Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

I am at odds why it would even be an issue. It was almost like Bucky was saying the rapist did the victim a favor.

Click to expand...

WE ALL KNOW HE FREQUENTLY TELLS STUPID LIES. This appears to be evidence he also tells Stupid Truths (most often those are Facts taken out of their proper context).

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:

TRADITIONALLY, SHE HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT SUPPORT. On behalf of shared offspring. It is Biological Fact that young humans need far more assistance than youngsters of other species. And human cultures the world over have in common the significant feature of expecting fathers to support their offspring. ALSO, why are you ignoring the Wage Gap, which automatically often makes it tough for women to support children by themselves?

Click to expand...

I agree that babies need support, but, if the woman can opt-out for any reason (abort), shouldn't the man be afforded the same choice?

AND NOW YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT CONTRACEPTION IS 100% EFFECTIVE. Or that a "seduce her and run" type of male would never sabotage her contraceptive choices. His goal, remember, is to have offspring without paying for it. And while Nature doesn't care about what works to pass genes onto the next generation, it is well known that genes can influence (not control) behavior, AND it is well known that successful reproductive strategies TEND to be genetically reinforced. Which is definitely a potential source of problems for human cultures!

Click to expand...

Hormonal birth control is highly effective -- abstinence is 100% effective.

SHE HAS AS MUCH RIGHT AS ANYONE ELSE TO ENJOY SEX WITHOUT OFFSPRING.

Click to expand...

Again -- if she has the right to sex without offspring -- so does the man. It's only fair.

FALSE. Since you cannot present any reason why an average healthy unborn human **must** get born! Especially since the world is already overpopulated with humans!

Click to expand...

Using your "placenta" logic, a baby who has been born but is still attached via the umbilical cord, can be killed without any repercussions. That's actually a bit of a throwback to the antebellum days when the midwives quietly killed babies of white women if they were born with dark skin tones. But, using your placenta logic, it would still be possible. Nothing new in the world, huh?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

I agree that babies need support, but, if the woman can opt-out for any reason (abort), shouldn't the man be afforded the same choice?

Click to expand...

A woman is not opting out of support by aborting, She is opting out of pregnancy. Of course that means both the man and the woman will have no support issues due to that pregnancy. But first and foremost she is opting out of pregnancy.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

A woman is not opting out of support by aborting, She is opting out of pregnancy. Of course that means both the man and the woman will have no support issues due to that pregnancy. But first and foremost she is opting out of pregnancy.

Click to expand...

That's not actually true based on peer-reviewed studies:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

Click to expand...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658

Therefore, if a woman can opt-out for the above reasons, it's only fair that a man be able to opt-out for the same reasons.

Right?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

That's not actually true based on peer-reviewed studies:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658

Therefore, if a woman can opt-out for the above reasons, it's only fair that a man be able to opt-out for the same reasons.

Right?

Click to expand...

If a woman is pregnant does the man suffer any ability to support himself? Nope. Does he have to worry about pregnancy related complications will cost him his job, health, ahility to support himself?

I was off nearly six months due to complications. By all rights I should have lost my job. If I did not Have the social resources and the ability to go into deep debt....you would have found me relocated in an unsafe area of a different city on Medicaid. Yeah....it is not the same at all. Not in the leat.

The problem is that you look at the financial aspects of pregnancy without looking at the real life risk and the potential for poverty and the problems (safety,health, and well being) associated with it - especially while pregnant.

My serious complications took me totally by surprise. I felt ok. If I was working poor and was deciding between following MD instructions and paying the rent...that is not an easy call. It took a few weeks to actually "feel" the effects of my disorder. If I had continued to work....it is possible I would not be here or my kidneys would have been irretrievably damaged. I had the "luxury" of being able to follow my doctor's instructions. Tell me, when you impregnate a woman....do you need to decide weather to take a shift (because you need to pay rent) or to keep an appointment with an MD...or to stop work?

I was very healthy and had no expectations of complications. I was expecting to be off 2 weeks before and 8 weeks after. Because of complications and a C-section unrelated to the complssications I was off nearly 6 months. I wish folks would not minimize the real life complications of pregnancy and how even a healthy pregnancy can push a woman into (or further into) poverty - which can endanger her safety or well being if she is forced to relocate into a less safe area,

By the way, when you end up broke and miss paying some bills ...try to find a decent place to live (at least in my area)

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

If a woman is pregnant does the man suffer any ability to support himself? Nope. Does he have to worry about pregnancy related complications will cost him his job, health, ahility to support himself?

Click to expand...

No, but he might still have the same reasons as the woman for not wanting to have a child. It might not be a good time for him financially, and he may not feel ready. Those are major reasons women cite for aborting. Certainly the man's concerns should be just as important.

I was off nearly six months due to complications. By all rights I should have lost my job. If I did not Have the social resources and the ability to go into deep debt....you would have found me relocated in an unsafe area of a different city on Medicaid. Yeah....it is not the same at all. Not in the leat.

The problem is that you look at the financial aspects of pregnancy without looking at the real life risk and the potential for poverty and the problems (safety,health, and well being) associated with it - especially while pregnant.

My serious complications took me totally by surprise. I felt ok. If I was working poor and was deciding between following MD instructions and paying the rent...that is not an easy call. It took a few weeks to actually "feel" the effects of my disorder. If I had continued to work....it is possible I would not be here or my kidneys would have been irretrievably damaged. I had the "luxury" of being able to follow my doctor's instructions. Tell me, when you impregnate a woman....do you need to decide weather to take a shift (because you need to pay rent) or to keep an appointment with an MD...or to stop work?

I was very healthy and had no expectations of complications. I was expecting to be off 2 weeks before and 8 weeks after. Because of complications and a C-section unrelated to the complssications I was off nearly 6 months. I wish folks would not minimize the real life complications of pregnancy and how even a healthy pregnancy can push a woman into (or further into) poverty - which can endanger her safety or well being if she is forced to relocate into a less safe area,

By the way, when you end up broke and miss paying some bills ...try to find a decent place to live (at least in my area)

Click to expand...

Sorry about your pregnancy experience. That sounds rough for sure. I'm certainly not minimizing the health risks to a woman from carrying a pregnancy, but, in the study I cited, that was not among the main reasons for aborting.

I don't think a man should be able to stop a woman from aborting if she wants to abort, but likewise, I think a man should be able to opt-out of being a father (meaning support and acknowledgement of the child), just like the woman can.

When you put the physical aspects of pregnancy aside, the underlying reasons behind aborting should equally apply to the needs and desires of both the mother and father of the fetus.

Women can have a physical abortion, and men should be allowed a legal method as well for opting out.

Men could have a time limit for deciding, just as women have a time limit on abortion. Since a woman has three months (first trimester) in most cases to abort without question, perhaps we could give a man three months from the time he learns of the pregnancy to opt out. If he misses the timeline, that would be too bad, just as if a woman misses her timeline to abort, she is often stuck having the kid.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

No, but he might still have the same reasons as the woman for not wanting to have a child. It might not be a good time for him financially, and he may not feel ready. Those are major reasons women cite for aborting. Certainly the man's concerns should be just as important.

Sorry about your pregnancy experience. That sounds rough for sure. I'm certainly not minimizing the health risks to a woman from carrying a pregnancy, but, in the study I cited, that was not among the main reasons for aborting.

I don't think a man should be able to stop a woman from aborting if she wants to abort, but likewise, I think a man should be able to opt-out of being a father (meaning support and acknowledgement of the child), just like the woman can.

When you put the physical aspects of pregnancy aside, the underlying reasons behind aborting should equally apply to the needs and desires of both the mother and father of the fetus.

Women can have a physical abortion, and men should be allowed a legal method as well for opting out.

Men could have a time limit for deciding, just as women have a time limit on abortion. Since a woman has three months (first trimester) in most cases to abort without question, perhaps we could give a man three months from the time he learns of the pregnancy to opt out. If he misses the timeline, that would be too bad, just as if a woman misses her timeline to abort, she is often stuck having the kid.

Click to expand...

But you can't put the physical side effects of the pregnancy aside.

I too had a high risk pregnancies.

My kidneys were damaged during my first my pregnancy, I was so sick and weaked, I not only had to quit my college classes and part time job , I was unable to do any chores around the house. I could barley get to the rest room on my own.

I was so anemic when it was time for delivery my OB had the delivery set up for a complete blood transfusion in case I started bleeding to death. When they wheeled me into the delivery I did know if I would survive to see the baby or if the baby would survive..


BTW:

The study that you refer to was a standard form with answers that were preprinted on the form.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

No, but he might still have the same reasons as the woman for not wanting to have a child. It might not be a good time for him financially, and he may not feel ready. Those are major reasons women cite for aborting. Certainly the man's concerns should be just as important.



Sorry about your pregnancy experience. That sounds rough for sure. I'm certainly not minimizing the health risks to a woman from carrying a pregnancy, but, in the study I cited, that was not among the main reasons for aborting.

I don't think a man should be able to stop a woman from aborting if she wants to abort, but likewise, I think a man should be able to opt-out of being a father (meaning support and acknowledgement of the child), just like the woman can.

When you put the physical aspects of pregnancy aside, the underlying reasons behind aborting should equally apply to the needs and desires of both the mother and father of the fetus.

Women can have a physical abortion, and men should be allowed a legal method as well for opting out.

Men could have a time limit for deciding, just as women have a time limit on abortion. Since a woman has three months (first trimester) in most cases to abort without question, perhaps we could give a man three months from the time he learns of the pregnancy to opt out. If he misses the timeline, that would be too bad, just as if a woman misses her timeline to abort, she is often stuck having the kid.

Click to expand...

But first and foremost it is a health care issue. Risks and benefits.

Both will have financial setbacks.

But only the woman takes the physical risk. And if we can acknowledge that most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor...that translates into substandard access to medical care. Hospitals to go to for delivery, but doctors and clinics that accept Medicaid are a more difficult "get". If she is working poor...she may be relegated to clinics across town that are overburdened already. When I went to my private OB. I went in for a 945 AM appointment and I was seen near that time. That meant I could take off from work for an hour and not piss off my employer and not lose a day's pay. A woman that is part of the working poor may have a difficult time taking a shift...because between travel time and waiting time at a busy clinic...who knows when she can be available.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

No, but he might still have the same reasons as the woman for not wanting to have a child. It might not be a good time for him financially, and he may not feel ready. Those are major reasons women cite for aborting. Certainly the man's concerns should be just as important.



Sorry about your pregnancy experience. That sounds rough for sure. I'm certainly not minimizing the health risks to a woman from carrying a pregnancy, but, in the study I cited, that was not among the main reasons for aborting.

I don't think a man should be able to stop a woman from aborting if she wants to abort, but likewise, I think a man should be able to opt-out of being a father (meaning support and acknowledgement of the child), just like the woman can.

When you put the physical aspects of pregnancy aside, the underlying reasons behind aborting should equally apply to the needs and desires of both the mother and father of the fetus.

Women can have a physical abortion, and men should be allowed a legal method as well for opting out.

Men could have a time limit for deciding, just as women have a time limit on abortion. Since a woman has three months (first trimester) in most cases to abort without question, perhaps we could give a man three months from the time he learns of the pregnancy to opt out. If he misses the timeline, that would be too bad, just as if a woman misses her timeline to abort, she is often stuck having the kid.

Click to expand...

But first and foremost it is a health care issue. Risks and benefits.

Both will have financial setbacks.

But only the woman takes the physical risk. And if we can acknowledge that most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor...that translates into substandard access to medical care. Hospitals to go to for delivery, but doctors and clinics that accept Medicaid are a more difficult "get". If she is working poor...she may be relegated to clinics across town that are overburdened already. When I went to my private OB. I went in for a 945 AM appointment and I was seen near that time. That meant I could take off from work for an hour and not piss off my employer and not lose a day's pay. A woman that is part of the working poor may have a difficult time taking a shift...because between travel time and waiting time at a busy clinic...who knows when she can be available.

I am not minimizing financial set backs for either after a child is born. For either party.

But when it comes to deciding about maintaining a pregnancy.....it is a health care decision. She is acknowloging she does for have the financial, medical, and social resources to maintain the pregnancy.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

But you can't put the physical side effects of the pregnancy aside.

I too had a high risk pregnancies.

My kidneys were damaged during my first my pregnancy, I was so sick and weaked, I not only had to quit my college classes and part time job , I was unable to do any chores around the house. I could barley get to the rest room on my own.

I was so anemic when it was time for delivery my OB had the delivery set up for a complete blood transfusion in case I started bleeding to death. When they wheeled me into the delivery I did know if I would survive to see the baby or if the baby would survive..


BTW:

The study that you refer to was a standard form with answers that were preprinted on the form.

Click to expand...

I had a high quality OBGYN and from what you say, you clearly did. We were not relegated to overburdened Medicaid clinics.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

But you can't put the physical side effects of the pregnancy aside.

I too had a high risk pregnancies.

My kidneys were damaged during my first my pregnancy, I was so sick and weaked, I not only had to quit my college classes and part time job , I was unable to do any chores around the house. I could barley get to the rest room on my own.

I was so anemic when it was time for delivery my OB had the delivery set up for a complete blood transfusion in case I started bleeding to death. When they wheeled me into the delivery I did know if I would survive to see the baby or if the baby would survive..

Click to expand...

Okay, so let's not put the physical side effects aside -- those are just more reasons a woman has to choose whether or not she wants a child.

Obviously, a man will not have a physical choice. But, they both have other reasons for choosing as well.

BTW:

The study that you refer to was a standard form with answers that were preprinted on the form.

Click to expand...

Sure, but they were free not to choose from the listed reasons -- and yet they did. If I took a survey and my reason for doing something was not listed, I certainly would not choose something that was not valid. Given that I believe women are (on average) pretty smart, I assume they, too, would leave an answer blank if it did not apply to them.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

But first and foremost it is a health care issue. Risks and benefits.

Click to expand...

Not according to women who have given their reasons for aborting.

Both will have financial setbacks.

But only the woman takes the physical risk. And if we can acknowledge that most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor...that translates into substandard access to medical care. Hospitals to go to for delivery, but doctors and clinics that accept Medicaid are a more difficult "get". If she is working poor...she may be relegated to clinics across town that are overburdened already. When I went to my private OB. I went in for a 945 AM appointment and I was seen near that time. That meant I could take off from work for an hour and not piss off my employer and not lose a day's pay. A woman that is part of the working poor may have a difficult time taking a shift...because between travel time and waiting time at a busy clinic...who knows when she can be available.

Click to expand...

Only the woman takes a PHYSICAL risk. Both assume a number of other risks.

I am not minimizing financial set backs for either after a child is born. For either party.

But when it comes to deciding about maintaining a pregnancy.....it is a health care decision. She is acknowloging she does for have the financial, medical, and social resources to maintain the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Sorry. Women who've given their reasons for aborting don't often choose "for health reasons," although some of them might do it for that.

The results of the study are clear -- women abort the vast majority of the time for career/educational/financial reasons. That's their prerogative and I don't want to see that end.

However, men need the same prerogative for the same reasons.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

Okay, so let's not put the physical side effects aside -- those are just more reasons a woman has to choose whether or not she wants a child.

Obviously, a man will not have a physical choice. But, they both have other reasons for choosing as well.



Sure, but they were free not to choose from the listed reasons -- and yet they did. If I took a survey and my reason for doing something was not listed, I certainly would not choose something that was not valid. Given that I believe women are (on average) pretty smart, I assume they, too, would leave an answer blank if it did not apply to them.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the questions seemed to focus only on after a child is born.

And when you see a woman indicating she needed to support her born children (or just herself) it is looked at a singular "money" issue. When I see that kind of poll pop up, I usually do not see a lot of acknowledgement that the lack of money (resources in general) can affect the health and welfare of the woman during pregnancy itself. The money issue translates into making potentially unsafe decisions to earn money to pay rent or keeping up with OB appointments. It seems so third world that a woman would have to choose between taking a needed shift to pay rent and keeping up with appropriate prenatal care.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

Interestingly enough, the questions seemed to focus only on after a child is born.

And when you see a woman indicating she needed to support her born children (or just herself) it is looked at a singular "money" issue. When I see that kind of poll pop up, I usually do not see a lot of acknowledgement that the lack of money (resources in general) can affect the health and welfare of the woman during pregnancy itself. The money issue translates into making potentially unsafe decisions to earn money to pay rent or keeping up with OB appointments. It seems so third world that a woman would have to choose between taking a needed shift to pay rent and keeping up with appropriate prenatal care.

Click to expand...

Many other studies have been conducted with the same results. Here's one from the Guttmacher Institute.

Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).‡ Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.

The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.

In the in-depth interviews, the three most frequently stated reasons were the same as in the structured survey: the dramatic impact a baby would have on the women's lives or the lives of their other children (32 of 38 respondents), financial concerns (28), and their current relationship or fear of single motherhood (21). Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

So, while some women DO abort for health reasons, the majority do not.

Having a baby also dramatically changes a man's life and he may also feel as though he can't afford it right now or that he's not ready.

He should have the same chance to opt-out for those same reasons.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

I agree that babies need support, but, if the woman can opt-out for any reason (abort), shouldn't the man be afforded the same choice?

Click to expand...

DOES A MAN HAVE A CHOICE REGARDING MENSTRUATION? There are some things about which only one sex has a choice, and so far, pregnancy is in that category. An unborn human is the woman's property because it steals HER biological resources to construct itself (just like if you stole lumber from a neighbor to build a table, it would actually belong to the neighbor). The man DOES have a right to try to convince the woman to abort. He also had the right to choose contraception, or, BETTER, the right to choose a woman who wasn't interested in carrying a pregnancy to term. Being saddled with child support, for a man, is simply a consequence of stupidity, just as getting sentenced to jail for bank robbery is also a simple consequence of stupidity.

HowardBThiname said:

Hormonal birth control is highly effective --

Click to expand...

BUT NOT 100%. A major reason why abortion should be allowed is simply to have available a back-up plan for when contraception fails.

HowardBThiname said:

abstinence is 100% effective.

Click to expand...

TELL THAT TO THE VIRGIN MARY. It is a very famous belief that abstinence is not actually 100% effective! Plus, that isn't the only such story out there --Google shows 900,000 results for [ virgin birth stories ] (brackets represent search box). PLUS, biologists know there are some species that regularly do virgin births --and the most weird of them all is what the komodo dragon can do.

HowardBThiname said:

Again -- if she has the right to sex without offspring -- so does the man. It's only fair.

Click to expand...

AND HE CAN DO EXACTLY THAT IF HE CHOOSES WISELY. Also note that even if he picks a woman who can get pregnant, and does get pregnant, he could PAY the woman to get an abortion --that would certainly cost him less than 18 years of child-support! But he still must at least be wise enough to choose a woman who doesn't especially want offspring.

HowardBThiname said:

Using your "placenta" logic, a baby who has been born but is still attached via the umbilical cord, can be killed without any repercussions. That's actually a bit of a throwback to the antebellum days when the midwives quietly killed babies of white women if they were born with dark skin tones. But, using your placenta logic, it would still be possible. Nothing new in the world, huh?

Click to expand...

SORRY, THE LAW DISAGREES. Birth is birth. The placenta is irrelevant to the Law about personhood and rights of persons, as soon as birth happens. It is because rights of persons are NOT involved, even minutes before birth, that my argument holds, concerning unborn humans and the placentas they use to commit assaults.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:

DOES A MAN HAVE A CHOICE REGARDING MENSTRUATION? There are some things about which only one sex has a choice, and so far, pregnancy is in that category. An unborn human is the woman's property because it steals HER biological resources to construct itself (just like if you stole lumber from a neighbor to build a table, it would actually belong to the neighbor). The man DOES have a right to try to convince the woman to abort. He also had the right to choose contraception, or, BETTER, the right to choose a woman who wasn't interested in carrying a pregnancy to term. Being saddled with child support, for a man, is simply a consequence of stupidity, just as getting sentenced to jail for bank robbery is also a simple consequence of stupidity.

Click to expand...

If "being saddled with child support" for a man is a consequence of stupidity - then being saddled with a child she cannot afford is a consequence of stupidity for a woman.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

BUT NOT 100%. A major reason why abortion should be allowed is simply to have available a back-up plan for when contraception fails.


TELL THAT TO THE VIRGIN MARY. It is a very famous belief that abstinence is not actually 100% effective! Plus, that isn't the only such story out there --Google shows 900,000 results for [ virgin birth stories ] (brackets represent search box). PLUS, biologists know there are some species that regularly do virgin births --and the most weird of them all is what the komodo dragon can do.

Click to expand...

I don't buy into "virgin birth" tales, or fairy tales of any sort.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

Okay, so let's not put the physical side effects aside -- those are just more reasons a woman has to choose whether or not she wants a child.

Obviously, a man will not have a physical choice. But, they both have other reasons for choosing as well.



Sure, but they were free not to choose from the listed reasons -- and yet they did. If I took a survey and my reason for doing something was not listed, I certainly would not choose something that was not valid. Given that I believe women are (on average) pretty smart, I assume they, too, would leave an answer blank if it did not apply to them.

Click to expand...

I guess you do not understand women often have more than one reason they may not wish to risk their life on a pregnancy at a certain time in their life , but might choose to continue a pregnancy at a different in their life.

As I understand it the women were told they could fill out more than one reason. Many filled in two , three or more reasons so the percentage on the questionaires that were filled out is misrepresented since 74 percent is not representive of 74 women out of 100 choose just the one reason.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

If "being saddled with child support" for a man is a consequence of stupidity - then being saddled with a child she cannot afford is a consequence of stupidity for a woman.

Click to expand...

NOT WHEN SHE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT HER CONTRACEPTION TO WORK. There is no stupidity in following the directions for correct contraceptive-usage! But there is lots of stupidity associated with refusing to use a condom, and/or insisting on having sex during the high-probability-of-ovulation time, and/or refusing to consider alternate forms of sexual activity besides vaginal intercourse. GOOD LUCK PROVING (1) The woman did all those stupid things AND (2) The woman simultaneously convinced the man that she didn't want offspring.

HowardBThiname said:

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Click to expand...

ONLY WHEN THEIR SITUATIONS ARE SIMILAR ENOUGH. And you seem to be overlooking the most obvious thing, that if a woman carries a pregnancy to term when abortion it legal, it is because she wants offspring. A man who doesn't want offspring is in a different situation, period. If he chose not to bother finding out that particular situation of any woman he gets involved with, then that his HIS stupidity, not hers.

HowardBThiname said:

I don't buy into "virgin birth" tales, or fairy tales of any sort.

Click to expand...

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION MAKES VIRGIN BIRTHS FOR HUMANS QUITE POSSIBLE. And modern scientific investigations cannot yet prove human parthenogenesis is impossible. I don't personally claim it has happened; the Virgin Mary story is of course a claim made by others, but famous because widely believed to be true. And I enjoy pointing it out to all those Believers who ALSO insist that women should abstain, if they don't want to get pregnant...the idiots can't have it both ways!

ANYWAY, I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO ADVOCATE ABSTINENCE FOR MEN. Only that women should be aware of the consequences of opening their legs. Tsk, tsk! Why isn't THAT good thing for the goose also good for the gander?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

I guess you do not understand women often have more than one reason they may not wish to risk their life on a pregnancy at a certain time in their life , but might choose to continue a pregnancy at a different in their life.

As I understand it the women were told they could fill out more than one reason. Many filled in two , three or more reasons so the percentage on the questionaires that were filled out is misrepresented since 74 percent is not representive of 74 women out of 100 choose just the one reason.

Click to expand...

Okay, I think that's fine.

I'm just saying that men share a lot of those very valid reasons and they, like women, should be able to opt-out.

That's all.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

Okay, I think that's fine.

I'm just saying that men share a lot of those very valid reasons and they, like women, should be able to opt-out.

That's all.

Click to expand...

If a man gets pregnant he can opt out as well. It is not meant to be flippant.....just showing it is about a healthcare decision.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:

NOT WHEN SHE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT HER CONTRACEPTION TO WORK. There is no stupidity in following the directions for correct contraceptive-usage! But there is lots of stupidity associated with refusing to use a condom, and/or insisting on having sex during the high-probability-of-ovulation time, and/or refusing to consider alternate forms of sexual activity besides vaginal intercourse. GOOD LUCK PROVING (1) The woman did all those stupid things AND (2) The woman simultaneously convinced the man that she didn't want offspring.

Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of guesswork there. I'm not sure most women know their high-ovulation time if they're not trying to get pregnant. And what about those women who poke holes in condoms? Are they on the up and up?

ONLY WHEN THEIR SITUATIONS ARE SIMILAR ENOUGH. And you seem to be overlooking the most obvious thing, that if a woman carries a pregnancy to term when abortion it legal, it is because she wants offspring. A man who doesn't want offspring is in a different situation, period. If he chose not to bother finding out that particular situation of any woman he gets involved with, then that his HIS stupidity, not hers.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that if either a man or a woman, does not want children, he and she, BOTH, should take precautions. If a woman chooses not to find out the situation of a man she gets involved with, then that is HER stupidity, not his.

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION MAKES VIRGIN BIRTHS FOR HUMANS QUITE POSSIBLE. And modern scientific investigations cannot yet prove human parthenogenesis is impossible. I don't personally claim it has happened; the Virgin Mary story is of course a claim made by others, but famous because widely believed to be true. And I enjoy pointing it out to all those Believers who ALSO insist that women should abstain, if they don't want to get pregnant...the idiots can't have it both ways!

ANYWAY, I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO ADVOCATE ABSTINENCE FOR MEN. Only that women should be aware of the consequences of opening their legs. Tsk, tsk! Why isn't THAT good thing for the goose also good for the gander?

Click to expand...

You linked me to a very poorly written, amateurish article putting forth a theory of parthenogenesis without any evidence. What gives? That's not conclusive of anything. And artificial insemination doesn't count since it's still a matter of sperm meeting egg. The biblical tale (and other cult tales) of versions of virgin birth, claim a godly spirit inseminates a young virginal woman. What kind of porno trash is that?

Of course abstinence is also 100% effective for men - but you were talking about a woman suffering the consequences, and I simply mentioned that she has control over her body. If she doesn't -- it's rape.

My only point here is that both men and women have different reasons for not wanting children and both should be able to opt out. The woman has one more option than a man -- she can opt to abort, but both should be able to get out of parenthood (and child support) within a reasonable time frame.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

If a man gets pregnant he can opt out as well. It is not meant to be flippant.....just showing it is about a healthcare decision.

Click to expand...

That is a little flippant, but I understand your point as it relates to abortion -- only. After that -- both should be able to opt-out of parenthood as well.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:

That is a little flippant, but I understand your point as it relates to abortion -- only. After that -- both should be able to opt-out of parenthood as well.

Click to expand...

I am a pragmatist. I do not think there will ever be a time where it will be ok for taxpayers to help a parent support a child when the other parent is out there and can help to any extent.

To that end, I would like to see long term birth control developed for men that was at least as effective a long term birth control for women. I would like to see improved long term birth control options for women and to have options available , accessible, and affordable to all that want it. Currently long term options are not affordable to those most at risk for abortion - working poor - too rich for Medicaid, too poor to purchase insurance.

Wouldn't it be nice if every man and woman who did not wish to be a parent could assure that would not occur? The opting out could realistically be pre conception!

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #196]

HowardBThiname said:

That's a whole lot of guesswork there. I'm not sure most women know their high-ovulation time if they're not trying to get pregnant.

Click to expand...

IT IS GENERALLY ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN MENSTRUATIONS. That's pretty easy to track!

HowardBThiname said:

And what about those women who poke holes in condoms? Are they on the up and up?

Click to expand...

NO MORE THAN THE MEN WHO WANT TO SEDUCE, IMPREGNATE, AND RUN. They obviously deserve each other! (Except note that since the man wants a pregnancy to happen, he won't be wanting to use a condom....)
A SIMPLE SOLUTION to hole-poking is for the man to provide his own condom. How do you expect her to poke a hole in it without him noticing?

HowardBThiname said:

The bottom line is that if either a man or a woman, does not want children, he and she, BOTH, should take precautions.

Click to expand...

AGREED.

HowardBThiname said:

If a woman chooses not to find out the situation of a man she gets involved with, then that is HER stupidity, not his.

Click to expand...

YOU SEEM TO BE NEGLECTING THE DECEPTION FACTOR. Either might be trying to deceive the other. It is as well-known for some women to entrap men with pregnancies, as it is for some men to seduce, impregnate, and run. Which implies that if either has any doubt about the situation of the other, the best choice is to seek a different partner.

HowardBThiname said:

You linked me to a very poorly written, amateurish article

Click to expand...

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. Only Facts matter.

HowardBThiname said:

putting forth a theory of parthenogenesis

Click to expand...

PARTHENOGENESIS IS MORE THAN JUST A THEORY; it has been observed in a number of different species. Any theory or hypothesis here is about the possibility of it happening among humans.

HowardBThiname said:

without any evidence.

Click to expand...

THE ARTICLE HAD REFERENCES. Since it was written before the internet, old references can be more difficult to track down and verify than modern references, but that does not make the article "without any evidence". I will admit, though, that modern knowledge of genetics indicates that mammals in general cannot do parthenogensis, and obviously that would include humans. Nevertheless, Nature has offered all sorts of things that are typically claimed cannot happen, so....

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #196]

HowardBThiname said:

What gives? That's not conclusive of anything.

Click to expand...

THAT'S WAS NOT MY GOAL. Perhaps you should see Clarke's First Law. Or, perhaps, Shakespeare.

HowardBThiname said:

And artificial insemination doesn't count since it's still a matter of sperm meeting egg.

Click to expand...

THERE ARE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF "VIRGIN BIRTH", and one of those definitions includes loose sperm getting into a woman's reproductive system from the outside. I've seen speculations that THAT was all that was needed, to explain Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. And he certainly had a Y-chromosome that had to come from somewhere (teleportation?).

HowardBThiname said:

The biblical tale (and other cult tales) of versions of virgin birth, claim a godly spirit inseminates a young virginal woman. What kind of porno trash is that?

Click to expand...

SPECULATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNKNOWN. If a modern stage magician could take his collection of tricks to Ancient Rome, how many folks there/then would claim he was performing miracles? And since we still don't know everything, today....

HowardBThiname said:

Of course abstinence is also 100% effective for men - but you were talking about a woman suffering the consequences, and I simply mentioned that she has control over her body. If she doesn't -- it's rape.

Click to expand...

OR SLAVERY. Like when abortion opponents insist she must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

HowardBThiname said:

My only point here is that both men and women have different reasons for not wanting children and both should be able to opt out.

Click to expand...

BIOLOGY MAKES THE DIFFERENCE. A man still has the right to try to convince a woman to get an abortion. His best bet, though, is to pick a woman who simply can't get pregnant (like one who has had a hysterectomy, for example). About 1/7 of all adult couples are Naturally infertile, even before today's trend toward sterilizations. That means there are a LOT of women out there, for men who don't want pregnancies to happen!

HowardBThiname said:

The woman has one more option than a man -- she can opt to abort, but both should be able to get out of parenthood (and child support) within a reasonable time frame.

Click to expand...

WHICH IS MATCHED BY THE MAN'S FREEDOM TO TRY TO CONVINCE HER TO ABORT. If this classic statement has any truth to it, then such "convincing" should always be possible.