41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.

262

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?

[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]

My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]

Well, which embryos? I am against embryo farms as well. And getting stem cells from one in utero would be really difficult.
I am not totally against embryonic stem cell research, so long as the embryos are obtained through miscarriage or so other means where it would not have any shot at surviving any way. I am totally against creating them on a petri dish. [/quote]

What’s your opinion on surplus embryos resulting from fertilization?[/quote]

I am against in vitro vehemently it too is an abominable practice that should be stopped. Now as to said ‘surplus’ babies? Well it depends on their fate, I guess if they are going to be killed anyway, the lesser of two evils would be to at least use them for research, but to me it smack of Dr. Mengele practices, so I don’t know that a respectful burial wouldn’t be better. No matter what you do here, it’s all disgustingly immoral. Further, there is just no need. For all the ‘promise’ of embryonic stem cells only adult stem cells have yielded actual results and the promise of more. Why not stick with the research that works? I mean embryonic stem cell research have been going on some 15 years and has yet to yield shit…Why beat a dead horse?[/quote]

It doesn’t really bother me if it allows couples to have children who otherwise wouldn’t be able. I understand where you’re coming from though, it’s not an easy issue.

263

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

Except, that birth control mentality has led to an increase abortions (oh well, the condom broke I’ll just get an abortion). As well, artificial birth control is immoral itself and since the ends can never justify the means that is not an option.

Even more so, is that a lot of artificial birth control are abortifacient. So the difference is that you don’t know you induced abortion, instead of having to set up an appointment with a clinic to get an induced abortion.

264

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?

[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]

My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]

Well, which embryos? I am against embryo farms as well. And getting stem cells from one in utero would be really difficult.
I am not totally against embryonic stem cell research, so long as the embryos are obtained through miscarriage or so other means where it would not have any shot at surviving any way. I am totally against creating them on a petri dish. [/quote]

What’s your opinion on surplus embryos resulting from fertilization?[/quote]

I am against in vitro vehemently it too is an abominable practice that should be stopped. Now as to said ‘surplus’ babies? Well it depends on their fate, I guess if they are going to be killed anyway, the lesser of two evils would be to at least use them for research, but to me it smack of Dr. Mengele practices, so I don’t know that a respectful burial wouldn’t be better. No matter what you do here, it’s all disgustingly immoral. Further, there is just no need. For all the ‘promise’ of embryonic stem cells only adult stem cells have yielded actual results and the promise of more. Why not stick with the research that works? I mean embryonic stem cell research have been going on some 15 years and has yet to yield shit…Why beat a dead horse?[/quote]

It doesn’t really bother me if it allows couples to have children who otherwise wouldn’t be able. I understand where you’re coming from though, it’s not an easy issue.[/quote]

Lot’s of kids to be adopted. Sorry I cannot support fertilizing 50 eggs in hopes that one, sticks.

265

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

I don’t think it’d make much of a difference, how do you learn about abortion and not know about birth controls.
My personal problem with the IUD’s is that it allows eggs to get fertilized but does not allow the fetus to plant in the uterine wall. Which means technically you can get pregnant over and over and give the baby no place to plant and grow.
As far as birth control, if you are going to do it, choose a method that at least prevents sperm and egg from meeting.

266

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.

267

Your post has already been addressed, but I would like add my own interpretation. So the article was published over 5 years ago and what now? Again I have never seen or let alone heard of a single person alive because of embryonic stem cell research. Why even try to find a route for the science which leads no where? If you want this science, fund it yourself. Just please quit trying to have the public fund something that will go no where.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?

[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]

My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]

268

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.
[/quote]

/rolls eyes

269

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

Except, that birth control mentality has led to an increase abortions (oh well, the condom broke I’ll just get an abortion). As well, artificial birth control is immoral itself and since the ends can never justify the means that is not an option.

Even more so, is that a lot of artificial birth control are abortifacient. So the difference is that you don’t know you induced abortion, instead of having to set up an appointment with a clinic to get an induced abortion.[/quote]

I get the whole abortion debate, but saying birth control is immoral is just…silly.

270

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

Except, that birth control mentality has led to an increase abortions (oh well, the condom broke I’ll just get an abortion). As well, artificial birth control is immoral itself and since the ends can never justify the means that is not an option.

Even more so, is that a lot of artificial birth control are abortifacient. So the difference is that you don’t know you induced abortion, instead of having to set up an appointment with a clinic to get an induced abortion.[/quote]

I get the whole abortion debate, but saying birth control is immoral is just…silly. [/quote]

Morality as a whole is silly.

271

Understand science before you claim something ‘silly’. Unless you agree with the literal tearing apart limb from limb and therefore slaughter of innocent children shrug

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

Except, that birth control mentality has led to an increase abortions (oh well, the condom broke I’ll just get an abortion). As well, artificial birth control is immoral itself and since the ends can never justify the means that is not an option.

Even more so, is that a lot of artificial birth control are abortifacient. So the difference is that you don’t know you induced abortion, instead of having to set up an appointment with a clinic to get an induced abortion.[/quote]

I get the whole abortion debate, but saying birth control is immoral is just…silly. [/quote]

272

How does using a rubber equate to “the literal tearing apart limb from limb and therefore slaughter of innocent children?” Not trying to be sarcastic, I’m curious how you came that conclusion.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Understand science before you claim something ‘silly’. Unless you agree with the literal tearing apart limb from limb and therefore slaughter of innocent children shrug

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

Except, that birth control mentality has led to an increase abortions (oh well, the condom broke I’ll just get an abortion). As well, artificial birth control is immoral itself and since the ends can never justify the means that is not an option.

Even more so, is that a lot of artificial birth control are abortifacient. So the difference is that you don’t know you induced abortion, instead of having to set up an appointment with a clinic to get an induced abortion.[/quote]

I get the whole abortion debate, but saying birth control is immoral is just…silly. [/quote]
[/quote]

273

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.
[/quote]

Yes, much better to be available for sex 24/7 whenever the man wants it. Taking control of their reproduction cycles isn’t what birth control is doing for women, it’s making women available for sex whenever man wants. So much for women being free, now there is no time that woman aren’t available for man to take advantage of, sounds like you’re free. Don’t have to worry about kids, because you are on the pill and if that messes up you can just get the child aborted. So, no reason to get married as there is no need to have support in case you get pregnant.

So, no reason to get married you can just live together or “try each other out” before you get married to make sure he is good enough to marry (bullocks, most people that practice co-habitation never get married and divorce more often than those who don’t). That way you can pay half his rent, he can get the benefits of marriage because you sleep with him, clean his house, clean his laundry, and make his food. Yet, what do you get? Definitely don’t get the security of marriage. You are a concubine and he doesn’t even have to worry about you getting pregnant. Once he is done with you (and trust me, guys that practice co-habitation are not nearly as committed to you as you are to them), he just tosses you out and you don’t even have claim on the apartment.

Man, sweet deal. Concubinage 24/7 without the worry of kids, and you get half your stuff paid for, plus a maid and a cook. No wonder guys are down for woman ‘taking control.’

274

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Contrary to what all socioeconomic statics indicate, I’ve never had an abortion.

That’s because I knew about and had access to the different types of birth control. I eventually figured out that the best on first me would be an IUD because I wouldn’t have to remember to take it and it wouldn’t fuck up my hormones. It’s basically the next best thing to getting sterilized.

Now you’d think it’d be easy to get ahold of something that would go so far to prevent abortions. However, even with insurance at the age of 22, I had to go to numerous clinics to find one that would even recommend it let alone put it in. Several refused to do the procedure just because I’d had more than one partner in the previous year.

If you truly want abortions to stop, start rallying for more education about birth control methods where people don’t have to think instead of bitching about this and then making it a pain in the ass to take the more responsible route.[/quote]

I don’t think it’d make much of a difference, how do you learn about abortion and not know about birth controls.
My personal problem with the IUD’s is that it allows eggs to get fertilized but does not allow the fetus to plant in the uterine wall. Which means technically you can get pregnant over and over and give the baby no place to plant and grow.
As far as birth control, if you are going to do it, choose a method that at least prevents sperm and egg from meeting.
[/quote]

Seriously. Who the hell are all these fertile, sexually active females who knew about abortion but not birth control?

Oleena you seriously think lack of education and access to birth control is the reason more than two thirds of the pregnancies in New York are “terminated?”

275

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.
[/quote]

Yes, much better to be available for sex 24/7 whenever the man wants it. Taking control of their reproduction cycles isn’t what birth control is doing for women, it’s making women available for sex whenever man wants. So much for women being free, now there is no time that woman aren’t available for man to take advantage of, sounds like you’re free. Don’t have to worry about kids, because you are on the pill and if that messes up you can just get the child aborted. So, no reason to get married as there is no need to have support in case you get pregnant.

So, no reason to get married you can just live together or “try each other out” before you get married to make sure he is good enough to marry (bullocks, most people that practice co-habitation never get married and divorce more often than those who don’t). That way you can pay half his rent, he can get the benefits of marriage because you sleep with him, clean his house, clean his laundry, and make his food. Yet, what do you get? Definitely don’t get the security of marriage. You are a concubine and he doesn’t even have to worry about you getting pregnant. Once he is done with you (and trust me, guys that practice co-habitation are not nearly as committed to you as you are to them), he just tosses you out and you don’t even have claim on the apartment.

Man, sweet deal. Concubinage 24/7 without the worry of kids, and you get half your stuff paid for, plus a maid and a cook. No wonder guys are down for woman ‘taking control.’[/quote]

276

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In cases of rape, incest, and if the baby would not have a good quality of life or continued pregnancy would put the mother’s life at risk, are the only reasons for abortions to occur. [/quote]

Don’t take my questions as facetious, I really don’t understand the opinion though.

What if the child is the husband’s and not the attacker?

What if she gives birth to the child because she thinks it is her husband’s child, but finds out latter that it is the rapist’s child?

Incest usually being the product of force, what if the child is not the fruit of incest but a normal (man and woman not of relation) conjugal act?

What if after the child is born it is found that the child wasn’t from normal conjugal act, but the incestuous conjugal act?

What if you find out after birth that an infant won’t have a good quality of life?

What do you consider a risk to the mother’s life? I haven’t been pregnant, and I am not an OBYGN, but it seems after doing research* and reading a hundreds of posts at dooce.com that pregnancy seems to be a pretty dangerous endeavor.

  • Well and witnessing a few dozen births and encountering morning sickness, doesn’t seem like throwing up everyday for a few months would be a healthy option.[/quote]

I would have to say in the first three questions there are ways to tell when you conceived. Granted, if it’s within a few days…that would be up to the woman and her husband to decide, if they want to take that chance. If the baby ends up being the rapist’s they can always give it up for adoption, but personally I would err on the side of caution and abort and hope my husband would understand. We can always get pregnant again. As for the fifth question, I would do everything in my power to make my child’s life as full as I possibly could for as long as it lived. A risk to the mother’s life is if the continued pregnancy and birth would put her life in any kind of danger. I’m not talking about pregnancy induced diabetes (I cannot remember the term for this right now, I’m sorry), but serious medical issues.

277

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.
[/quote]

Yes, much better to be available for sex 24/7 whenever the man wants it. Taking control of their reproduction cycles isn’t what birth control is doing for women, it’s making women available for sex whenever man wants. So much for women being free, now there is no time that woman aren’t available for man to take advantage of, sounds like you’re free. Don’t have to worry about kids, because you are on the pill and if that messes up you can just get the child aborted. So, no reason to get married as there is no need to have support in case you get pregnant.

So, no reason to get married you can just live together or “try each other out” before you get married to make sure he is good enough to marry (bullocks, most people that practice co-habitation never get married and divorce more often than those who don’t). That way you can pay half his rent, he can get the benefits of marriage because you sleep with him, clean his house, clean his laundry, and make his food. Yet, what do you get? Definitely don’t get the security of marriage. You are a concubine and he doesn’t even have to worry about you getting pregnant. Once he is done with you (and trust me, guys that practice co-habitation are not nearly as committed to you as you are to them), he just tosses you out and you don’t even have claim on the apartment.

Man, sweet deal. Concubinage 24/7 without the worry of kids, and you get half your stuff paid for, plus a maid and a cook. No wonder guys are down for woman ‘taking control.’[/quote]

Ever hear of the “morning after” pill? They cost $60, much cheaper than an abortion and you can get one at Rite-Aid the next morning. Why wait for your next missed period?

278

[quote]forlife wrote:
I get the whole abortion debate, but saying birth control is immoral is just…silly. [/quote]

How is it “silly?”

279

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I would have to say in the first three questions there are ways to tell when you conceived. Granted, if it’s within a few days…that would be up to the woman and her husband to decide, if they want to take that chance. If the baby ends up being the rapist’s they can always give it up for adoption, but personally I would err on the side of caution and abort and hope my husband would understand. We can always get pregnant again. As for the fifth question, I would do everything in my power to make my child’s life as full as I possibly could for as long as it lived. A risk to the mother’s life is if the continued pregnancy and birth would put her life in any kind of danger. I’m not talking about pregnancy induced diabetes (I cannot remember the term for this right now, I’m sorry), but serious medical issues. [/quote]

Okay, well I guess what I am trying to get at with the first three questions, is how does the value of that human being change based on who the father is?

You can always get pregnant again? I hope I have mistaken what you said, but are you saying that child is a means to an end? If it is not what the child you want (the end), you can just abort and get pregnant again and conceive another child (the means)?

‘Any kind of danger’ seems a tad arbitrary. Let me see if I can understand you better.

Like what ailment would the mother need to be in risk of to induce abortion? Is a small risk good enough or does it have to be a good chance of it happening? If there is a high risk (or even a small risk), what if it is easily preventable?

NB: I don’t mean to be cold about this subject, I condemn rape and the rapist without reserve. No woman deserves to have something forced on her like that and not only is she being forced to let go of her innocence, she was forced to give up her freedom in some ways.

280

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You can’t have women running around thinking for themselves, and taking control of their reproductive cycles. Nothing good can come from women who decide for themselves what’s best for them, especially educated women [shudder].

No, you best stay at home with the kids and let the man of the house do the thinking for you, after all: father knows best.
[/quote]

Yes, much better to be available for sex 24/7 whenever the man wants it. Taking control of their reproduction cycles isn’t what birth control is doing for women, it’s making women available for sex whenever man wants. So much for women being free, now there is no time that woman aren’t available for man to take advantage of, sounds like you’re free. Don’t have to worry about kids, because you are on the pill and if that messes up you can just get the child aborted. So, no reason to get married as there is no need to have support in case you get pregnant.

So, no reason to get married you can just live together or “try each other out” before you get married to make sure he is good enough to marry (bullocks, most people that practice co-habitation never get married and divorce more often than those who don’t). That way you can pay half his rent, he can get the benefits of marriage because you sleep with him, clean his house, clean his laundry, and make his food. Yet, what do you get? Definitely don’t get the security of marriage. You are a concubine and he doesn’t even have to worry about you getting pregnant. Once he is done with you (and trust me, guys that practice co-habitation are not nearly as committed to you as you are to them), he just tosses you out and you don’t even have claim on the apartment.

Man, sweet deal. Concubinage 24/7 without the worry of kids, and you get half your stuff paid for, plus a maid and a cook. No wonder guys are down for woman ‘taking control.’[/quote]

This is not about you, what you think, what you want and what you believe. You are not in a better position, just because you’re male, to make judgment calls about sexuality than females.

I know it’s hard to accept for you Chris, but you’re not in control here.

And that’s the issue that really drives these discussions: the issue of control. You sugarcoat it by saying, “think of the children!”, but in the end you and your ilk can’t stand to see women making decisions independent of men.