The main problem with the pill seems to be how its efficacy can be affected by other medications. You often hear stories of how people were ill and maybe on antibiotics when they get pregnant unexpectedly. So I'm guessing you can't 100% rely on it if you're taking any other medication (either that or it's literally an issue of people throwing up and not realising they've thrown up the pill too!)
Then women should not have sex if they are on other medications or demand their partner use a condom if they really want to have sex whilst on antibiotics.
Well firstly, many women are on long-term medications so it's not practical to suggest they just take a vow of celibacy. Secondly, condoms are possibly even less reliable than the pill
Condoms are way less reliable. They're really only recommended to prevent disease, not as a sure-fire birth control method.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've done a decent amount of research on this topic, out of curiosity after hearing about the ludicrously named "Right to Life" contingent.
Viability is the most widely accepted theory on when human
life begins, though "viability" is of course debated. By
definition, viability means a fetus has attained a stage of
development where it can independently survive outside of the womb.
The issues with this are many: different fetuses develop at different
rates; different technologies can determine different stages of development;
what does it mean to be developed enough to be independent (in human baby
terms, of course)?
Brain waves begin to show activity about eight weeks in, though, this
apparently is incidental until about twenty-two or twenty-four weeks in when
the "neural pathways to the cortex are further developed."
Regarding consciousness, Jeff McMahan states, "Most neurologists
accept that the earliest point at which consciousness is possible is around the
twentieth week of pregnancy, which is when synaptic connections begin to form
among the cortical neurons." [J. McMahan, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins
of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)] McMahan
references the belief of neurologist Julius Korein that brain function is a
gradual development from the twentieth to twenty-eight week of gestation,
resulting in consciousness. However, there is still life prior to, and in
the process of, consciousness.
In her book, "The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests," Elizabeth
Wicks posits, "we might assert that life begins once a fetus develops
organic integration," and to that end (with clarification of medical
sophistication): "viability stands at about twenty-two weeks."
"A baby born earlier than that will be unable to survive due to its poorly
developed lungs which will prevent breathing even with the aid of an
artificial ventilator. Even after twenty-two weeks the chances of
long-term survival are slim but, with medical assistance, the baby's body has
the potential to function effectively. Until the lungs are sufficiently
developed to enable the supply of oxygen to the other organs (with assistance
if necessary), the body cannot be regarded as capable of functioning as an
integrated organism."
Any of you pro-lifers care to comment on the evidence that if you make abortions illegal more women die and if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down?
I guess one could argue that pro-lifers actually have more blood on their hands.
That is an incredibly weak argument for the more abortion restrictions there are the more abortions there will be. To jump to the conclusion that pro-lifers have more blood on there hands would be ridiculous, based on those articles anyway. the stats only state countries (many of them developing) with strict abortion laws have more abortions. completely ignores the general health of the country and availability of of contraceptives among many other factors that are far more likely to contribute. The come to the conclusion more = more abortions would be flat out wrong.
Except the conclusion stated isn’t wrong, because it’s been replicated many times over many different counties with many different health care systems.
I wouldnt argue that countries with more liberal views often have fewer abortions. But there is more evidence to support it is availability of contraceptives and overal wealth contribute to abortion rates. Compared to U.K., Ireland has much lower abortion rate even when counting illegal abortion estimates and those who travel to get it, it’s still significantly lower. Ive seen nothing to directly support if we make abortion illegal, then the number of abortions wil skyrocket.
How could you possibly have statistics for Ireland? Abortion is illegal here and no reliable records are kept of the women who are forced to travel abroad
This is in response to the last couple posts. If that is true, then you’d agree there is no evidence to support strict laws would increase abortion, right? Most of countries is strict regulations are South American that don’t have an economy to match ours, Ireland’s is really the only country to base such statements from. second, there is data about Ireland’s abortion rates. Data on how many women travel to get it and estimates how many do it illegally. Maybe you can argue how accurate they are, but there’s plenty of stats on Ireland. Very easy to find.
'Estimates', let's leave them out of our arguments perhaps. I have no opinion on whether the legality of abortion increases the number of terminations or not, personally it makes no difference to me. For me, it's a simple case of human rights and a woman being entitled to control over her own body and life. I advocate unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks and abortion to be allowed in all cases of rape, fatal foetal abnormality, suicidal ideation and any case in which the mother's life is at risk
Any of you pro-lifers care to comment on the evidence that if you make abortions illegal more women die and if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down?
I guess one could argue that pro-lifers actually have more blood on their hands.
That is an incredibly weak argument for the more abortion restrictions there are the more abortions there will be. To jump to the conclusion that pro-lifers have more blood on there hands would be ridiculous, based on those articles anyway. the stats only state countries (many of them developing) with strict abortion laws have more abortions. completely ignores the general health of the country and availability of of contraceptives among many other factors that are far more likely to contribute. The come to the conclusion more = more abortions would be flat out wrong.
Except the conclusion stated isn’t wrong, because it’s been replicated many times over many different counties with many different health care systems.
I wouldnt argue that countries with more liberal views often have fewer abortions. But there is more evidence to support it is availability of contraceptives and overal wealth contribute to abortion rates. Compared to U.K., Ireland has much lower abortion rate even when counting illegal abortion estimates and those who travel to get it, it’s still significantly lower. Ive seen nothing to directly support if we make abortion illegal, then the number of abortions wil skyrocket.
How could you possibly have statistics for Ireland? Abortion is illegal here and no reliable records are kept of the women who are forced to travel abroad
This is in response to the last couple posts. If that is true, then you’d agree there is no evidence to support strict laws would increase abortion, right? Most of countries is strict regulations are South American that don’t have an economy to match ours, Ireland’s is really the only country to base such statements from. second, there is data about Ireland’s abortion rates. Data on how many women travel to get it and estimates how many do it illegally. Maybe you can argue how accurate they are, but there’s plenty of stats on Ireland. Very easy to find.
'Estimates', let's leave them out of our arguments perhaps. I have no opinion on whether the legality of abortion increases the number of terminations or not, personally it makes no difference to me. For me, it's a simple case of human rights and a woman being entitled to control over her own body and life. I advocate unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks and abortion to be allowed in all cases of rape, fatal foetal abnormality, suicidal ideation and any case in which the mother's life is at risk
Impossible to leave "estimates" out of this argument. I know it's easy to lose track within the thread, but my comment was in direct response to someone who asked specifically anyone who is pro-life to respond to their claim that more restrictive laws actually causes more people to get abortions. I responded by stating I don;t think there is any validity to that argument. It is true that countries with strict abortion laws often have higher abortion rates, but that is due to the lack of health care and the availability of contraceptives. One of the only comparable countries would be Ireland. I don't care to make that argument, I think there is zero evidence to support it. But since it ewas brought up and it was asked to hear someone from the other side respond, I did. I think it is s silly argument to make, but if anyone wants to try to argue abortion laws causes more abortions you have to be willing to consider estimates. According to all accounts I've seen, women in Ireland get fewer abortions than other parts of the UK. To suggest stronger restrictions on abortions here in the US will cause the number of abortions to rise is simply a claim without any evidence to support it.
Any of you pro-lifers care to comment on the evidence that if you make abortions illegal more women die and if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down?
I guess one could argue that pro-lifers actually have more blood on their hands.
That is an incredibly weak argument for the more abortion restrictions there are the more abortions there will be. To jump to the conclusion that pro-lifers have more blood on there hands would be ridiculous, based on those articles anyway. the stats only state countries (many of them developing) with strict abortion laws have more abortions. completely ignores the general health of the country and availability of of contraceptives among many other factors that are far more likely to contribute. The come to the conclusion more = more abortions would be flat out wrong.
Except the conclusion stated isn’t wrong, because it’s been replicated many times over many different counties with many different health care systems.
I wouldnt argue that countries with more liberal views often have fewer abortions. But there is more evidence to support it is availability of contraceptives and overal wealth contribute to abortion rates. Compared to U.K., Ireland has much lower abortion rate even when counting illegal abortion estimates and those who travel to get it, it’s still significantly lower. Ive seen nothing to directly support if we make abortion illegal, then the number of abortions wil skyrocket.
How could you possibly have statistics for Ireland? Abortion is illegal here and no reliable records are kept of the women who are forced to travel abroad
This is in response to the last couple posts. If that is true, then you’d agree there is no evidence to support strict laws would increase abortion, right? Most of countries is strict regulations are South American that don’t have an economy to match ours, Ireland’s is really the only country to base such statements from. second, there is data about Ireland’s abortion rates. Data on how many women travel to get it and estimates how many do it illegally. Maybe you can argue how accurate they are, but there’s plenty of stats on Ireland. Very easy to find.
'Estimates', let's leave them out of our arguments perhaps. I have no opinion on whether the legality of abortion increases the number of terminations or not, personally it makes no difference to me. For me, it's a simple case of human rights and a woman being entitled to control over her own body and life. I advocate unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks and abortion to be allowed in all cases of rape, fatal foetal abnormality, suicidal ideation and any case in which the mother's life is at risk
I know it's easy to lose track within the thread, but my comment was in direct response to someone who asked specifically anyone who is pro-life to respond to their claim that more restrictive laws actually causes more people to get abortions.
It's easy to lose track of something that was never said.
This is what i asked "Any of you pro-lifers care to comment on the evidence that if you make abortions illegal more women die and if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down?"
Which is not a claim I made, it is a fact backed up by statistical data that I referenced when I made that comment. Something that you have failed to do.
Right “if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down.” Pretty much exactly what I was referring to and what I disagree with. I don’t see how that is any different than what I said. .
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you. if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
And to the other question, wanting a comment about abortion laws killing women. i don’t think anyone wants a zero-exception abortion laws. the article cited about a teen rape was incredibly sad, but if I remember correctly that took place in South America. I’m far from convinced that would have the same outcome here. Better medicine, doctors and hospitals that may have prevented that death or predicted. I don’t see how it relates to that topic. But as far as abortion laws killing women just about everyone would be in favor of exceptions due to women’s health.
And to the other question, wanting a comment about abortion laws killing women. i don’t think anyone wants a zero-exception abortion laws. the article cited about a teen rape was incredibly sad, but if I remember correctly that took place in South America. I’m far from convinced that would have the same outcome here. Better medicine, doctors and hospitals that may have prevented that death or predicted. I don’t see how it relates to that topic. But as far as abortion laws killing women just about everyone would be in favor of exceptions due to women’s health.
The point about abortion laws killing women is that, where abortion is prohibited by law, women still seek it out, even when the only alternatives are unsafe. It really doesn’t matter how good the hospitals are in the US if the woman can’t get the care she is seeking there. And where abortions are illegal, women are generally very reluctant to seek care for complications.
Remember Trump saying that he would consider not only making abortion illegal, but also instituting penalties for women who obtained abortions?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Right “if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down.” Pretty much exactly what I was referring to and what I disagree with. I don’t see how that is any different than what I said. .
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you. if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
Take the guess work out of your argument or link to your sources.
Hard to debate with someone who ignores all the evidence (or doesn't understand it) and won't produce any evidence to back up their misinformed belief. Seems to confuse research done by professionals as a "claim" made by me and also has a poor understanding of how healthcare works in their own country, not to mention others.
The main problem with the pill seems to be how its efficacy can be affected by other medications. You often hear stories of how people were ill and maybe on antibiotics when they get pregnant unexpectedly. So I'm guessing you can't 100% rely on it if you're taking any other medication (either that or it's literally an issue of people throwing up and not realising they've thrown up the pill too!)
Then women should not have sex if they are on other medications or demand their partner use a condom if they really want to have sex whilst on antibiotics.
How about men stop having sex if they don't like abortion? Really man, you don't like abortion but you want women to do everything about that.... If you don't like it, then never have sex with anyone, and you don't have to worry about your own baby being aborted. After that, it really isn't any of your business what other women choose to do with their bodies, or what medication they take, or whether or not they have sex.
I said I am torn on the issue. Well, it's the woman that gets pregnant, not the man. She has the responsibility to say no to any sex. Where did I say it's my business what medication they take? I never told a woman what to take or not take. Well if women don't want to get pregnant then don't have penetrative sex as there's always a risk. Simple.
Post edited by Thoughts_Arrive on
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Because your suggestion that women rightly bear 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of an action involving both a man and a woman was worthy of sarcasm.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I mean what I said, regardless of the tone inferred. It was based on the absurdity of some of your comments in this thread, that appear to me, at least, that it's on women's shoulders to protect themselves, to say no to a basic human function and desire, despite arming themselves as best they can against unwanted pregnancy.
Legit question - what, if any, responsibility does a man bear in this dance? Would you be willing to take a male version of a birth control pill with all its potential side effects? Knowing that even if you use it resolutely, you can never be guaranteed some sperm will say fuck to you to that or to a condom? If you knew you didn't want children but were in a solid relationship, would you abstain from sex?
Because your suggestion that women rightly bear 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of an action involving both a man and a woman was worthy of sarcasm.
No it wasn't. There are polite ways to debate.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
I mean what I said, regardless of the tone inferred. It was based on the absurdity of some of your comments in this thread, that appear to me, at least, that it's on women's shoulders to protect themselves, to say no to a basic human function and desire, despite arming themselves as best they can against unwanted pregnancy.
Legit question - what, if any, responsibility does a man bear in this dance? Would you be willing to take a male version of a birth control pill with all its potential side effects? Knowing that even if you use it resolutely, you can never be guaranteed some sperm will say fuck to you to that or to a condom? If you knew you didn't want children but were in a solid relationship, would you abstain from sex?
Read my comments how you will, they may be absurd to you but not to me. If there was a pill for men then yes, absolutely the guy should take the pill. If the women says NO I don't want to have sex because I don't want to fall pregnant then the man should respect that and back off. It's the mans responsibility to get a vasectomy if he and his partner don't want kids. You don't have to abstain but the woman must take the pill and as I said the guy needs to do his bit. Can couples abstain from sex? Yes. What about non-penetrative sex?
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
When I mean it's the woman's responsibility, I say that in reference to her having control of her body thus having control and responsibility to say no to sex and for the guy to respect that and back off. This is in the context of a budding relationship or a one night hook up. If you change the context to a de facto or married couple then yes the guy has equal responsibility in birth control. You people are making me out as some anti-women chauvinist when I am pro-women more than you think I am.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Right “if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down.” Pretty much exactly what I was referring to and what I disagree with. I don’t see how that is any different than what I said. .
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you. if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
Take the guess work out of your argument or link to your sources.
I’m not sure why you follow everything I say with asking for a link. All I said is I haven’t seen evidence to support the claim that fewer abortion laws results in fewer abortions. i don’t think a link exists to what I can’t find. What link are you hope by for when I say I haven’t seen convincing evidence? But your first link actually supported my claim. It states there there is no significant link between abortion laws and number of abortions, which is what I was saying. im really confused how nearly every time I can say something that agrees with you, but you still seem to have a problem with what I’ve said. Very confusing actually.
Your article backs up everything I said. Not sure what the issue is here.
”Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.”
When I mean it's the woman's responsibility, I say that in reference to her having control of her body thus having control and responsibility to say no to sex and for the guy to respect that and back off. This is in the context of a budding relationship or a one night hook up. If you change the context to a de facto or married couple then yes the guy has equal responsibility in birth control. You people are making me out as some anti-women chauvinist when I am pro-women more than you think I am.
Seems to me that a woman and a man have equal 'control' and 'responsibility' over consensual sex, whether one night hook-up or married couple. The understanding of the risk and ramifications are identical. With that said, in your opinion should a father have a financial obligation to pay child support and/or (arguably more disruptive to the woman's life) to help raise a child? Seems men get a free pass: they are 50% responsible for all pregnancy mistakes, yet regularly walk away from them with no ramifications to their lives.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hard to debate with someone who ignores all the evidence (or doesn't understand it) and won't produce any evidence to back up their misinformed belief. Seems to confuse research done by professionals as a "claim" made by me and also has a poor understanding of how healthcare works in their own country, not to mention others.
Trump's world!!
Hard to debate when one side defaults to name calling and belittling. You asked a question, I was the only one to honestly answer it. If you don’t want answers, then don’t ask. regardless of what you think, there is at least enough conflicting evidence to question a claim that fewer abortion laws results in fewer abortions. I never claimed more abortion laws results in fewer abortions. There’s some evidence that shows laws don’t matter. Refer to previous links if needed
When I mean it's the woman's responsibility, I say that in reference to her having control of her body thus having control and responsibility to say no to sex and for the guy to respect that and back off. This is in the context of a budding relationship or a one night hook up. If you change the context to a de facto or married couple then yes the guy has equal responsibility in birth control. You people are making me out as some anti-women chauvinist when I am pro-women more than you think I am.
Seems to me that a woman and a man have equal 'control' and 'responsibility' over consensual sex, whether one night hook-up or married couple. The understanding of the risk and ramifications are identical. With that said, in your opinion should a father have a financial obligation to pay child support and/or (arguably more disruptive to the woman's life) to help raise a child? Seems men get a free pass: they are 50% responsible for all pregnancy mistakes, yet regularly walk away from them with no ramifications to their lives.
No. Why would you assume that. WTF? Of course he should pay for child support and help raise the child.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Right “if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down.” Pretty much exactly what I was referring to and what I disagree with. I don’t see how that is any different than what I said. .
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you. if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
'the rest of the UK' - Jesus, sod what you think about abortion, the fact that you think we're in the UK is a far bigger problem!
Right “if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down.” Pretty much exactly what I was referring to and what I disagree with. I don’t see how that is any different than what I said. .
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you. if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
Take the guess work out of your argument or link to your sources.
I’m not sure why you follow everything I say with asking for a link. All I said is I haven’t seen evidence to support the claim that fewer abortion laws results in fewer abortions. i don’t think a link exists to what I can’t find. What link are you hope by for when I say I haven’t seen convincing evidence? But your first link actually supported my claim. It states there there is no significant link between abortion laws and number of abortions, which is what I was saying. im really confused how nearly every time I can say something that agrees with you, but you still seem to have a problem with what I’ve said. Very confusing actually.
Your article backs up everything I said. Not sure what the issue is here.
”Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.”
Because facts matter. You argued that there’s only a comparison with South America and that “Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortion.” You regularly state things like the preceding without a link to actual data and then usually finish it up with how you heard it from your dad, cops and guns, or your family or personal experiences, education. Facts matter and they’re not too hard to find. Stop taking it personally when you get called out to back your theory or argument with facts and not supposition, guesses or anecdotes.
Well to be fair, isn't that what you are saying when you state it's the woman's body and her choice alone? I mean, I'm not sure you can really have it both ways. Although today you do as women make the choice for sex (let's not pretend it's the guy that is getting to determine when he gets it!), the woman make the choice to have the baby or not....and then the courts make the choice to have the man pay child support.
When I mean it's the woman's responsibility, I say that in reference to her having control of her body thus having control and responsibility to say no to sex and for the guy to respect that and back off. This is in the context of a budding relationship or a one night hook up. If you change the context to a de facto or married couple then yes the guy has equal responsibility in birth control. You people are making me out as some anti-women chauvinist when I am pro-women more than you think I am.
Seems to me that a woman and a man have equal 'control' and 'responsibility' over consensual sex, whether one night hook-up or married couple. The understanding of the risk and ramifications are identical. With that said, in your opinion should a father have a financial obligation to pay child support and/or (arguably more disruptive to the woman's life) to help raise a child? Seems men get a free pass: they are 50% responsible for all pregnancy mistakes, yet regularly walk away from them with no ramifications to their lives.
No. Why would you assume that. WTF? Of course he should pay for child support and help raise the child.
I didn’t assume - I asked. That’s why I put a question mark. Since you said that a woman bears control and responsibility for consensual sex, I don’t think it was at all implicit that the resulting pregnancy should result in shared responsibility and control.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Because your suggestion that women rightly bear 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of an action involving both a man and a woman was worthy of sarcasm.
No it wasn't. There are polite ways to debate.
Come on. Earlier you made an offside joke about rape... and now you're talking about the 'polite ways' to debate?
Hard to debate with someone who ignores all the evidence (or doesn't understand it) and won't produce any evidence to back up their misinformed belief. Seems to confuse research done by professionals as a "claim" made by me and also has a poor understanding of how healthcare works in their own country, not to mention others.
Trump's world!!
Hard to debate when one side defaults to name calling and belittling. You asked a question, I was the only one to honestly answer it. If you don’t want answers, then don’t ask. regardless of what you think, there is at least enough conflicting evidence to question a claim that fewer abortion laws results in fewer abortions. I never claimed more abortion laws results in fewer abortions. There’s some evidence that shows laws don’t matter. Refer to previous links if needed
All moot.
If one hasn't evolved to the point where they appreciate an individual's choice in the matter... then they are stuck in the stone ages.
Are all humans equal? I think of infants and small children in Africa who's bellies are bloated and they are soon for death. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to try and help these creatures of God versus defend the 'goo' inside a woman as a result of an accidental pregnancy?
The religious right is conflicted in many ways, but so self righteous and smug... they don't even know it: the befuddled herd.
Well to be fair, isn't that what you are saying when you state it's the woman's body and her choice alone? I mean, I'm not sure you can really have it both ways. Although today you do as women make the choice for sex (let's not pretend it's the guy that is getting to determine when he gets it!), the woman make the choice to have the baby or not....and then the courts make the choice to have the man pay child support.
This point ignores the reality of many, many relationships where in fact the man does decide when sex happens, often through coercion.
So the argument seems to be that a woman is 100% responsible for all consequences of sex, but can’t acrually make the choice about how to deal with the consequences of sex.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Viability is the most widely accepted theory on when human life begins, though "viability" is of course debated. By definition, viability means a fetus has attained a stage of development where it can independently survive outside of the womb. The issues with this are many: different fetuses develop at different rates; different technologies can determine different stages of development; what does it mean to be developed enough to be independent (in human baby terms, of course)?
Also, regarding Ireland and abortion, there was an article back in 2013 about suicidal ideation in pregnant women, and how legal abortion decreased such suicides: https://doctorsforchoiceireland.com/2013/04/29/suicide-in-pregnancy-is-much-rarer-now-thanks-to-legal-abortion/Brain waves begin to show activity about eight weeks in, though, this apparently is incidental until about twenty-two or twenty-four weeks in when the "neural pathways to the cortex are further developed." Regarding consciousness, Jeff McMahan states, "Most neurologists accept that the earliest point at which consciousness is possible is around the twentieth week of pregnancy, which is when synaptic connections begin to form among the cortical neurons." [J. McMahan, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)] McMahan references the belief of neurologist Julius Korein that brain function is a gradual development from the twentieth to twenty-eight week of gestation, resulting in consciousness. However, there is still life prior to, and in the process of, consciousness.
In her book, "The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests," Elizabeth Wicks posits, "we might assert that life begins once a fetus develops organic integration," and to that end (with clarification of medical sophistication): "viability stands at about twenty-two weeks."
"A baby born earlier than that will be unable to survive due to its poorly developed lungs which will prevent breathing even with the aid of an artificial ventilator. Even after twenty-two weeks the chances of long-term survival are slim but, with medical assistance, the baby's body has the potential to function effectively. Until the lungs are sufficiently developed to enable the supply of oxygen to the other organs (with assistance if necessary), the body cannot be regarded as capable of functioning as an integrated organism."
I know it's easy to lose track within the thread, but my comment was in direct response to someone who asked specifically anyone who is pro-life to respond to their claim that more restrictive laws actually causes more people to get abortions. I responded by stating I don;t think there is any validity to that argument. It is true that countries with strict abortion laws often have higher abortion rates, but that is due to the lack of health care and the availability of contraceptives. One of the only comparable countries would be Ireland.
I don't care to make that argument, I think there is zero evidence to support it. But since it ewas brought up and it was asked to hear someone from the other side respond, I did.
I think it is s silly argument to make, but if anyone wants to try to argue abortion laws causes more abortions you have to be willing to consider estimates. According to all accounts I've seen, women in Ireland get fewer abortions than other parts of the UK. To suggest stronger restrictions on abortions here in the US will cause the number of abortions to rise is simply a claim without any evidence to support it.
This is what i asked "Any of you pro-lifers care to comment on the evidence that if you make abortions illegal more women die and if you make abortions legal abortion rates go down?"
Which is not a claim I made, it is a fact backed up by statistical data that I referenced when I made that comment. Something that you have failed to do.
And if you claim making abortions legal makes abortion rates go down, how is that not the same as making abortion illegal rates go up? If according to you abortion is legal = fewer abortions, then how is not making abortions illegal = more abortions not equally true?Exact same thing, 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. So what I was referring to was said. I didn’t keep track of who said it, but I am guessing it was you.
if you really believe that, then what about making it legal would make someone not have an abortion, or on the flip side what about making it illegal would suddenly make them want one?
I haven’t seen any evidence to back that up. Only comparing abortions rates of South American countries to ours. That means pretty much nothing to me. As far as I can tell Ireland is the only advanced country that does not allow abortions, and there’s no evidence to even suggest their rates went up. If anything it’s lower than the rest of U.K.
i don’t think anyone wants a zero-exception abortion laws.
the article cited about a teen rape was incredibly sad, but if I remember correctly that took place in South America. I’m far from convinced that would have the same outcome here. Better medicine, doctors and hospitals that may have prevented that death or predicted. I don’t see how it relates to that topic. But as far as abortion laws killing women just about everyone would be in favor of exceptions due to women’s health.
Remember Trump saying that he would consider not only making abortion illegal, but also instituting penalties for women who obtained abortions?
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abortion-around-the-world-where-are-rates-highest/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Trump's world!!
Well, it's the woman that gets pregnant, not the man.
She has the responsibility to say no to any sex.
Where did I say it's my business what medication they take? I never told a woman what to take or not take.
Well if women don't want to get pregnant then don't have penetrative sex as there's always a risk. Simple.
Because your suggestion that women rightly bear 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of an action involving both a man and a woman was worthy of sarcasm.
Legit question - what, if any, responsibility does a man bear in this dance? Would you be willing to take a male version of a birth control pill with all its potential side effects? Knowing that even if you use it resolutely, you can never be guaranteed some sperm will say fuck to you to that or to a condom? If you knew you didn't want children but were in a solid relationship, would you abstain from sex?
If there was a pill for men then yes, absolutely the guy should take the pill.
If the women says NO I don't want to have sex because I don't want to fall pregnant then the man should respect that and back off.
It's the mans responsibility to get a vasectomy if he and his partner don't want kids.
You don't have to abstain but the woman must take the pill and as I said the guy needs to do his bit.
Can couples abstain from sex? Yes. What about non-penetrative sex?
i don’t think a link exists to what I can’t find. What link are you hope by for when I say I haven’t seen convincing evidence? But your first link actually supported my claim. It states there there is no significant link between abortion laws and number of abortions, which is what I was saying.
im really confused how nearly every time I can say something that agrees with you, but you still seem to have a problem with what I’ve said. Very confusing actually.
Your article backs up everything I said. Not sure what the issue is here.
”Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.”
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hard to debate when one side defaults to name calling and belittling. You asked a question, I was the only one to honestly answer it. If you don’t want answers, then don’t ask.
regardless of what you think, there is at least enough conflicting evidence to question a claim that fewer abortion laws results in fewer abortions.
I never claimed more abortion laws results in fewer abortions. There’s some evidence that shows laws don’t matter. Refer to previous links if needed
Of course he should pay for child support and help raise the child.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/06/how-abortion-is-regulated-around-the-world/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Come on. Earlier you made an offside joke about rape... and now you're talking about the 'polite ways' to debate?
All moot.
If one hasn't evolved to the point where they appreciate an individual's choice in the matter... then they are stuck in the stone ages.
Are all humans equal? I think of infants and small children in Africa who's bellies are bloated and they are soon for death. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to try and help these creatures of God versus defend the 'goo' inside a woman as a result of an accidental pregnancy?
The religious right is conflicted in many ways, but so self righteous and smug... they don't even know it: the befuddled herd.
So the argument seems to be that a woman is 100% responsible for all consequences of sex, but can’t acrually make the choice about how to deal with the consequences of sex.