GreekChat.com Forums
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=117905)

rhoyaltempest 01-21-2011 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aephi alum (Post 2022529)
The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.
This is an emotional topic for many but let's keep THIS case in perspective. According to the news reports, these babies were born alive and then were killed by the doctor.

Also it's all about beliefs. Some do not believe that a fetus is a baby - a fetus being one that can't survive outside the womb without the assistance of medical devices and care or has no chance at all of surviving period.

rhoyaltempest 01-21-2011 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2022538)
I don't think there's a line you can set where it is murder as long as the child requires the mother to survive, honestly. Particularly when, as I said before, most late term abortions are due to serious genetic or other problems that often would result in an infant who would die fairly quickly. If you ban late term abortions, women who are desperate will go to quacks like this. I think we need to have even late term abortions be legal, yet try to make them rare through education and access to health care. And as long as you have a limit, such as 24 weeks or 22 weeks, then unscrupulous individuals will either delay women from seeking legal, safe abortions prior to the cut-off, or prey on those desperate enough to go to this sort of horror.

And I'm rather thrilled the Catholic Church doesn't make laws, enough said on that.


Super premies surviving is still the exception rather than the rule. 22 weeks is now being considered 'viable' when the fetus isn't even fully formed, the organs aren't all developed. Now you're talking about a LOT of NICU care for essentially orphans. It is easy to say it should be done for any individual infant, but a lot harder to advocate it as a policy. Ideally the child would be born, much later, and be taken care of. But if a mother does not want that, I don't believe you can force her to give birth to a baby that would only live if it were on life support.

I'm confused about what you're saying about killing a child here though, are you talking about a live birth where a child is then killed (which is murder) or something else?
And these wouldn't survive either without medical devices and care.

Alumiyum 01-21-2011 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aephi alum (Post 2022529)
The question is where do you draw the line? When is it a termination of pregnancy and when is it murder?

At one end, the Catholic Church draws the line at conception - ANY abortion is murder, and even most forms of birth control are considered sinful. Others draw the line at viability - abortion in the first two trimesters is ok, but abortion in the third trimester (when the fetus is potentially viable) is not.

My opinion? I'm pro-choice. What any woman does with her own body is her own choice. But if you're six months along and you haven't figured out whether to give birth or not, just have the kid, and keep it or give it up for adoption - as an abortion at that stage would cause about as much physical trauma as giving birth. That is what I would do.
My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.

That being said the things this "doctor" and "clinic" did are sickening beyond belief. I just do not believe the babies that were murdered (because IMO some of these babies were blatantly murdered, from the little I've read...I'm not squeamish but I couldn't make myself read all of the details on this case) were the only victims. I do hope this "doctor" is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2022539)
Anyway, if you need to have a late term abortion, there are more humane ways to do this than what this man was doing. He was basically pithing these babies like you would a rat. I'm disturbed by his thought process. There are legitimate reasons for late term abortions, but luckily they are rare and many women still choose not to have them. But....that is their choice.
The bolded is very well said.

rhoyaltempest 01-21-2011 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 2022532)
I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.

While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.
I hope I'm reading you wrong because I don't see how you can be pro-life and feel that one child should get care over another based on whether they are "wanted" or "unwanted.":confused: And I'm pro-choice.

Drolefille 01-21-2011 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 2022545)
And these wouldn't survive either without medical devices and care.
Precisely, I hesitate to get even close to suggesting that a premie shouldn't get that care, because that's not really what I'm saying, but a policy that encourages the births of super-premies is going to be a very expensive one on top of all of the other troublesome aspects of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alumiyum (Post 2022546)
My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.
Something else to consider is a chromosomal, genetic, or other abnormality that will result in a child who will die, will suffer greatly, or the parent could not take care of. I feel like a bit of a broken record on this but I maintain that most women who abort at 5+ months never thought that they would or could do so, but have come to that decision after a lot of weighing of options. It's pretty common to 'other' people who make choices out of our experience, and while the women in this situation were 'other' from us, many women who seek out late term abortions are college educated, middle class, and wouldn't be out of place at any social event that any GCer would attend. It's not just about poverty or being a victim, sometimes it's just about making the best decision for themselves, their families (because many also have other children too), and even, they believe, making the best choice for the unborn child.

rhoyaltempest 01-21-2011 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alumiyum (Post 2022546)
My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.

That being said the things this "doctor" and "clinic" did are sickening beyond belief. I just do not believe the babies that were murdered (because IMO some of these babies were blatantly murdered, from the little I've read...I'm not squeamish but I couldn't make myself read all of the details on this case) were the only victims. I do hope this "doctor" is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



The bolded is very well said.
While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people admit, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.

Drolefille 01-21-2011 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 2022547)
I hope I'm reading you wrong because I don't see how you can be pro-life and feel that one child should get care over another based on whether they are "wanted" or "unwanted.":confused: And I'm pro-choice.
I think she is saying that in the cases of abortion the 'infant' gets no care, which has a whole host of other problems besides the ones you mentioned. Making the decision to put a super-premie or premie on life support is a big decision one way or the other, even for a child who is very much wanted. Not everyone chooses extraordinary care for anyone in that situation, even an infant.

Drolefille 01-21-2011 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 2022550)
While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people discuss, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.
I agree, add in the lack of access to reliable birth control that the woman can control herself and the problem compounds- condoms are all well and good IF he agrees to use them and IF he uses them right and IF he lets you buy them in the first place - pills are more expensive, or require insurance as well as regular doctor's visits, yet more hurdles. IUDs require a doctor's care at least for insertion as well as follow up if something goes wrong and education about maintenance, etc.

Bodily autonomy is something many of us take for granted because we can afford to. Or because we've never had it violated. The idea that someone can as easily seek an abortion at 3 months as at 6 involves a lot of assumptions about education, transportation, income, non-abusive/controlling households, and so on.

Alumiyum 01-21-2011 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2022549)
Precisely, I hesitate to get even close to suggesting that a premie shouldn't get that care, because that's not really what I'm saying, but a policy that encourages the births of super-premies is going to be a very expensive one on top of all of the other troublesome aspects of it.

Something else to consider is a chromosomal, genetic, or other abnormality that will result in a child who will die, will suffer greatly, or the parent could not take care of. I feel like a bit of a broken record on this but I maintain that most women who abort at 5+ months never thought that they would or could do so, but have come to that decision after a lot of weighing of options. It's pretty common to 'other' people who make choices out of our experience, and while the women in this situation were 'other' from us, many women who seek out late term abortions are college educated, middle class, and wouldn't be out of place at any social event that any GCer would attend. It's not just about poverty or being a victim, sometimes it's just about making the best decision for themselves, their families (because many also have other children too), and even, they believe, making the best choice for the unborn child.
I agree. I envy no woman or couple who has to make that choice, but I certainly understand why some make the decision under the circumstances you describe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2022555)
I agree, add in the lack of access to reliable birth control that the woman can control herself and the problem compounds- condoms are all well and good IF he agrees to use them and IF he uses them right and IF he lets you buy them in the first place - pills are more expensive, or require insurance as well as regular doctor's visits, yet more hurdles. IUDs require a doctor's care at least for insertion as well as follow up if something goes wrong and education about maintenance, etc.

Bodily autonomy is something many of us take for granted because we can afford to. Or because we've never had it violated. The idea that someone can as easily seek an abortion at 3 months as at 6 involves a lot of assumptions about education, transportation, income, non-abusive/controlling households, and so on.
It's certainly not black and white. As I've said I've never had to make that choice and I hope I'm never faced with it but I do know women that have for various reasons and in some states/situations it is difficult even for college age+ women with reasonable financial resources to obtain an abortion at 3 months. I can't imagine how hard it is for women without the education or financial ability (not to mention the other complications you mention). That is why I do not believe the babies were the only victims in this case. Though what this "doctor" did was disgusting.

AlphaFrog 01-21-2011 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 2022550)
While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people admit, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.
Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.

Ghostwriter 01-21-2011 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2022459)
Infants should not be murdered. A fetus is a fetus until birth/delivery. The term murder doesn't apply to abortion although it does apply to what this non-doctor did.
The child is not a child until it exits the birth canal. If a mother decided as she was going through labor in the 9th month to kill the baby this is okay? If it is not okay then your argument is moot. It is taking a life, period. We play God, judge and executioner by claiming it is our bodies and no one can tell us what to do. The only time I would see abortion as an option is when the life of the mother is at stake and then the decision should rest with her as this is a life for a life. The baby is always innocent. The mother and father, may not be.

I go to the beaches of the outer banks of NC and see all these protected sea turtle nests. Do you know what the fine is for disturbing them? Depending on the degree of the felony between 1-5 years and from $100/egg up to $5000. We think more of the unborn turtle fetuses then we do of our own babies. This is warped and sad.

Ch2tf 01-21-2011 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022597)
Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.
Numbers lie, particularly in the case of the rape/incest. That has to be something that is reported/recorded to medical officials and most often (even in the case of non pregnancies) they are not reported. It wasn't until I was older (actually after I became Greek) that I was able to get a scope of how often rape/incest occur and go unreported.

Ch2tf 01-21-2011 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 2022499)
There aren't the proper words for this. I know so many couples who would love to have a baby of any ethnic background, and end up going to another country to get them - and these people were allowing a baby to be born just so they could kill the poor thing? At what point does a person lose enough of his or her conscience to stab a baby to death? Then keep jars of the babies' feet or other parts? If this isn't considered Hitleresque, I don't know what would be.
Hijack, but puhlease to the couples wanting babies and being "willing" to go overseas to adopt. There are far too many children in the system now waiting for families and far too many people making the decision to go abroad to adopt first.

And you need to qualify "these people" as in all the new reports I've seen and read (haven't gotten up to reading the grand jury report) many of the mothers who's fetus were "born" alive were not aware of this fact.

AOII Angel 01-21-2011 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022597)
Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.
Even if these numbers could be substantiated (rape and incest are under-reported,) pro-choice advocates would love to see the numbers of abortions go DOWN by having decent sex education and contraceptive services available. This is the never ending argument of "can't condone pre-marital sex" BS. If you want to really make a difference in abortion numbers, you don't do it by making abortion more difficult to obtain (we know how women used to get back alley illegal abortions) you make it less necessary by making contraception more available!

AlphaFrog 01-21-2011 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2022623)
Even if these numbers could be substantiated (rape and incest are under-reported,) pro-choice advocates would love to see the numbers of abortions go DOWN by having decent sex education and contraceptive services available. This is the never ending argument of "can't condone pre-marital sex" BS. If you want to really make a difference in abortion numbers, you don't do it by making abortion more difficult to obtain (we know how women used to get back alley illegal abortions) you make it less necessary by making contraception more available!
Yes, I get that there isn't a way to get 100% accurate statistics, but even if it were 70%/29%/1%, I would still call that ridiculous...and that's giving a 27% benefit of the doubt.

I'm absolutely not an abstinence-only advocate...in fact, I love what PhoenixAzul's school did. I don't even care what other people do with their own sex lives - but I do care when they bring someone else into the equation.


Some of you who have been around GC for awhile may recall my circumstances when I was pregnant with my daughter. Jr in college, my husband and I hadn't yet gotten married, I was only working part time, then we moved to NC and both got full time jobs, put on our big-kid pants, and made a life for our family. Yes, my parents helped us out a little, but the point is, we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices. It's not like I can't empathize with where these women are at. I've been there. I remember looking at that test and thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do now?".

AOII Angel 01-21-2011 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022627)
Yes, I get that there isn't a way to get 100% accurate statistics, but even if it were 70%/29%/1%, I would still call that ridiculous...and that's giving a 27% benefit of the doubt.

I'm absolutely not an abstinence-only advocate...in fact, I love what PhoenixAzul's school did. I don't even care what other people do with their own sex lives - but I do care when they bring someone else into the equation.


Some of you who have been around GC for awhile may recall my circumstances when I was pregnant with my daughter. Jr in college, my husband and I hadn't yet gotten married, I was only working part time, then we moved to NC and both got full time jobs, put on our big-kid pants, and made a life for our family. Yes, my parents helped us out a little, but the point is, we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices. It's not like I can't empathize with where these women are at. I've been there. I remember looking at that test and thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do now?".
And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.

agzg 01-21-2011 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022597)
Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.
Do you have demographic data behind those statistics?

Alumiyum 01-21-2011 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2022628)
And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.
Well said.

KSUViolet06 01-21-2011 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2022628)
And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.
This is kind of where I am with the whole thing. I personally don't know if that's a choice I could/would make. However, I live in the real world where I recognize that not everyone is in the place (financally, emotionally, etc.) to care for an unplanned child.

violetpretty 01-21-2011 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022627)
...we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices.
Why is parenthood considered the only "noble" choice, even over adoption? Like, bragging that you took the toughest punishment. I don't know if I'm clearly explaining myself. I can't stand it when people who do choose parenthood get up on a high horse by saying they "took responsibility" for their actions, as if that's the only responsible course of action. AF, you were lucky you had the resources to care for a child, even though it probably seemed tough and most certainly changed the plans you initially had for your life.

It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you can't care for. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1.3 million abortions are performed each year, and about 75% of those are performed because the woman can't afford a/another child. Oh, but there's always adoption. What would 980,000 additional wards of the state every year do to our economy (17.64 million at any given time after 18+ years of such a policy)? Yet, the same people who block access to reproductive choice are often the ones begging to cut government spending.

I agree this case is horrific. I hope it serves as an example of what happens when access to reproductive choice is blocked for those who need it most.

rhoyaltempest 01-21-2011 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022597)
Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.
And this is why this issue will likely never get the attention it deserves because we want to believe the statistics and that rape and incest aren't far more common than women report. There are a ton of reasons why women don't report these things especially when the abuser is a friend or family member but it doesn't mean it's not happening and at an alarming rate. Since working with women in these situations, I'm convinced that these issues are far far under-reported, especially when it comes to date rape, incest, and spousal rape (yes, being married does not mean you're body isn't yours and you don't have the right to say no). This abuse is especially not reported because the women/girls have a connection with the abuser and may even love them and not want to send them to jail. Either way, if we continue to only look at statistics and blame victims (as we love to do when it comes to sexual abuse issues), these issues will only get worse. Get a group of women (especially poor women) in a room where they feel safe to open up and you'd be amazed at the stories that come to light - stories that have never been shared with anyone.

AlphaFrog 01-21-2011 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by violetpretty (Post 2022673)
Why is parenthood considered the only "noble" choice, even over adoption? Like, bragging that you took the toughest punishment. I don't know if I'm clearly explaining myself. I can't stand it when people who do choose parenthood get up on a high horse by saying they "took responsibility" for their actions, as if that's the only responsible course of action. AF, you were lucky you had the resources to care for a child, even though it probably seemed tough.

It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you can't care for. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1.3 million abortions are performed each year, and about 75% of those are performed because the woman can't afford a/another child. Oh, but there's always adoption. What would 980,000 additional wards of the state every year do to our economy (17.6 million at any given time after 18+ years of such a policy)? Yet, the same people who block access to reproductive choice are often the ones begging to cut government spending.

I agree this case is horrific. I hope it serves as an example of what happens when access to reproductive choice is blocked for those who need it most.
You are right - it's not the only "noble" choice. There was another girl in my class who got pregnant her sophomore year of college, and she chose adoption. She found a family that was a great match for her. I applaud her for that. It was responsible. I still say abortion is NOT.

By your own statistics, 75% of abortions are post-conception birth control. That is way too high. Especially the "another" child part. It's not like they can claim ignorance of the birds and the bees on that one.

Alumiyum 01-21-2011 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022684)
You are right - it's not the only "noble" choice. There was another girl in my class who got pregnant her sophomore year of college, and she chose adoption. She found a family that was a great match for her. I applaud her for that. It was responsible. I still say abortion is NOT.

By your own statistics, 75% of abortions are post-conception birth control. That is way too high. Especially the "another" child part. It's not like they can claim ignorance of the birds and the bees on that one.
Not everyone has help from parents, a chance at a college degree, and a partner who is willing to help, you know.

AlphaFrog 01-21-2011 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alumiyum (Post 2022690)
Not everyone has help from parents, a chance at a college degree, and a partner who is willing to help, you know.
Not everyone should be having unprotected sex, either.

If you don't have the means, support, etc to handle the consequences in a RESPONSIBLE manner, don't do the action.*

*This obviously excludes rape.

AOII Angel 01-21-2011 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022710)
Not everyone should be having unprotected sex, either.

If you don't have the means, support, etc to handle the consequences in a RESPONSIBLE manner, don't do the action.*

*This obviously excludes rape.
I completely agree. But that means we need to make it easier to get contraception for every social class and remove the stigma from asking for these contraceptive methods. That means all types, including the pill and Plan B. The goal IS to reduce the need for abortion by responsible contraceptive use, but funding for contraceptives and family planning groups are constantly under attack. It's not a simple issue or one sided. Screaming that people just need to be responsible but not doing things to help them be responsible is pointless.

violetpretty 01-21-2011 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022684)
By your own statistics, 75% of abortions are post-conception birth control. That is way too high.
I thought your statistics said only 3% of abortions met the rape/incest/medical threats to the mother's life criteria? I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. I said that of the women that have abortions, 75% say they can't afford parenthood. There are more that use abortion as "post-conception birth control" (whether or not they tried other methods) but have abortions for other reasons. Financial reasons are subjective. I'm sure that not all of those 75% are toeing the bankruptcy line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022684)
Especially the "another" child part. It's not like they can claim ignorance of the birds and the bees on that one.
I put "another" to be all inclusive. We're not only talking about teenagers and unmarried women. Just because a couple is married and has wanted children they can currently (but perhaps barely) afford doesn't mean they wouldn't seek an abortion if an unintended pregnancy were to occur. It is likely that such a couple would have less access to birth control pills or an IUD and the doctors visits required to continue such a prescription.

AOII Angel 01-21-2011 02:59 PM
I call into question that 97% as specious. There aren't just 3 reasons to have an abortion. If those are the only reasons given, maybe that would be the break down, but that displays a bias in the study from the onset. What about birth control failure? Not all people who haven't been raped or are seeking an abortion for a reason other than for their health were practicing unprotected sex. It doesn't sound as atrocious to report that these responsible people had birth control failure and chose abortion, so lumping them in with post- conception birth control is more efficacious for the cause. What about women who decide to reduce the number of fetuses after in vitro to protect the life of their other fetuses? That doesn't fit neatly into any of these three boxes but happens more frequently than you might think. You also haven't taken into account the many abortions that are performed because of fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life. These parents desperately want children but make the decision to terminate their pregnancies to prevent their children from suffering. Where does that fit? It doesn't fall into the maternal risk category. Your numbers are flawed.

Elephant Walk 01-21-2011 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2022421)
It's amazing we're still even having these types of conversations today, when legalized abortion has been such a huge boon to upper-middle-class white conservative America in terms of limiting things like crime and poverty-stricken social classes.

It's kind of a forest/trees thing on some level.
Exactly.

The only government healthcare I would like is free abortions.

That would cut down on alot of undesirables breaking into my car and stealing stuff.

AlphaFrog 01-21-2011 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2022738)
I call into question that 97% as specious. There aren't just 3 reasons to have an abortion. If those are the only reasons given, maybe that would be the break down, but that displays a bias in the study from the onset. What about birth control failure? Not all people who haven't been raped or are seeking an abortion for a reason other than for their health were practicing unprotected sex. It doesn't sound as atrocious to report that these responsible people had birth control failure and chose abortion, so lumping them in with post- conception birth control is more efficacious for the cause. What about women who decide to reduce the number of fetuses after in vitro to protect the life of their other fetuses? That doesn't fit neatly into any of these three boxes but happens more frequently than you might think. You also haven't taken into account the many abortions that are performed because of fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life. These parents desperately want children but make the decision to terminate their pregnancies to prevent their children from suffering. Where does that fit? It doesn't fall into the maternal risk category. Your numbers are flawed.
Post conception birth control is still post conception birth control, regardless of whether a form of pre conception birth control was used.

The 1% was Health Reasons - mother OR child.


violetpretty - your "arguments" seem to be supporting my case, rather than refuting it. Not sure f that's your intention or not. I was using the stat more generous to the pro choicers to really say that any post conception birth control abortions are too many.

DaemonSeid 01-21-2011 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 2022745)
Exactly.

The only government healthcare I would like is free abortions.

That would cut down on alot of undesirables breaking into my car and stealing stuff.
Wow.

Really.

And to think you could have been aborted too.

knight_shadow 01-21-2011 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 2022745)
That would cut down on alot of undesirables breaking into my car and stealing stuff.
Because undesirables are the only people who get abortions?

DaemonSeid 01-21-2011 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 2022748)
Because undesirables are the only people who get abortions?
Right?

honeychile 01-21-2011 03:49 PM
I know that derailing a thread is a fine art, but people either feel that abortion is okay, not okay, or only okay in certain situations. I'll long ago quit trying to sway people to my point of view, but I have the right to have one.

The doctor in this thread didn't just perform abortions, he killed viable children after they were born. The argument is whether or not an unwanted living child should be allowed to be killed, or that a woman desiring an abortion should be recklessly allowed to die, or that body parts should be kept afterwards.

AGDee 01-21-2011 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022746)
Post conception birth control is still post conception birth control, regardless of whether a form of pre conception birth control was used.

The 1% was Health Reasons - mother OR child.


violetpretty - your "arguments" seem to be supporting my case, rather than refuting it. Not sure f that's your intention or not. I was using the stat more generous to the pro choicers to really say that any post conception birth control abortions are too many.
Any abortion is post conception birth control. It is preventing the birth of a baby, just like a condom, just like getting your tubes tied, just like all forms of birth control. The goal is to not have a baby.

The "reason" for post conception birth control may vary, but I am not understanding your path of logic here. If I have a heart disease that will likely result in my death if I carry a pregnancy full term and my husband gets a vasectomy so that we don't have to worry about that but something doesn't work and I get pregnant anyway and abort that fetus to save my own life, it is STILL post conception birth control, isn't it?

I know more people who conceived babies while on some form of birth control than I do those who haven't.

agzg 01-21-2011 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 2022754)
The doctor in this thread didn't just perform abortions, he killed viable children after they were born. The argument is whether or not an unwanted living child should be allowed to be killed, or that a woman desiring an abortion should be recklessly allowed to die, or that body parts should be kept afterwards.
Right. This guy is definitely a monster and more than likely he had a lot more victims than just those mentioned in the reports.

AGDee 01-21-2011 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2022756)
Right. This guy is definitely a monster and more than likely he had a lot more victims than just those mentioned in the reports.
Agreed. And nobody has defended this guy or what he has done.

Alumiyum 01-21-2011 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 2022710)
Not everyone should be having unprotected sex, either.

If you don't have the means, support, etc to handle the consequences in a RESPONSIBLE manner, don't do the action.*

*This obviously excludes rape.
First, life is not so black and white. Many women, including I don't doubt the ones that went to this "doctor" are not middle class college students. They don't always have access to birth control...or education.

Not to mention I know many women who have become pregant while having sex WITH protection. Again, this is not black and white. I would also like to point out that your definition of "handling the consequences in a responsible manner" is not the same as everyone else's.

Munchkin03 01-21-2011 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondino (Post 2022764)
Are your people ever responsible for their actions?
Hi madmax!

agzg 01-21-2011 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondino (Post 2022767)
Hey.
LOL I assumed it was you whenever I noticed this username pop up on the "people who viewed my profile."

Elephant Walk 01-21-2011 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 2022748)
Because undesirables are the only people who get abortions?
Someone didn't read correctly.

It also works perfectly with my plan to rid the country of economic statists. Just give in one little bit on this issue and alot of people who will be voting for welfare checks will no longer exist.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 PM.
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.