting pregnant.

PJ_Soul

Dirtie_Frank said:

PJ_Soul said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

With as much as a 5% chance of getting pregnant anyway, assuming they're used properly.

or a 95% chance of not getting pregnant.

Right.... and those are the 95% who don't even have to think about getting an abortion after that particular fuck. Good for them.

Dirtie_Frank

The original argument is that contraception is not cheap and easy to find. I stated condoms can be used and they are relatively cheap and easy to find. Nothing, other than not having sex, will be 100% from keeping someone from becoming pregnant. I am not getting the connection that since condoms are not 100% they are not a viable option over surgery.

Last-12-Exit

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

Well that's fucked up (the question remains, though: do abortion clinics actually do it in all of those 10 places? It's possible that many of them won't do it... and I don't think any clinic would have anything to do with a 7 month one, because the woman would have to give birth to it, and they do not deliver babies. Also, just because they can do it, it doesn't mean women do. I'm willing to bet that third trimester elective abortions are VERY rare in those states - sane women just aren't willing to go through what that involves). That isn't the case in Canada (which is where I am familiar with abortion policy). Most abortion clinics will not perform non-medical abortions after 12 weeks, and they do an ultrasound to confirm that it's not over that if the mother isn't sure). Elective abortions up to 22 weeks are technically legal, but only in a hospital, not a clinic. I would support any abortion not related to health concerns for the baby or mother being illegal after 12 or 16 weeks. I believe in women having a choice, but I also believe in making a timely choice.

Last-12-Exit

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

Well that's fucked up (the question remains, though: do abortion clinics actually do it in all of those 10 places? It's possible that many of them won't do it... and I don't think any clinic would have anything to do with a 7 month one, because the woman would have to give birth to it, and they do not deliver babies. Also, just because they can do it, it doesn't mean women do. I'm willing to bet that third trimester elective abortions are VERY rare in those states - sane women just aren't willing to go through what that involves). That isn't the case in Canada (which is where I am familiar with abortion policy). Most abortion clinics will not perform non-medical abortions after 12 weeks, and they do an ultrasound to confirm that it's not over that if the mother isn't sure). Elective abortions up to 22 weeks are technically legal, but only in a hospital, not a clinic. I would support any abortion not related to health concerns for the baby or mother being illegal after 12 or 16 weeks. I believe in women having a choice, but I also believe in making a timely choice.

So you believe in a woman's right to choose as long as it fits within your moral compass.

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

Well that's fucked up (the question remains, though: do abortion clinics actually do it in all of those 10 places? It's possible that many of them won't do it... and I don't think any clinic would have anything to do with a 7 month one, because the woman would have to give birth to it, and they do not deliver babies. Also, just because they can do it, it doesn't mean women do. I'm willing to bet that third trimester elective abortions are VERY rare in those states - sane women just aren't willing to go through what that involves). That isn't the case in Canada (which is where I am familiar with abortion policy). Most abortion clinics will not perform non-medical abortions after 12 weeks, and they do an ultrasound to confirm that it's not over that if the mother isn't sure). Elective abortions up to 22 weeks are technically legal, but only in a hospital, not a clinic. I would support any abortion not related to health concerns for the baby or mother being illegal after 12 or 16 weeks. I believe in women having a choice, but I also believe in making a timely choice.

So you believe in a woman's right to choose as long as it fits within your moral compass.

Well I am not much for black and white. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and then I have my own personal opinions about it. Nothing wrong with that.... Though when I think about it, everyone has their own moral compass. I.e..... I believe in people's right to practice their religion... but I don't believe in their right to force women to stay in the house and not be allowed to go to school because of it, or to prevent a child from getting lifesaving medical attention because of their religion. Everyone has limits (except you?).

So you're saying you're totally cool with a woman who is 9 months pregnant having her baby killed inside her and then removing it instead of giving birth to it? Really? Maybe you are.... if so, you're the first person I've ever heard of who would find that reasonable.

But don't get me wrong. I do not "advocate" for the restrictions I'm talking about. These are just my personal opinions about it, which it completely fair I think. If the law suddenly said that women can do whatever the fuck they want I wouldn't rally against it (as I said, 99% of women wouldn't be getting super late term abortions anyway). But if they do have restrictions on the timing, I support them. I think they make sense, logistically. They allow women enough freedom for them to deal with an unwanted pregnancy one way or the other. And I think that drawing the line at when a baby can survive on its own outside the body seems like a pretty reasonable line, and one that I think laws could be passed on. Just saying "women can choose to abort a baby as long as it's still inside her" would be pretty much the worst argument for getting any right to choose legalized.

rr165892

Ok, so I'm going to keep with the thread theme but add a little something different to the world of reproduction.
I saw this story today and then looked up more info.I couldn't believe what I was reading.
If you get your junk blown off in war the Govt will not pay for envitro fertilization because the are concerned about discarded embryos.WTF.This is fucking horrible and stupid as shit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/afghanistan-veterans-genital-wounds_n_1719896.html

PJ_Soul

rr165892 said:

Ok, so I'm going to keep with the thread theme but add a little something different to the world of reproduction.
I saw this story today and then looked up more info.I couldn't believe what I was reading.
If you get your junk blown off in war the Govt will not pay for envitro fertilization because the are concerned about discarded embryos.WTF.This is fucking horrible and stupid as shit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/afghanistan-veterans-genital-wounds_n_1719896.html

That isn't what the article said at all (unless I accidentally skipped a whole section??). In fact it says the opposite, at least in part. One man's wife hypothesized that maybe morals had to do with this. But from what I read, they have absolutely nothing to do with it. It has to do with the $100,000 cap on benefits it looks like. That said, I think it would be good for them to add this as an extra benefit as needed necessarily, on top of the $100,000 cap. That said, they actually ARE providing some benefits in this context specifically, as the article states, but it doesn't cover men's inability to produce sperm, but it doesn't explain way (rr, did you really read this article??):

"The policy authorizes payment for some reproductive procedures for the first time, including limited in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. But it also specifically excludes covering males who cannot produce sperm. "Third-party donations and surrogacy are not covered benefits," the policy states firmly."

To me it basically sounds like they are not providing benefits that will go to take care of a surrogate mother, or to sperm banks. That's it. Why they would make this restriction is beyond me, and that's really stupid, but if they're willing to do in vitro and artificial insemination, then ethics couldn't be the explanation IMO.

Last-12-Exit

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

I think that if it's a medical issue then it doesn't matter at all. I agree if the parents choose to save the mom or avoid putting her at risk over the baby, they need to make that decision. I also support choosing to abort if you find out there is anything wrong with the fetus. Anything at all, that the parents aren't willing to deal with (no, that does not include gender, lol. And I am talking medical/mental/birth defects. Not human engineering, i.e. oh no, it's got red hair and big ears, let's abort, haha).

rr165892

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

Ok, so I'm going to keep with the thread theme but add a little something different to the world of reproduction.
I saw this story today and then looked up more info.I couldn't believe what I was reading.
If you get your junk blown off in war the Govt will not pay for envitro fertilization because the are concerned about discarded embryos.WTF.This is fucking horrible and stupid as shit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/afghanistan-veterans-genital-wounds_n_1719896.html

That isn't what the article said at all (unless I accidentally skipped a whole section??). In fact it says the opposite, at least in part. One man's wife hypothesized that maybe morals had to do with this. But from what I read, they have absolutely nothing to do with it. It has to do with the $100,000 cap on benefits it looks like. That said, I think it would be good for them to add this as an extra benefit as needed necessarily, on top of the $100,000 cap. That said, they actually ARE providing some benefits in this context specifically, as the article states, but it doesn't cover men's inability to produce sperm, but it doesn't explain way (rr, did you really read this article??):

"The policy authorizes payment for some reproductive procedures for the first time, including limited in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. But it also specifically excludes covering males who cannot produce sperm. "Third-party donations and surrogacy are not covered benefits," the policy states firmly."

To me it basically sounds like they are not providing benefits that will go to take care of a surrogate mother, or to sperm banks. That's it. Why they would make this restriction is beyond me, and that's really stupid, but if they're willing to do in vitro and artificial insemination, then ethics couldn't be the explanation IMO.

There was about ten different stories I looked up after watching the story on CBS news.I linked to one of them but there are quite a few.On the TV interview the anger and angst of the couple were what really got me

gimmesometruth27

i wonder where "_" is. i am sure she could drop some women's health knowledge on us all. she works in women's health. i wish she still came around here. haven't seen her in a few years.

carry on....

oftenreading

Dirtie_Frank said:

oftenreading said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

A box of 36 condoms are 16.99 at Walgreens How hard is it to go to the store a buy rubbers? Do some states require you to go through an obstacle course or pay more than .47 per condom?

Well, I did specify reliable contraception. It's also helpful if the method doesn't rely on the agreement of the guy.

So a woman can trust a guy enough to put his Tab A into Slot B but not enough to use protection. Maybe they both should reevaluate what is going on? You are questioning the reliability too, well the CDC states that condoms are 98% effective when used correctly so what is the problem with that?

Sure, it would be wonderful if all relationships involved trust and mutual respect, but if we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies we need to be realistic.

what dreams

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

Well that's fucked up (the question remains, though: do abortion clinics actually do it in all of those 10 places? It's possible that many of them won't do it... and I don't think any clinic would have anything to do with a 7 month one, because the woman would have to give birth to it, and they do not deliver babies. Also, just because they can do it, it doesn't mean women do. I'm willing to bet that third trimester elective abortions are VERY rare in those states - sane women just aren't willing to go through what that involves). That isn't the case in Canada (which is where I am familiar with abortion policy). Most abortion clinics will not perform non-medical abortions after 12 weeks, and they do an ultrasound to confirm that it's not over that if the mother isn't sure). Elective abortions up to 22 weeks are technically legal, but only in a hospital, not a clinic. I would support any abortion not related to health concerns for the baby or mother being illegal after 12 or 16 weeks. I believe in women having a choice, but I also believe in making a timely choice.

So you believe in a woman's right to choose as long as it fits within your moral compass.

I'm pretty sure she said back on page one or maybe page two that there was nothing complex about being pro-choice at all. That it was simple. . . . I guess not so much anymore.

oftenreading

Last-12-Exit said:

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.

PJ_Soul

what dreams said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

I said no sane woman has done that.
Why do think that many women have had abortions at 7 months at clinics, legally? That's not legal, and clinics don't do that.

9 states and Washington DC do not have any restrictions on third trimester abortions. They are legal.

Well that's fucked up (the question remains, though: do abortion clinics actually do it in all of those 10 places? It's possible that many of them won't do it... and I don't think any clinic would have anything to do with a 7 month one, because the woman would have to give birth to it, and they do not deliver babies. Also, just because they can do it, it doesn't mean women do. I'm willing to bet that third trimester elective abortions are VERY rare in those states - sane women just aren't willing to go through what that involves). That isn't the case in Canada (which is where I am familiar with abortion policy). Most abortion clinics will not perform non-medical abortions after 12 weeks, and they do an ultrasound to confirm that it's not over that if the mother isn't sure). Elective abortions up to 22 weeks are technically legal, but only in a hospital, not a clinic. I would support any abortion not related to health concerns for the baby or mother being illegal after 12 or 16 weeks. I believe in women having a choice, but I also believe in making a timely choice.

So you believe in a woman's right to choose as long as it fits within your moral compass.

I'm pretty sure she said back on page one or maybe page two that there was nothing complex about being pro-choice at all. That it was simple. . . . I guess not so much anymore.

I still think it's pretty simple concept. I don't find timing issues that complicated. I feel like this late term abortion talk is basically a non-issue, namely used as propaganda by people who are anti-choice.

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.

Well exactly. 7 months, 9 months, same thing. That's not an abortion. That's giving birth. Women just don't do that (not enough for it to be a consideration anyway, IMO. I mean, it would be about as common as a girl leaving her newborn in a toilet. And not much different either.

JUST A GIRL

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.

Well exactly. 7 months, 9 months, same thing. That's not an abortion. That's giving birth. Women just don't do that (not enough for it to be a consideration anyway, IMO. I mean, it would be about as common as a girl leaving her newborn in a toilet. And not much different either.

4 months, 7 months, 9 months. It's all the same as leaving your child in the toilet. You're choosing to murder your own child due to selfish reasons. I find that pathetic.

So 7 months is murder, but when I said 5 months was, I was crazy? At up to 3 months their body is developed, just not fully grown. It's not just eggs in there. That's why I feel it's just screwed up. I feel a lot of opinions are formed out of fear that speaking out will be oppressing women.

You're killing a person, who has zero choice in the matter. In the womb or In the crib, I see no difference at all.

Last-12-Exit

You speak with such a definite tone. Like its never happened. Like you know with 100% certainty, that abortions do not happen in the third trimester. Sorry to inform you that it does. If you want to call it murder, fine. I'll still call it a woman's choice.

rgambs

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.

You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.


I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.

You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.

Well exactly. 7 months, 9 months, same thing. That's not an abortion. That's giving birth. Women just don't do that (not enough for it to be a consideration anyway, IMO. I mean, it would be about as common as a girl leaving her newborn in a toilet. And not much different either.

4 months, 7 months, 9 months. It's all the same as leaving your child in the toilet. You're choosing to murder your own child due to selfish reasons. I find that pathetic.

So 7 months is murder, but when I said 5 months was, I was crazy? At up to 3 months their body is developed, just not fully grown. It's not just eggs in there. That's why I feel it's just screwed up. I feel a lot of opinions are formed out of fear that speaking out will be oppressing women.

You're killing a person, who has zero choice in the matter. In the womb or In the crib, I see no difference at all.

You are WAY oversimplifying embryology and gestation.
That is part of why I shy away from emotional arguments, they leave science in the ditch and will always favor the "it's murder, plain and simple!" crowd.

callen

goingtoverona said:

personally I have no moral or ethical issues with abortion as long as it's in the beginning when it's just a blob of gooey cells. but when it has arms and legs and a head, I don't care if it can't live on it's own, it's a human being at that point, imo of course. there has to be a compromise somewhere between," masturbation kills millions of children" and "hey if it's in her gut still, she can kill it."

Great perspective. Would agree.

Last-12-Exit

So arms and legs define life?