Apparently there are situations where the needs of one individual can usurp the rights of another.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Printable View
Apparently there are situations where the needs of one individual can usurp the rights of another.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
We were not discussing Obama's record or opinions. That was not the point of the thread, but you could not resist slamming him. He is very squeamish on late term abortions and has always said he believes states have the right to restrict them, however he has maintained that those restrictions must have exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. He has opposed legislation that is so vague that it would effectively define a fetus as a person or could be interpreted as bannning all abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
That's sort of right. He opposed legislation that would define an abortion survivor as a 'live birth'. I would maintain that any fetus, alive outside the womb, is a baby, deserving of all the constitutional protections that others enjoy. Without that designation, they can legally be left to die without medical care.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud
Peggy was right several posts back, it's a semantics game. If we don't get the semantics right, it's possible that people will realize that they're sometimes killing babies rather than removing a tumor or other foreign growth. Pointing that out is not a "slam" on Obama, it's pointing out the collective hypocracy of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding.Quote:
In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
The final decision lies with the woman whose life and womb is on the line, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
Ya know LDAHL, that is actually a REALLY interesting question. I've always tried to be an active parent/partner and so have assumed my opinion was valid in the discussion, even beyond just my own family. Peggy is right stating that I will never be able to fully comprehend all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. As colloquial as it now is to say "we" are pregnant, the truth is that only the woman ever will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
So where is the line beyond which one opinion becomes more valuable than others? With women who are already mothers because they are the only ones who know what it is like if you don't abort? What about the fathers of their children? What about women who have had an abortion, but never given birth to a child? What about women who are fertile, but have not ever conceived? Shouldn't potential conception have ramifications and responsibilities for either sex? If responsibility is to be conferred on both partners shouldn't they both also have a say in the outcome? What about, as LDAHL mentioned, women who are not capable of conception? Is their opinion invalid because they can not experience pregnancy and birth? Where's the line?
"Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding. " (Alan)
The goal should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices. Forced servitude would only come into play if one is compelled to carry an unwanted fetus to term. (See The Handmaid's Tale)
I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.
1. Here is a link to a non-partisan objective outline of Obama's record on abortion. Everyone can make up their own minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...iews/Abortion/
2. Here is a link to a non profit organization that does research and compiles stats on abortion in real life. To clarify a few points, the vast majority of legal abortions in this country take place in the first 3 months. The vast number of women report feeling relieved more than regretful after having an abortion. The risk of regretting your choice is of course a possibility if you opt for an abortion, and in fact the woman behind Roe v. Wade certainly regretted her role in the case later in her life.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
3. You said: If it depends on governmental intervention it's not really compassion but rather FORCED SERVITUDE. So, let me understand this: when the government uses your tax money to save babies by paying for programs that protect the purity of baby formula or provide pre-natal health care to poor women or pay the salaries of social workers to take abused babies away from unfit parents...that is tantamount to enslaving you. But when the government makes it a crime to obtain an abortion, effectively coercing women into supporting "babies" with their bodies, that is NOT involuntary servitude.
I don't know anything about your personal commitment to helping other people in the form of charitable donations or volunteer work. For all I know you have adopted 60 kids and gave half your paycheck to the nearest home for unwed mothers. But you consistently oppose any government programs that effectively help other people and you are so vehement in your equation of taxes with involuntary servitude that I find it incongruous that you would not be troubled by the prospect of the government forcing women to bear children. That is involuntary servitude to me. You do know that in third world countries surrogate mothers are compensated for serving as incubators and giving birth? So the service of providing a fetus your body to grow iinto a full term baby does have as much monetary value as your work.
That is not an ad hominem attack.
This is:Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud
Quote:
When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
For me, the problem with the argument is that people get tied up in whether or not abortion is right/wrong or should be legal/illegal, rather than looking at what creates the prevalence of abortions.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that collects data around abortion rates and similar issues, the real lynchpin around this issue is the prevalence of unintended pregnancy, not whether or not abortion is legal.
So, the real action shouldn't be focused on whether or not abortion is legal -- that's secondary -- but on making certain that people have access to birth control, comprehensive sex education, and a culture that supports the use of birth control methods.
Most countries who have the lowest unintended pregnancy rates and therefore lowest abortion rates are countries whose national education systems provide comprehensive sex education as well as have national health care programs that provide free birth control to those who would seek it. As these two elements impact culture a great deal, a culture develops around utilizing these things and avoiding pregnancy, and thereby avoiding abortion.
Anyone who would want to prevent abortions would therefore want to educate the young populace about how to prevent unintended pregnancy. The problem is that they tend to focus on abstinence education, not wanting to discuss birth control, and so on. And in particular, not wanting to provide birth control.
Arguably, that needn't be done by "big gubment" (has anyone noticed that the government is about the same size regardless of whether the president is democrat or republican? i think if you *really* want small government, you're going to have to look at libertarians!), but part of the issue is that much of the anti-abortion-laws crowd is also focused on actively preventing birth control access and comprehensive sex education.
Which means, even if they succeed at making abortion illegal, the rates of abortion will be just as high (if not higher) than they currently are.
Well done Zoebird. Education = +1. If the only time abortion was ever considered was during the rare times when a mother's life was at risk I suspect there would be very little polarization around the issue.
I concede that was poorly phrased.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Again it comes back to when is it another life? And given that you're talking about choices, would that infer that you're ok with abortion in cases where the woman had no choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
I absolutely agree that any potential for human life should be given full and careful consideration; I would like to think that women (and men) would be scrupulous about this before conception, but based on results...Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
It applies to EVERYONE who isn't a member of the woman's family.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
This is largely a case of people trying to force their religious beliefs on the general public. Viability is actually pretty easy to determine, viability being capable of independent life. A one month zygote is not viable. A two month old fetus is not viable. A three or four month old fetus is not viable. There, we have taken care of the vast majority of abortions. A five month old fetus is not viable. Six and seven is getting into a grey area. Independently, they are not viable. With drastic intervention, maybe, but even then it's iffy, and there is quite often grave physical and mental damage. Despite the rabid anti-choice types, doctors and nurses are not delivering 8 month old babies and killing them. It's just not happening. That's called murder and someone would come forward.
I can appreciate someones religious beliefs. Personally I think religion is a bunch of bunk, but I won't picket outside your church and scream that you are being brainwashed. I won't demand the government ban religion even though I think religious zealots are one of the biggest threats to our way of life. If you don't believe in abortion then by all means don't have one.
To extend Jane's thought:
First they came for her tonsils, but they were not my tonsils, so I agreed.
Then they came for a pint of blood, but it wasn't my type, so I agreed.
Then they came for her womb, but since men can't get pregnant, I'm good.
Then they wanted me to pay for it, and I'm all like, Whoa! Wait!
I think the argument gets lost out of all of this is not about legality per se.
I believe these are the two primary arguments:
Moderate Pro-Lifers say "I don't want government in these health care decisions, but when the government acts, it should be doing things to promote/support life." The underlying assumption is that the person wants women to rarely have abortions (as in, only in extreme circumstances). Would this be a fair characterization? It was my experience when I was on that side.
Moderate Pro-choicers say "I don't want the government in these health care decisions, but I also don't want a lot of women having abortions." The underlying assumption is that having them legal is an important reproductive/health choice, but that the act itself is not wonderful and something that one should be cavalier about. This is my experience anyway.
Both groups have several things in common: 1. they don't want the government making decisions about women's reproductive and health rights, or over a family's reproductive and health rights; and 2. they don't want people to feel compelled to have abortions "willy-nilly" as a form of birth control.
From here, it's important to look at facts:
1. according to the research, the percentage of abortions is directly related to the number of unwanted pregnancies NOT related to whether or not the abortions are legal. In countries where it is illegal, and where unwanted pregnancy rates are high, abortion rates are just as high as those countries that have high unwanted pregnancy rates where abortion is legal. Thus, the legal element is not relevant to preventing abortions. Making it illegal (or overturning Roe v Wade) will not reduce the number of abortions. It would only increase criminality, increasing expenses in the justice system (and thereby increasing government), and possibly increasing the profits of privatized prison systems.
2. the laws as they come down in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey explicitly state that the government is saying out of a woman's right to choose what is appropriate for her self, her body, and her family. The effective first statement of both groups is supported via the current law, and therefore there is no reason to fight over this law.
3. research has demonstrated that the most effective ways to decrease the number of abortions is education and access to birth control.
Therefore, both groups should stop focusing on legalities and finger pointing about adoption and what not, and start focusing on policy that will allow this to take place.
And, I'm not suggesting any specific policy per se -- government or private. I just wish people would stop arguing over the law or over viability and other related beliefs, and look at -- you know -- solving the problem.
If you believe there are too many abortions, then you need to work to end abortions, not to fight against a law that doesn't impact whether or not abortions happen.
My position (I'm male, but I'll dare to speak anyways) is as follows:
- I think a "fetus" at some point in its development is human in some important sense, and I won't *****foot around the fact that abortion is killing.
- I think that all beings deserve equal consideration of interests.
- I do not believe in using force against another except in case of self defense.
- I think the mother's right to control of her body outweighs the unborn human's right to occupy her body. If necessary, I would kill a man on the spot, quite legally in this state, to stop him from using force to coerce me into serving him against my will for a day, or an hour, or a minute. Forcing me to serve his interests against my will for 9 months seems even more troublesome.
So, in general:
- I am opposed to abortion personally. And so I take steps to avoid encountering the issue in my life. Though apparently nature finds a way, and my daughter arrived on the scene 2 years ahead of schedule. So be it.
- I would not presume to tell a mother what she should or should not decide about aborting her baby. I don't think her husband even has that "right". Or her doctor, or her priest.
- I would not presume to tell a doctor he had to perform abortions against his will.
- I find distinctions of "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest" to miss the fundamental ethical points - you are either killing, or you aren't, and if you are, you need to think through if the killing, the use of force, is acceptable. I find this use of force possible acceptable, and it's the mother's call.
I believe I detailed the unintended consequences of this sort of support on the previous boards. I'll summarize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
My sister and her husband were criminals, engaged in a decade long life of crime on-the-road. They had two daughters, that they kept. They, three times that I've been able to determine, got pregnant on purpose, contacted a support service, told the service they were considering an abortion, and got the support service to provide them housing and food for the duration of the pregnancy and through the adoption. They used this time to live below-the-radar of the warrants out for them in about a dozen states. They were in essence breeding and selling babies to support their lifestyle.
If they couldn't land a program, they would abort the child. If they got arrested before they managed to get into hiding in a program, or under other circumstances, they'd abort the child. I know of 5 abortions.
As I said in another thread here today, yes, I think evil exists :-(
bae,
i fall quite similar to you. I also like how St Thomas Acquinas dealt with the issue in his treatise. He essentially says that the moral implications are between God and the individual woman. He assumed -- and asserted that it was only a guess -- that there would be more moral import *after* the quickening vs before, but that whatever the moral implications are -- those are between the woman and God.
Yes, it is killing. But there are a fair number of situations where killing is justified (as you bring forth in your statement) or allowable, even if it is still unsavory and distasteful to those who would feel forced to do so, as well as those who are observing.
I also can admit that having had my son, I am far less cavalier about the concept. Before having him, I said that if we weren't ready, we would go ahead and abort. But, once I did have him (and, we never were in that position, btw), I now feel that there's just no way that I could do it -- and that we would find a way if I were to become pregnant.
That being said, I am *ridiculously* educated about my body, and we are looking at using 3 forms of birth control just to be sure that we don't get into that situation. Sterilization is out for both of us, absolutely certain. But vigilance is no problem. Even hyper-vigilance.
bae, that is tragic. thanks for reminding us of the other side, too. though, seeing their criminality, i could assume that even if abortion were illegal, they'd still play that game. tragic, tragic. yes, human evil certainly does exist.
Yes. At least to my understanding most of the support organizations now share data with each other to try to detect this sort of serial behaviour, though I'm not sure what that really accomplishes :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
the main thing it accomplishes is those organizations not being used to protect people from prosecution for crimes, or their resources aren't being 'used.'
True enough. Hopefully by reducing the marketing channel for serial-criminal-baby-sellers, they'd be encouraged to find some other line of work.
I think this a very well thought out position.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Of course you have an opinion, and you stated it very well as it pertains to your family.
I'm so sorry about your sister. Unfortunately, monsters aren't all make believe.
I think that if Margaret Sanger showed up today in this country she would be shocked, just shocked, at the number of unwanted children that STILL exist after decades of education and superior birth control that far surpasses anything available in her day. Shocked and dismayed.
I know that I am.
But on the flip side, I remember when I was a teen, I knew *so many* teens who didn't have the slightest knowledge about their bodies and how babies were made. And they were sexually active. Between ages 14 and 17, I spent a good deal of time in my summers educating my peers. They went to public schools. Their parents had "opted them out" of the sex education program. So, they knew nothing.
I'm not saying that parents "shouldn't" have the right to opt a kid out of a program that they dislike or whatever, but that level of ignorance is . . . devastating in my opinion.
And, teens are rather capricious about the whole thing, and sometimes rules work against people. For example, my catholic school did have comprehensive education. But, they also had rules. The rule book -- which had been last edited in the 1950s -- stated that if a girl became pregnant, she could attend our school from home (correspondence) and then not "walk in graduation" (which meant wearing a white dress and carrying a red rose and apparently was really important to people). If she gave that child up for adoption after the birth, then she could return to school. If she kept the child, she could not return to school.
So, after 1972, graduation became WAY more important than babies. And a lot of girls whom I knew had abortions.
In 1992 -- my sophomore year and the first year that I heard of a classmate getting an abortion because she wanted to walk in graduation -- I went to the principal and vice principal and asked them if they were pro-life. If they were, I postulated, then they would do things that *prevented* abortion. This would include things like "girls being able to stay in school with us" and possibly considering "allowing them to walk in graduation."
For me, walking in graduation was meaningless. I don't get it. But apparently for a lot of people, it's Really Really Super Important and Meaningful. That goes for adults too -- parents, teachers, and admin all seem to feel that Graduation is Awesomely Important and Sacred.
My argument: Is it more sacred than human life itself?
By 1993, the rules had been amended. IN fact, all of the rules were considered, put to discussion between the diocese, the nuns who ran the school (the order), the alumnae, staff -- and yes, even students.
I theorized that while the education was comprehensive, girls wouldn't use birth control because of the culture (catholic), and that they would then seek abortions to avoid punishment. I was able to get multiple statements from students -- in person -- to give to the board that they had had abortions. I was shocked at the number in my year alone -- it was more than 10, and there were only 120 girls in our class. Other classes also had several abortions.
To a one, every girl said "I didn't want to not get to walk in graduation."
The rules were changed.
Girls who kept their babies (stayed pregnant) were allowed to attend school. It was quickly determined that getting pregnant was not glamorous -- and those girls were rather shunned. They experienced the public shaming that not allowing them to attend school (the fear being that pregnancy would be romanticized) was meant to accomplish but didn't. And, they were allowed to participate in every aspect of life except, ultimately, ONE -- which was walking in graduation.
While the rates of abortions in my class went down and pregnancies went up (by my senior year of high school, i knew of 7 pregnant girls in my class, and this is above the 10+ who had abortions, and there were several more who gave birth within months of graduation. You have to see that this was easily 1/6th or MORE of our graduating class, and several girls *still* had abortions to avoid the public shame and also the "not getting to walk in graduation."
I kept close notes of rumors, and gently spoke to girls -- telling them I was collecting information to allow the school to make a pro-life decision.
Ultimately, graduation was opened, but you couldn't be pregnant and showing during graduation. This still means that abortions occur so that a 17 yr old girl can do a stupid, meaningless ceremony. If she is likely to 'show' on June 5 or so, she aborts.
The numbers all around are well down. According to the school, our class was one of the "toughest classes to deal with." we were contentious, rebellious, and stubborn. No doubt, I was part of that problem, because my pro-life leanings were such that I didn't want to just 'Take a stand" against the laws back then, but at some people I realized that the legality DID NOT create a situation where abortiosn were not happening.
My process was many. One was changing the school culture so that girls kept their babies (some gave theirs up for adoption, some of those children are now graduating from high school themselves this year -- kept by their parents). Another was purchasing and handing out birth control. Girls felt like they couldn't go and buy condoms themselves, boys were not going to (another cultural thing), and I had no qualms about going into a drug store and spending my pocket money preventing pregnancies of others as best I could.
I also learned and taught fertility charting -- something not taught in schools -- to help girls understand. I had no way to access things like birth control pills or similar -- because those require prescriptions. I learned as much as I could about fertility charting and attempted to teach it to my friends and encourage them to use condoms and talk to their parents about getting pills, wires, or diaphragms.
While I never believed in using these forms myself (beyond charting), i felt that if a girl was going to be sexually active, it was VITAL that she was able to get what she needed. And I was more than willing to provide it. I ultimately connected with planned parenthood, and they gave me a lot of information about birth control and supplied me with condoms to pass out, so I no longer had to spend my spending money on it. I happened into the place just after a pro-life rally had taken place there.
I later left the pro-life movement because i felt that the movement was misguided. They are focusing their efforts in the wrong place. The right place to focus is not necessarily on mother support -- though that is important -- it's to focus on preventing pregnancy. Prevent unwanted pregnancy, you prevent abortions. Plain and simple.
To avoid that, you educate, you provide birth control, you change the culture so that people aren't going to choose to kill a baby so that they can walk in stupid, meaningless ceremonies, and you provide mother-support if it breaks through all of that.
When I went to university, another 12 girls got pregnant in their first year. I started to think they were doing it on purpose. Nearly all of these girls have kept their children. Being on FB is weird.
Zoebird,
Thank you for humanizing some of the issues by telling your story.
What I take away from it is people who don't want to get burned shouldn't play with matches. I don't have statistics on the sexual activity of teens/young adults now, but I have a feeling that it's pretty much an accepted practice, probably thanks in part to the media and movies. I agree with you completely on education and on changing the culture and on prevention of pregnancy--and I am idealistic enough to believe that abstinence is a good place to start.
In the old days, you weren't supposed to have sex before marriage. I'm sure that was breached often, but now anyone who is even trying to do that is considered a dinosaur. Marriage doesn't even happen for many people now until they are in their 30s, if ever, so there are no real social guidelines or barriers to having sex. My generation, I'm sad to say, really did a bang-up job on selling free love.
I asked my daughter once, if a girl is about 28, how many sex partners is she likely to have had? And she told me, 10. I have to say, little old product-of-Catholic-school me was shocked. Pregnancy, even with birth control, is often a numbers game. So, shouldn't we TRY to keep the shooting numbers low, if we want to reduce the incidence of abortion? Just try??
by the by, I admit that I was a very, very weird teenager.
The existence of so many unloved, rejected, neglected, abandoned, and abused children is vastly more appalling to me than are medical abortions. I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.
And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.
True, but that doesn't mean the experience has to be like the drive-thru at McDonalds.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I think the word you're looking is "awesome" - that was pretty cool :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
considering i've only had one partner, i agree that abstinence is great and healthy and should be taught/considered.
but, i don't think that "abstinence education" is that great. It mostly focuses on one thing, and not educating on the other issues and concerns.
the program in our school was comprehensive. they did teach abstinence. a BIG part of the program was the social and emotional (personal) impact of premarital/extramarital sex. What wasn't covered were ethical foundations.
there are many reasons why i wanted until i was with my husband. but here are some of the foundations:
1. my body theology asserts that the body is a sacred vessel or an aspect of a sacred whole. just as anything held sacred is protected and held precious, well cared for, and so on, so also should my body.
2. sex is a powerful, bonding and procreative act. anyone who understands, for example, how powerful a high-voltage station is, wouldn't "play" with it. when you understand how powerful something is, you don't "muck about" with it.
3. in general, it is wrong to seek to use or harm other human beings -- they have dignity and sovereignty, and seeking to use or harm them for your own purposes is inappropriate. As I had no desire to use someone, I also had no desire to be used (see 1).
These sort of belief-premises which form the foundation of my ethics are what guided me to not have sex until i was with my husband (it was pre-marital, but after engagement/commitment).
It made the decision simple. I know how sacred I am. I know how powerful sex is. I know that I do not want to be used as a pleasure-toy (in the pick up artist realm or "game" realm, it's called a 'pump and dump' when you actively use someone as a pleasure toy). I also know that I do not want to use someone else in that way (i find the behavior repugnant and beneath my dignity).
I tried to explain this to my friends, but most of them failed to see it. "sex is fun!" and "there's nothing wrong if everyone is consenting!" and "sex is sacred too!" obviously, they didn't really comprehend how "sacred" works.
And this is part of the problem, imo. Even in cultures where multiple partners, orgies, and the like might be the norm, these sexual ethics are still there. Sex would not be using someone, nor would it be merely "consenting partners." it's not just a "game for fun and pleasure!" in such cultures, they are deeply procreative bonding acts.
Heck, go back to the norse people. they had festivals throughout the year, and the point of these festivals was to procreate. Men would visit towns for these festivals (men who were viking or on travels of various sorts), and this would purposefully 'mix up' the gene pool. It was absolutely critical for the health of the community, and festival babies were considered "extra lucky." Marriage wasn't important for these festivals, men would return home to wives pregnant by the festival, and it was considered a blessing and would be "his child." Fostering children was also a common practice -- which increased blood ties and social ties across communities.
So, it's not like it's this strict "no sex before/outside" of marriage thing. But it wasn't a free-for-all. You could have multiple, extra marital partners for the *festival* and it wasn't using people, it was a sacred celebration and everyone knew the rules. It's completely different than the way a lot of people characterize things today. And, we live in a different world.
Anyway, i find this topic frustrating in general. I do not know why people -- in general -- do not behave with more self respect and dignity, and treat others with more respect and dignity.
+ 1Quote:
I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.
And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.
I would say that 10 is a low number for a woman of 28 today. Or maybe I know particularly loose women.
Most women, if they are married between 22 and 25 might have 4 or fewer partners. But, most have more than that -- as far as I can tell -- but there are a lot that they "don't count" (one night stands after parties, etc are "not counted" because it was "just casual." I don't get how people twist the numbers).
So, a 'good girl' may have 5 or so by 28, but that might mean 15 or 30 or 100 depending upon a lot of factors. But if they are younger, and if they get married younger -- they likely have far fewer partners than their older counterparts.
I admit, i don't get it.
There is another aspect to this discussion other than unwed teens and young women getting pregnant.
I am old enough to remember the first womens focus groups of the mid to late 60's.
As many critics have pointed out, the women were mainly white and fairly middle class [as was I], they also were a very mixed group married and unmarried women of all ages. The women I met were not welfare queens, uneducated or clueless.
When the discussions centered on birth control and abortion it was disclosed just how many married women, with children, had sought out the then illegal procedure during their marraiges.
Family economics were an issue, even though most of these women were not of the poverty class, but many confessed that they just could not handle any more children. They were tired, wanted out of having another child and also wanted some control of their own reproduction process. Many women back then could not demand that their spouses use whatever legal means were available and many were constrained by social and religious views which left them out of the process. They sought out illegal procedures as a result...they made themselves criminals inorder to get some control of their lives.
The discussion today needs to get away from the inevitable harangue about young unmarrieds , those on welfare and those people who are too clueless to use birth control. There is more to this issue.
We need to focus on the fact of basic human sexuality. People have sex, thay have always had sex and we must stop demonizing people for doing so and make birth control, not only available but a valid and common place health option. Unwanted pregnancies are greatly lessened if the stigma that planning for sex is a shameful act is ended.
Women need to know that they have the power over their lives. Young girls need access to education and jobs, because statistics prove that birth rates drop when this happens.
Well put. Most European countries have much lower rates of unwanted pregnancy than we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by chanterelle
yes, that's exactly what i think, chanterelle. :)
frankly i find much of the language on this thread to be far more shocking than the idea that a woman might have 10 sexual partners in her life. i feel like i stumbled into the first season of mad men or something when the doctor tells peggy that if he finds out she's "abusing" her birth control pills, he will taken them away from her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
why is a woman's "number" something that we feel we have the right to pass judgement on? or even COMMENT on? there are PLENTY of men who have had FAR more partners than that, and no one says a word. why?
it's the same reason that we are still having this same tired abortion debate: because women's bodies are still in a very real sense seen as public property. especially by those who hold a traditional worldview.
this pisses me off. if a woman wants to get laid 5 nights a week by 5 different guys and then eat mc donald's on the way home, that is her right as an adult in possession of her own brain and genitals. and everyone else can shut the hell up about it.
also, some perspective: if you became sexually active at 18, and had 2 partners per year (not exactly a shocking number), you'd still be up to a couple dozen by age 30.
this is normal.
and why are we conflating the number of partners with someone's likelihood to have an abortion?
they have NOTHING to do with each other.
some interesting reading for those whose ideas about sex and abortion are stuck in a time warp:
http://thehairpin.com/2012/01/ask-an...rative-edition
edited to add: not trying to single zoebird out with this quote ... it just seemed to sum up the last few pages of this thread.