.

Last-12-Exit

I still ldisagree

PJ_Soul

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.

Last-12-Exit

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.

what dreams

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

I'm with you on this one, Last-12. It seems illogical to me to make up arbitrary deadlines for when it's okay to terminate. The arms and legs kicking around at 7 months are made of the same basic cell matter that existed at one month. Just because they look different doesn't mean it isn't the same baby. It's why I get so frustrated with the whole "when is it really a life?" debate. That question is completely irrelevant in my mind.

It would be interesting to find out more about how many women have had late-term abortions -- I think it happens rarely when some kind of health condition has been discovered, is what I've heard. It would be interesting to learn more about those statistics. PJ Soul, I think 20 weeks has been the standard cut-off here in the US until recently some states have been changing that.

oftenreading

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

Yeah, I've noticed that. They act as though any woman can go in and have her 6 month old fetus taken out by means of chopping off its limbs and deflating its head. Such elective abortions do not exist. Pro-lifers are liars.

Not 6 months, but 5 months is ok. Lever wonder why they call it 20 weeks and not 5 months? Because more people don't realize they are killing a child more than halfway developed this way. Those kids have fully fleshed out bodies, organs (obvious by the planned parenthood harvesting of organs) and once you see what I've seen, a literal baby clawing at the tube as its sucked down and murdered, just doesn't sit well with me. Justify it all you want, but it's murder.

Again I'm so sick of hearing that a "woman has a choice" they very much do, and that choice is to have sex or not. Once they do, they understand the risk they are taking. Abortions shouldn't be birth control. But it's justified and sickening. You wouldn't murder a 5 month old new born, so why is it ok to justify a 5 month old fetus?

I hope I present my post politely enough. Trying to follow the rules and do as you guys asked to, which is engage in conversation but be open to both sides.

Can anyone explain why they feel it's alright? It's a life you're taking away. A 50 month old or 2 month old, what's the difference?

No, that's not why they "call it 20 weeks and not 5 months". Fetal dating is always done in weeks, not months, because it gives a more accurate measure. It's been done that way for decades.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't heard that the "planned parenthood harvesting organs" thing has been comprehensively debunked. The video was heavily edited to present PP in the worst possible light and to suggest things that are not going on.

If a woman who is having an abortion elects to donate the fetal tissue for medical research, then PP will take that tissue and donate (not sell) it to a reputable lab. The lab only has to pay the shipping cost, which is the cost quoted in the video. Obviously care needs to be taken in the preparation and shipping, which is why the cost of $60 or so was quoted - not because some evil mastermind is getting rich off $60. The tissue is used for things like stem cell research.

hedonist

oftenreading said:

The tissue is used for things like stem cell research.

Just have to say this is something I completely support.

rgambs

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.

hedonist

I get you, gambs, and know how much respect you have for women.

Dirtie_Frank

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.

oftenreading

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.

Then campaign to make actual contraception easier and cheaper to access. In the US it currently appears to be getting harder and more expensive instead. There are few women who would prefer to have an abortion compared to safe, reliable contraception.

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.