Discussion: Abortion

[The Senator]

Yes your right. It's terrible there.

Curse you network television news for thsoe expose's you did showing how good they actually had it in many of these prisons where you showed them in very elaborate and clean workout rooms, relaxing in very nice TV rooms and spoke to some who were indeed getting their college degrees for nothing. You lied to me. It was all a sham. They actually are all horrid places liek that HBO show.

Watching a documentary on Martha Stewart's six month stay in celebrity prison will hardly give you an adequate picture of what life is like in a real penitentiary.

[EdRyder]

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about. They do get three crappy meals a day. If they want snacks they have to earn money at a 10 dollar a day job. Tobacco was outlawed long ago. There are no free movies. If you are lucky you can take advantage of the 2 hours a day that the TV is turned on in the common room. Which means you watch what the guards want which is usually Maury Povich. You can take education classes by correspondence. Again eating into your 10 dollar a day job. Hobby time consists of playing checkers and drawing on some paper.

You can't leave. You can't **** unless you enjoy rape. You can't see your momma when she's dieing.

Oh and lets not forget getting forced to toss someones salad.


You have no idea what you're talking about.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

I applaud everything you're sayin here Franklin but I need to make a tiny correction. There are free movies.First run theater movies in fact.It really all depends on where you find yourself serving time.In Illinois I know ex cons who saw Revenge of the Sith a week after it was released in theaters.(not that something so trivial makes me mad) But all the extra curricular stuff is dependent upon what prison you're in.
Some prisons outlawed porn mags and smoking some didn't.
Some prisons you have to take a correspondence course, some prisons you can get your certification for all kinds of trades.

[cerealkiller182]

Whats that other show called? Locked up on MSNBC?

[cerealkiller182]

I applaud everything you're sayin here Franklin but I need to make a tiny correction. There are free movies.First run theater movies in fact.It really all depends on where you find yourself serving time.In Illinois I know ex cons who saw Revenge of the Sith a week after it was released in theaters.(not that something so trivial makes me mad) But all the extra curricular stuff is dependent upon what prison you're in.
Some prisons outlawed porn mags and smoking some didn't.
Some prisons you have to take a correspondence course, some prisons you can get your certification for all kinds of trades.

Im no expert but Im sure that these analogies would nicely into some prisons are maximum security (where almost nothing is allowed) some arnt (where some stuff is allowed).

[Franklin Richards]

I applaud everything you're sayin here Franklin but I need to make a tiny correction. There are free movies.First run theater movies in fact.It really all depends on where you find yourself serving time.In Illinois I know ex cons who saw Revenge of the Sith a week after it was released in theaters.(not that something so trivial makes me mad) But all the extra curricular stuff is dependent upon what prison you're in.
Some prisons outlawed porn mags and smoking some didn't.
Some prisons you have to take a correspondence course, some prisons you can get your certification for all kinds of trades.

Unfortunately my expertise lies in the Texas Penal System.

:D

Thanks for the update though.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Kurosawa]

My main beef with the death penalty is, as was mentioned a few pages back...that mistakes DO happen, and you don't get a do-over if someone is executed for a crime they didn't commit.

Even if it's rare, if it happens once...that's at the very least state sponsored manslaughter, if not murder.

I'm not crazy about either abortion or the death penalty, but I do understand why they are both legal.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Female prison isn't even the worse.

It's not. It can't be worse than male prison. Can't be....

[amazingfantasy15]

I applaud everything you're sayin here Franklin but I need to make a tiny correction. There are free movies.First run theater movies in fact.It really all depends on where you find yourself serving time.In Illinois I know ex cons who saw Revenge of the Sith a week after it was released in theaters.(not that something so trivial makes me mad) But all the extra curricular stuff is dependent upon what prison you're in.
Some prisons outlawed porn mags and smoking some didn't.
Some prisons you have to take a correspondence course, some prisons you can get your certification for all kinds of trades.

In regards to the college course/certifications, sure you can take those courses, but when you get out of prison you're still an ex-con, which is going to make getting a job plenty difficult, college courses or no. Plus, it's not like those courses do you any good while you're in prison.

[danoyse]

Let's try to keep this on the topic of abortion, everyone.

[ShadowBoxing]

Watching a documentary on Martha Stewart's six month stay in celebrity prison will hardly give you an adequate picture of what life is like in a real penitentiary.Except when she shanked that b*tch in Cell Block C with that knife she made out of dandelion leaves, a bar of soap and a Swedish candle.

[Nitehawk013]

Yeah that was hardcore. She should have added those to her "Everyday Living" line so the public could get good eco-friendly knives like that.

[sasquatchs]

...

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: CALIFORNIA PROP 4
A requirement of physicians to notify parents and legal guardians of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours prior to performing an abortion procedure.

With 98% of precints reporting

YES: 48%
NO: 52%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: COLORADO AMENDMENT 48
An amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would define human life 'from the moment of conception'.

With 91% of precints reporting

YES: 27%
NO: 73%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: SOUTH DAKOTA INITIATIVE 11
An initiative that would prohibit all abortions in the state except in cases where mother's life or health is at risk or in cases of rape or incest for pregnancies of less than 20 weeks.

With 99% of precints reporting

YES: 45%
NO: 55%

[Moviefan2k4]

I will simply state my views on this subject; if anyone wishes to debate me on this, they can PM me. I will not respond in this thread.

I personally believe that the life of a human being begins at the moment of fertilization. The minute that embryo begins to replicate cells (no matter how small a degree or rate), it is alive...and as such, to kill it is to commit murder against a defenseless individual. On principle, its just as wrong as shooting someone in the head while they're tied and handcuffed to a chair. The only differences are that the second scenario deals with a person who's already been born, and the murderer isn't hiding behind a medical license.

In the womb or out of it, life is precious and sacred, and to kill it without just cause or reason is abhorrent and selfish...period.

[The Senator]

I will simply state my views on this subject; if anyone wishes to debate me on this, they can PM me. I will not respond in this thread.

I personally believe that the life of a human being begins at the moment of fertilization. The minute that embryo begins to replicate cells (no matter how small a degree or rate), it is alive...and as such, to kill it is to commit murder against a defenseless individual. On principle, its just as wrong as shooting someone in the head while they're tied and handcuffed to a chair. The only differences are that the second scenario deals with a person who's already been born, and the murderer isn't hiding behind a medical license.

In the womb or out of it, life is precious and sacred, and to kill it without just cause or reason is abhorrent and selfish...period.

And I assume you support the death penalty as well?

[CaptainClown]

I personally feel abortion is bad, however I feel women have the right to choose and I have little to no say about her decision and she should be able to have that decision.

[Poetic Chaos]

How many times are Californian's gonna have to shoot down this parental consent thing? I swear it's been on the ballot the past 2 or 3 elections and has been shot down each time as it was yesterday.

[The Lizard]

Catholic leaders are afraid that Obama's aggressive pro-choice position might translate into problems for church-run hospitals...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/catholic_bishops_warn_obama_theyll_fight_on_aborti on/

BALTIMORE - The nation's Catholic bishops decided yesterday to fire an opening salvo at the incoming Obama administration, pledging to work with the new president on issues such as immigration and healthcare but also warning that the Catholic Church will do everything it can to oppose his support for abortion rights.

Meeting a week after Democrat Barack Obama, a strong supporter of abortion rights, won a majority of the Catholic vote en route to a relatively easy victory, the bishops were clearly agitated by the prospect of eased restrictions on abortion rights over the next four years.

Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Chicago warned that Catholic hospitals might have to close if, as he and other bishops fear based on legislation considered by Congress this year, a Democratic Congress and a sympathetic Obama administration decide to eliminate the right of doctors to refuse to perform abortions....

I wonder if this is merely fear-mongering on the part of anti-abortion religious groups, or if there is a legitimate complaint here.

Obviously a Democratic president and congress could result in the relaxation of some conditional abortion restriction laws. But forcing all Catholic or other church-owned hospitals with an Ob/gyn department to offer abortions? That really seems unlikely to me.

[Marx]

Catholic leaders are afraid that Obama's aggressive pro-choice position might translate into problems for church-run hospitals...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/catholic_bishops_warn_obama_theyll_fight_on_aborti on/



I wonder if this is merely fear-mongering on the part of anti-abortion religious groups, or if there is a legitimate complaint here.

Obviously a Democratic president and congress could result in the relaxation of some conditional abortion restriction laws. But forcing all Catholic or other church-owned hospitals with an Ob/gyn department to offer abortions? That really seems unlikely to me.

I agree Lizard. It seems very unlikely. I chalk it up to another case of fear mongering.

[Matt]

I hope it is simple fear mongering as no doctor should have to perform any kind of non-life saving procedure. Especially one such as abortion where it can conflict so deeply with one's morality.

[Marx]

I hope it is simple fear mongering as no doctor should have to perform any kind of non-life saving procedure. Especially one such as abortion where it can conflict so deeply with one's morality.

To me, it falls in line with religious institutions screaming about how they 'would have to recognize gay marriage just because a law was passed.' You and I know that is simply not true.

[Anita18]

How many times are Californian's gonna have to shoot down this parental consent thing? I swear it's been on the ballot the past 2 or 3 elections and has been shot down each time as it was yesterday.
I definitely remember voting on it before. :o

I hope it is simple fear mongering as no doctor should have to perform any kind of non-life saving procedure. Especially one such as abortion where it can conflict so deeply with one's morality.
If they're private church-run hospitals, as they say, they don't have to worry. If they get federal funds, that's another thing entirely. But they can just refuse public money and then do whatever they want. Even though I don't know how church-run hospital budgets work, I think that's a reasonable assumption.

I don't understand why abortion is such a huge political issue. It's not like half of all US women of child-bearing age are getting abortions every year. I just looked it up and it's apparently 2%. IMO, people just like causing anger over the thought of killing babies, and rallying political points around that anger when it should have nothing to do with how people live their lives.

I don't like the thought of late-term abortions, because it's a more dicey procedure and the baby may be viable. I don't have a problem at all with early-term abortions, because there's no way such a fetus could survive outside the womb on its own anyway.

I also think the notion that "life begins at conception" is ridiculous. Life just continues, it doesn't "begin" anywhere. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive. They just merge to continue that trend. You can't get human life to "begin" from nothing.

[The Senator]

I hope it is simple fear mongering as no doctor should have to perform any kind of non-life saving procedure. Especially one such as abortion where it can conflict so deeply with one's morality.

Yeah, that's the exact same argument doctors use when they deny homosexuals and transgendered persons health care treatment... I personally think that doctors should be required to treat EVERYONE under ALL circumstances, as long as they work for a secular hospital. They go to medical school to learn how to save lives and treat people-- not to play the morality police while dangling peoples' health over their head.

[danoyse]

Yeah, that's the exact same argument doctors use when they deny homosexuals and transgendered persons health care treatment... I personally think that doctors should be required to treat EVERYONE under ALL circumstances, as long as they work for a secular hospital. They go to medical school to learn how to save lives and treat people-- not to play the morality police while dangling peoples' health over their head.

Or when pharmacists refuse to fill birth control perscriptions because they feel it violates their moral code. Woman can take birth control for health reasons as well as to avoid getting pregnant and should not be denied treatment.

[Anita18]

Or when pharmacists refuse to fill birth control perscriptions because they feel it violates their moral code. Woman can take birth control for health reasons as well as to avoid getting pregnant and should not be denied treatment.
Yup, people forget this. One of my labmates gets hormone-related migraines, and BC pills have helped lessen their occurrence. She used to get debilitating migraines once a month (had to stay in bed all day, they were that bad), and now they're once every three months and not as bad.

[The Lizard]

I personally think that doctors should be required to treat EVERYONE under ALL circumstances, as long as they work for a secular hospital. They go to medical school to learn how to save lives and treat people-- not to play the morality police while dangling peoples' health over their head.

Well, Matt said the doctors shouldn't have to perform non-life-saving procedures. Are you saying that all ob/gyn doctors SHOULD be required to perform standard abortions (of the non-life saving variety)?

[Addendum]

If they were unaware that abortion is a legal procedure while they were considering becoming a ob/gyn, that's their problem, not their patient's

[The Lizard]

If they were unaware that abortion is a legal procedure while they were considering becoming a ob/gyn, that's their problem, not their patient's

OK...so medical students who take an interest in being an ob/gyn for the purpose of helping women bring healthy pregnancies to term should be required to terminate pregnancies whenever requested? Across the board? Outside of situations where there's threat to the mother's life?

I must say I really don't agree with that.

That's kind of like saying that any physician who specializes in geriatrics should be required to provide euthanasia when requested.

When abortion is a choice, and not a life-saving procedure, it's more like plastic surgery in my opinion. There are specialists who provide that service, thus standard physicians should not be required to if they don't want to.

[Addendum]

True, abortion is a choice. And it is a legal procedure, and part of the subspecialty of "Family Planning".

Euthanasia is only legal in Oregon and Texas. So it's not the same thing

[The Lizard]

True, abortion is a choice. And it is a legal procedure, and part of the subspecialty of "Family Planning".

Euthanasia is only legal in Oregon and Texas. So it's not the same thing

Subspecialties are optional, however.

Plus, the "Family Planning" subspecialty is not recognized as a formal concentration by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynacology. Again, its an optional specialist-based service that isn't necessarily part of every ob/gyn's focus. I still don't see where it should make standard abortions a required service for every ob/gyn.

[Franklin Richards]

It's a very tricky road that once we start down might hurt us all.


Like what if a doctor refuses to help an AIDS patient because he believes that this is God's retribution for being homosexual?

Wouldn't that be horrible?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Lizard]

It's a very tricky road that once we start down might hurt us all.

Like what if a doctor refuses to help an AIDS patient because he believes that this is God's retribution for being homosexual?

Wouldn't that be horrible?


But that is a life-saving (or life-extending) procedure, and not helping the AIDS patient would be a violation of the Hippocratic oath. I'm specifically talking about standard abortions based on choice, not medical emergency.

The "slippery slope" argument is valid in some cases, but it's way overused these days, ie: gun owners claiming that making assault rifles illegal is the first step towards taking away all rights to own firearms.

[Addendum]

It doesn't matter if it's "life saving" or not.

[The Lizard]

It doesn't matter if it's "life saving" or not.

Respectfully, that's your opinion.

To those who believe that abortion is the destruction of a living organism, regardless of where that belief comes from (and yes, there are non-religious people that have issues with abortion too, believe it or not), it does matter.

Destroying a healthy fetus is not the same thing as destroying a cancer to all physicians. Just because a physician specializes in the field of childbirth, it's not logical to assume that terminating pregnancies on demand was also part of their reason for choosing that field.

[Addendum]

It's not just my opinion, it's also the law.

[The Lizard]

It's not just my opinion, it's also the law.

Actually...

In 1995 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged that abortion training opportunities had dropped to a dangerous level and adopted clear new guidelines that explicitly set forth the expectation that abortion training would be available to all ob-gyn residents. The new standard (Section V, A, 2, e), adopted on July 31, 1995 for implementation beginning January 1, 1996, reads:

"No program or resident with a religious or moral objection shall be required to provide training in or to perform induced abortions. Otherwise, access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education. Experience with management of complications of abortion must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a religious, moral, or legal restriction that prohibits the residents from providing abortions within the institution, the program must ensure that the residents receive satisfactory education and experience in managing the complications of abortion. Furthermore, such residency programs (1) must not impede residents in the programs who do not have religious or moral objections from receiving education and experience in providing abortions at another institution and (2) must publicize such policy to all applicants to those residency programs."

http://www.prochoice.org/education/resources/residents.html

and...

§ 238n. Abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities regarding training and licensing of physicians

(a) In general
The Federal Government, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance, may not subject any health care entity to discrimination on the basis that—
(1) the entity refuses to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, to require or provide such training, to perform such abortions, or to provide referrals for such training or such abortions;
(2) the entity refuses to make arrangements for any of the activities specified in paragraph (1); or
(3) the entity attends (or attended) a post-graduate physician training program, or any other program of training in the health professions, that does not (or did not) perform induced abortions or require, provide or refer for training in the performance of induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision of such training.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000238---n000-.html

[Addendum]

That doesn't address my point that abortion is still a legal procedure, and that the US allows abortion on demand for any reason.

If the doctor objects, fine. Their objection doesn't change the fact that a woman can get an abortion in the US even if it isn't "life saving"

[The Senator]

Well, Matt said the doctors shouldn't have to perform non-life-saving procedures. Are you saying that all ob/gyn doctors SHOULD be required to perform standard abortions (of the non-life saving variety)?

Every single doctor should be required to perform ALL standard procedures which fall within their field. They are responsible for performing the duties of their job; if they disagree with a procedure for "religious" or "moral" purposes, then they should consider some other specialty or leave medical practice altogether.

If you are in the medical field, your job is to provide treatment regardless of the procedure or political debate surrounding it, NOT to play the "morality police."

[Franklin Richards]

Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench and doctors shouldn't legislate from the operating room.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

And again, I digress: Doctors have been using the "morality" line to deny homosexuals and transgendered persons medical treatment for years. I know of a transmale who tripped over a curb and lost two teeth which easily could have been saved had his doctor performed a routine procedure; the doctor he was under the care of, however, refused that treatment. As a result, this person is wearing dentures at the age of 23.

Much like it should never enter politics, religion should NEVER enter health care. One's bigotry should NEVER be a factor in providing a patient medical care.

[The Lizard]

If the doctor objects, fine. Their objection doesn't change the fact that a woman can get an abortion in the US even if it isn't "life saving"

OK, well if it's "fine" for a particular doctor to object, then the woman can go to an abortion clinic or choose another ob/gyn who performs abortions. We appear to be in agreement on that.

As I've pointed out in the links above,

1. Abortion and the "family planning" subspecialty are NOT required aspects of being an accredited ob/gyn.

2. The ACGME does not require abortions to be performed by ob/gyn residents who object for whatever reason.

3. The federal government does not allow discrimination against medical residents who refuse to perform abortions for whatever reason, as outlined in US Code Title 42, subsection 238n.

Thus, there should NOT be a requirement placed upon any and all ob/gyns to perform non-necessity abortions on demand. It's that simple.
Forcing them to do so smacks of totalitarianism to me, and is decidedly "anti-choice".

[The Lizard]

And again, I digress: Doctors have been using the "morality" line to deny homosexuals and transgendered persons medical treatment for years. I know of a transmale who tripped over a curb and lost two teeth which easily could have been saved had his doctor performed a routine procedure; the doctor he was under the care of, however, refused that treatment. As a result, this person is wearing dentures at the age of 23.

Much like it should never enter politics, religion should NEVER enter health care. One's bigotry should NEVER be a factor in providing a patient medical care.

That example of the transmale not being treated is indeed a blatant case of bigotry, as there was necessary injury-based medical care that was needed and not provided (although I have to wonder what reason his own doctor gave for not treating him and why he simply didn't go to another doctor for treatment since his own doctor was apparently a nutcase).

But since when is having a personal moral or philosophical objection to performing abortions on healthy fetuses "bigotry"? I fail to see the connection.

[The Senator]

That example of the transmale not being treated is indeed a blatant case of bigotry, as there was necessary injury-based medical care that was needed and not provided (although I have to wonder what reason his own doctor gave for not treating him and why he simply didn't go to another doctor for treatment since his own doctor was apparently a nutcase).

But since when is having a personal moral or philosophical objection to performing abortions on healthy fetuses "bigotry"? I fail to see the connection.

Do you think school administrators should have the right to deny African American children from attending public schools in some parts of the country?

The Supreme Court rules that women have a RIGHT to have control over their bodies. Therefore, any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion procedure is infringing on that right, as determined by the Supreme Court.

[The Lizard]

Do you think school administrators should have the right to deny African American children from attending public schools in some parts of the country?

Straw man argument. Totally unrelated to what we are discussing. Public education and an elective medical procedure are two completely different things. Racism is obviously bigotry, but you fail to show how personally disapproving of the practice of elective abortion is the same thing.

The Supreme Court rules that women have a RIGHT to have control over their bodies. Therefore, any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion procedure is infringing on that right, as determined by the Supreme Court.

ANY doctor? Wrong. Roe v Wade is about legalizing the general availability of abortion in this country, not a decree as to who or where is required to offer it. Where do the individual physician's rights come into your argument? Did you not read the US Code I linked above? The law currently says that no medical resident can be discriminated against for not performing abortions. That obviously includes forcing them to offer abortions against their will.

I honestly can't believe that I'm having to debate this point, since I really only posted the Catholic Church article in regard to the far-fetched idea of church-run hospitals being forced to offer abortions under an Obama presidency.

Do you actually think that:
A.) all (or even most) ob/gyns get into their field with the intent of performing on-demand abortions in their practices?
and
B.) those that don't should be required to study the abortion procedure and offer elective abortions as a service?

Again, that is like requiring all geriatric residents to study and offer euthanasia in their practices (in places where euthanasia is legal, OK?), despite their personal feelings on euthanasia and despite the fact that euthanasia is NOT a required part of that field.

It would be yet another example of the government forcing its will upon others, which I kind of assumed we all agree is a bad thing.

[The Senator]

Straw man argument. Totally unrelated to what we are discussing. Public education and an elective medical procedure are two completely different things. Racism is obviously bigotry, but you fail to show how personally disapproving of the practice of elective abortion is the same thing.

It is entirely the same. The Supreme Court gave women the right to choose, much as it required administrators to allow students of all races to attend public schools. Doctors who refuse to perform an abortion, therefore, are refusing to acknowledge this right as it pertains to women. It is on the same grounds as an administrator refusing to acknowledge the Brown v. Board decision.



ANY doctor? Wrong. Roe v Wade is about legalizing the general availability of abortion in this country, not a decree as to who or where is required to offer it. Where do the individual physician's rights come into your argument? Did you not read the US Code I linked above? The law currently says that no medical resident can be discriminated against for not performing abortions. That obviously includes forcing them to offer abortions against their will.

I honestly can't believe that I'm having to debate this point, since I really only posted the Catholic Church article in regard to the far-fetched idea of church-run hospitals being forced to offer abortions under an Obama presidency.

Do you actually think that:
A.) all (or even most) ob/gyns get into their field with the intent of performing on-demand abortions in their practices?
and
B.) those that don't should be required to study the abortion procedure and offer elective abortions as a service?

Again, that is like requiring all geriatric residents to study and offer euthanasia in their practices (in places where euthanasia is legal, OK?), despite their personal feelings on euthanasia and despite the fact that euthanasia is NOT a required part of that field.

It would be yet another example of the government forcing its will upon others, which I kind of assumed we all agree is a bad thing.

Then the law should be changed to require doctors who are trained as OBGYNs to perform abortion procedures. Again, for the third time, doctors should be required to perform all procedures which fall under their jurisdiction. They should not deny treatment to people on the basis of their moral convictions. Otherwise, I suggest that they find another field to practice medicine in if they would feel so inclined to dangle their moral beliefs over others' heads.

It would be one thing if the government was forcing its will on the people in a case where a right was not at stake. However, these patients would be denied the right to make a decision about their pregnancy, a right which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The government, by forcing doctors to perform this decision, would be further upholding a woman's right to choose.

[The Lizard]

It is entirely the same. The Supreme Court gave women the right to choose, much as it required administrators to allow students of all races to attend public schools. Doctors who refuse to perform an abortion, therefore, are refusing to acknowledge this right as it pertains to women. It is on the same grounds as an administrator refusing to acknowledge the Brown v. Board decision.
Wrong again. Refusing to perform an abortion is NOT the same as "refusing to acknowledge the right as it pertains to women". If a particular ob/gyn does not provide abortions for whatever reason (and they would not have to state why they didn't BTW), as many do not, then the woman merely goes to an abortion clinic or another physician who does do abortions. Thus abortion is still legal, and Roe v Wade is still intact.

There is no bigotry or violation of any personal rights in this situation whatsoever.


Then the law should be changed to require doctors who are trained as OBGYNs to perform abortion procedures. Again, for the third time, doctors should be required to perform all procedures which fall under their jurisdiction.
And again, for the third time, abortion is NOT a required subspecialty for every ob/gyn. It's not even part of the four main subspecialties emphasized by the ABOG (http://www.abog.org/faq.asp#what), so it's certainly not a requirement to specialize in abortion procedures.

They should not deny treatment to people on the basis of their moral convictions. Otherwise, I suggest that they find another field to practice medicine in if they would feel so inclined to dangle their moral beliefs over others' heads.
Perhaps you are simply incapable of seeing abortion as an even remotely controversial or questionable practice that some physicians might not want to get involved with. Can you really not grasp the concept that some doctors might have gotten into obstetrics because they wanted to help women carry their healthy pregnancies to term, and those doctors are not interested in performing elective abortions that terminate pregnancy? There's plenty of them out there, and not just in Utah either.

You're saying that a physician has every right to become an obstetrician, but only if they accept abortion to the point of being willing to perform elective abortions on demand? That sounds vaguely similar to someone saying that gays have every right to get married, but only if they marry a member of the opposite sex...it's an unrealistic condition based on personal bias.

It would be one thing if the government was forcing its will on the people in a case where a right was not at stake. However, these patients would be denied the right to make a decision about their pregnancy, a right which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Again, the patient is not at all being "denied" any right to get an abortion, as I've already stated. Dictating the exact provider of the abortion is not part of those rights.

The government, by forcing doctors to perform this decision, would be further upholding a woman's right to choose.
Reading that last sentence above has re-enforced my already-existing opinion that members of the far left and the far right are two sides of the same coin. Both sides claim to hate it when the government enforces the will of others upon them, but they are both perfectly OK with the government forcing their will upon others.

[The Senator]

Wrong again. Refusing to perform an abortion is NOT the same as "refusing to acknowledge the right as it pertains to women". If a particular ob/gyn does not provide abortions for whatever reason (and they would not have to state why they didn't BTW), as many do not, then the woman merely goes to an abortion clinic or another physician who does do abortions. Thus abortion is still legal, and Roe v Wade is still intact.

There is no bigotry or violation of any personal rights in this situation whatsoever.

I see. So you also believe that a school district should be allowed to segregate against students on the basis of race or skin color, correct? Just as long as there are school districts out there which will accept non-whites with whites? Technically, that isn't a violation of the Brown v. Board ruling, since there will still be schools out there which are unsegregated.

The fact of the matter is, no doctor should be able to bring his or her personal beliefs into medical practice. If a transgendered person shows up because he needs stitches, then the doctor shouldn't refuse medical care to him because he has a vagina where his penis should be. If a woman decides to have an abortion, she should be able to go to a qualified doctor to get the procedure taken care of without being told "I'm sorry miss, but Jesus says it's wrong to terminate your pregnancy." And if a woman goes into the only pharmacy in a thirty mile radius, she deserves to have a birth control prescription filled out without the pharmacist telling her it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage or to prevent herself from getting pregnant.


Perhaps you are simply incapable of seeing abortion as an even remotely controversial or questionable practice that some physicians might not want to get involved with. Can you really not grasp the concept that some doctors might have gotten into obstetrics because they wanted to help women carry their healthy pregnancies to term, and those doctors are not interested in performing elective abortions that terminate pregnancy? There's plenty of them out there, and not just in Utah either.

It shouldn't be a questionable practice, though. It is a right guaranteed to women, that they have the right to terminate their pregnancy under any condition they feel is merited. A doctor is supposed to help his or her patients. He should NOT be allowed to say, "gee, I don't really like this abortion thing" if he specializes in a field where abortion is a routine procedure.

Also, if a doctor gets into obstetrics because he wants to see a really cute baby come into the world in the end, that doctor is in it for all the wrong reasons. He should be in medicine to practice medicine and to assist his patients. He should be indoctrinated to the patient he is presiding over. Not because he wants to see a baby conceived, thrive in the womb, and enter into the world unscathed.


You're saying that a physician has every right to become an obstetrician, but only if they accept abortion to the point of being willing to perform elective abortions on demand? That sounds vaguely similar to someone saying that gays have every right to get married, but only if they marry a member of the opposite sex...it's an unrealistic condition based on personal bias.

"Vaguely" is indeed an accurate word to use, but an even more accurate word to use in this case would be "nothing." It is nothing like that argument. What I am advocating is that all doctors should be required to recognize the RIGHT women have to choose what happens during their pregnancies. They should be required to make decisions as they pertain to that RIGHT, as determined by the patient herself. The doctor should NOT refuse treatment because he is morally opposed to that treatment.

Let's look at this under a more powerful microscope, shall we? Say you have a Christian doctor who is asked to treat a Muslim patient. The doctor refuses to treat that patient because Muslims reject his faith. Should he be allowed to continue to practice medicine, even though he is blatantly discriminating against his prospective patient on the basis of religious preference?

Why is the abortion argument any different? A doctor has his own convictions, yet if a woman needs an abortion or any sort of birth control to terminate her pregnancy, should he be allowed to revoke a right as guaranteed to this woman by the Supreme Court? Should he be able to deny treatment based on his moral convictions to abortion?

My answer is... NO! The doctor is not a legislative or judicial body. He should have no right to oppose treatment to a patient under any condition. Granted, this gets into an even deeper argument about why our health care system sucks in this country, but to keep this short, there needs to be a non-discrimination policy enacted which protects patients from the moral superiority complexes adopted by certain physicians.


Again, the patient is not at all being "denied" any right to get an abortion, as I've already stated. Dictating the exact provider of the abortion is not part of those rights.

Nope, not at all... she's just being told that she can't choose under the practice of Dr. Arrogant, even though the Supreme Court gave her that right... and now she has to travel from backwoods Wyoming to Colorado if she hopes to have this procedure done...


Reading that last sentence above has re-enforced my already-existing opinion that members of the far left and the far right are two sides of the same coin. Both sides claim to hate it when the government enforces the will of others upon them, but they are both perfectly OK with the government forcing their will upon others.

Yeah, it really is ridiculous to believe that civil rights should be upheld universally...

[The Lizard]

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond here, because you've reached the point where you're just restating your own position again without actually rebutting my specific points, but...

I see. So you also believe that a school district should be allowed to segregate against students on the basis of race or skin color, correct? Just as long as there are school districts out there which will accept non-whites with whites? Technically, that isn't a violation of the Brown v. Board ruling, since there will still be schools out there which are unsegregated.

Yes, that's right, I'm a big, fat racist bigot full of hatred who supports segregated schools, just like everyone else who dares disagree with your methodology. :whatever::whatever::whatever: Public schools are not a matter of choice. You go to the school where you are assigned, or closest to where you live. Expecting racial equality at a public school is NOTHING at all like expecting any ob/gyn you choose to perform an abortion if you demand it.

The segregated school metaphor is still totally invalid, sorry.

The fact of the matter is, no doctor should be able to bring his or her personal beliefs into medical practice. If a transgendered person shows up because he needs stitches, then the doctor shouldn't refuse medical care to him because he has a vagina where his penis should be. If a woman decides to have an abortion, she should be able to go to a qualified doctor to get the procedure taken care of without being told "I'm sorry miss, but Jesus says it's wrong to terminate your pregnancy." And if a woman goes into the only pharmacy in a thirty mile radius, she deserves to have a birth control prescription filled out without the pharmacist telling her it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage or to prevent herself from getting pregnant.

Once again, the comparisons don't stick. The transgendered person needs stitches that the doctor can provide. The woman needs birth control pills that the pharmacist can prescribe just like any other pill. BUT -- not all ob/gyns have training or equipment to perform abortions, because THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO. Whatever reason the ob/gyn has for not offering that service is her/his own business, regardless of whether you immediately scream "Jesus freak" or not. Face it -- it's not all about religion.


It shouldn't be a questionable practice, though. It is a right guaranteed to women, that they have the right to terminate their pregnancy under any condition they feel is merited. A doctor is supposed to help his or her patients. He should NOT be allowed to say, "gee, I don't really like this abortion thing" if he specializes in a field where abortion is a routine procedure.

That's all your opinion. If you and everyone you deal with in your life are all unanimously agreed that an abortion is the same as having a wart removed, good for you. But everyone else should feel that way too? Why? Because you say so?
And again, you create the false impression that the choice to become an ob/gyn is synonymous with a choice to perform elective abortions. It's not, as evidenced by the ABOG itself.


Also, if a doctor gets into obstetrics because he wants to see a really cute baby come into the world in the end, that doctor is in it for all the wrong reasons. He should be in medicine to practice medicine and to assist his patients. He should be indoctrinated to the patient he is presiding over. Not because he wants to see a baby conceived, thrive in the womb, and enter into the world unscathed.

Again, all 100% your opinion.


"Vaguely" is indeed an accurate word to use, but an even more accurate word to use in this case would be "nothing." It is nothing like that argument.

The arguments are similar, because both create a false condition (marriage = straight, ob/gyn = pro-abortion) to oversimplify the issue. I purposefully used the gay marriage example in the hopes that would make it more clear to you.

What I am advocating is that all doctors should be required to recognize the RIGHT women have to choose what happens during their pregnancies. They should be required to make decisions as they pertain to that RIGHT, as determined by the patient herself. The doctor should NOT refuse treatment because he is morally opposed to that treatment.

The ob/gyns recognize that RIGHT when they look up up the nearest abortion provider for that patient if that ob/gyn doesn't offer the service themselves. The RIGHT is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere.

Let's look at this under a more powerful microscope, shall we? Say you have a Christian doctor who is asked to treat a Muslim patient. The doctor refuses to treat that patient because Muslims reject his faith. Should he be allowed to continue to practice medicine, even though he is blatantly discriminating against his prospective patient on the basis of religious preference?

Why is the abortion argument any different? A doctor has his own convictions, yet if a woman needs an abortion or any sort of birth control to terminate her pregnancy, should he be allowed to revoke a right as guaranteed to this woman by the Supreme Court? Should he be able to deny treatment based on his moral convictions to abortion?


Another totally invalid comparison, I'm afraid.

The hypothetical Christian doctor is refusing a service he is fully trained and equipped to provide on the basis of religious bigotry. Even if we assume that the Muslim needed some kind of treatment that was elective and not a necessity (which at least is marginally closer to the abortion issue we're discussing), the Christian is withholding treatment after the discovery that the patient is Muslim.
The hypothetical ob/gyn that doesn't perform abortions never offers them in the first place, would not have the equipment to do so, and quite likely isn't even trained to do so. The woman's rights are not "revoked" at all by this situation.


My answer is... NO! The doctor is not a legislative or judicial body. He should have no right to oppose treatment to a patient under any condition.
Granted, this gets into an even deeper argument about why our health care system sucks in this country, but to keep this short, there needs to be a non-discrimination policy enacted which protects patients from the moral superiority complexes adopted by certain physicians.
Nope, not at all... she's just being told that she can't choose under the practice of Dr. Arrogant, even though the Supreme Court gave her that right... and now she has to travel from backwoods Wyoming to Colorado if she hopes to have this procedure done...

I see that morality that you disagree with is described as a "superiority complex" or "arrogant". You also mention a non-discrimination policy, but again, what about the discrimination you are advocating against physicians that CHOOSE not to train in performing abortions? So much for that choice, eh?
You seem to think that abortion clinics should be like McDonalds, with one on every street corner so no one has to drive more than a couple miles to find one. Like any other specialized medical service, sometimes it's convenient and sometimes it's not, but that has no logical bearing on taking away any ob/gyn's right to decide to specialize in abortion or not.

Yeah, it really is ridiculous to believe that civil rights should be upheld universally...
It's certainly ridiculous to think that forcing certain physicians to become abortionists when it's not a required part of their field is "upholding civil rights".

Based on the methods you seem to be advocating to bring this "universal abortion decree" into action, I must say that I'm just as glad that I don't live in the America you envision as I am glad that I don't live in the America that the theocratic ultra-conservatives envision either.

[Marx]

BUSH ABORTION MOVE SPARKS PROTEST
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?_r=3&ref=us

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

[Marx]

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OFFERS BIRTH CONTROL AS HOLIDAY GIFT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/planned-parenthood-offers_n_146968.html

[Holiday]

My little two-year old niece came over for Thanksgiving yesterday and promptly reminded me why I'm pro-choice.









That was wrong. So very wrong.

[Marx]

My little two-year old niece came over for Thanksgiving yesterday and promptly reminded me why I'm pro-choice.









That was wrong. So very wrong.

That's just horrible!

but for some reason I can't stop laughing! :funny:

[Holiday]

That's just horrible!

but for some reason I can't stop laughing! :funny:

Hehe. I wasn't sure if I should ever use that joke but even my Grandma laughed at it so I figured what the hell? :hehe:

[Halcohol]

This week the Campus Pro-Life students club put up their bi-annual display of the so-called "Genocide Awareness Project", which basically consists of several large billboards featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses, lynched African-Americans, and victims of the Holocaust.

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that they have fought for the right to have the display erected at the very centre of campus where the highest amount of foot traffic occurs (complaints were filed last year when they put up the displays along the CTrain, forcing thousands of people not on campus to view the displays on their way to work).

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the entire purpose of the display is to decree the act of abortion as "genocide" against unborn babies, using pictures and text to equate women who have had abortions with Nazis exterminating Jews during WWII and the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of Rwandan Tutsis.

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that Campus Pro-Life ignored all criteria the University gave to them regarding placement of the displays and tactics they were allowed to use (getting in peoples' faces and attracting media attention to campus). So, after five years of putting up with CPL's blatant disregard for the retention of any kind of normal campus functioning, the University decided to take legal action without consulting the Students' Union and threatened CPL with being forcibly removed from campus. They didn't go through with it in the interests of preventing CPL from gaining the kind of media glory and attention it so desperately craves, but the mere fact that they threatened the group with legal action created a huge firestorm in the media condemning the University's council for suppressing freedom of speech at a centre of higher learning and free thought.

What bothers me most about this display is that it clouds the issues and debate surrounding abortion and instead relies on shock value to try and guilt people into changing their minds regarding abortions. What could have been a thought-provoking, logical, clear-headed presentation of one side's ideas instead devolved into a protest backing free speech and their right to force disturbing images upon anything with eyeballs that walks by.

The worst part is that these extreme tactics seemed to have succeeded in dragging the moderator of this debate down to their level. Not even Campus Pro-Choice has ever tried to suppress their opponents' rights to express their opinion. Now, the University has not only granted these in-your-face liars the media attention they were hoping for, but illegitimated its own voice of reason and objectivity it is supposed to provide.

Everybody with a functioning brain on campus knows that abortion is NOT equal to genocide, but nobody in their right mind would have ever backed such a motion to have CPL removed from campus. So now, not only is it a sad day because of the group's dedication to promoting lies and a moral superiority that strips away the freedom of a woman to protect her own body, but it's an even worse day because we stopped letting them use their voice.

[danoyse]

Right after 9/11 pro-life groups put fliers up near the missing person posters that went up all over NYC explaining the number of babies aborted every year and tried equate abortion with terrorism. They did this on a building where families were coming waiting for news about their missing relatives.

They really destroy their own message when they do stuff like that. :whatever:

[04nbod]

But when you see that they believe a human is viable from the moment of conception and worth as much as you are I you must see where their 'mass murder' ideas come from.I'm sympathetic to what the extremists are saying but wouldn't go about it the way they do.

Personally I'm pro life with abortions in circumstances where the mother's life is in danger,rape or doctors believe the child would not have a sufficient standard of life. I'm disgusted at the abortion on demand system the western world has right now. I believe that if a 16 year old dumbass rolls around with no protection then abortion should not be an option. At that point its not about her anymore, she made her decision. If she really not fit then there is adoption. It should not be considered the last 'contraceptive'.

By the way, I am a 20 year old Woman.

[Handsome Rob]

Right after 9/11 pro-life groups put fliers up near the missing person posters that went up all over NYC explaining the number of babies aborted every year and tried equate abortion with terrorism. They did this on a building where families were coming waiting for news about their missing relatives.

They really destroy their own message when they do stuff like that. :whatever:

I felt the same way when anti-U.S. posters started appearing on the college campus I was attending comparing the death toll in the Middle East from "imperialistic" U.S. foreign policy to the death toll from 9/11.

But, I have to ask, if you are willing to support abortion, shouldn't you be okay with seeing images resulting from abortion? I mean, a little bag of aborted fetuses, complete with "pieces" recognizable as little arms and legs (and fingers and toes) shouldn't really faze an ardent pro-abortionist. It's just a "viable tissue mass," right?

EDIT: I wouldn't call abortion a genocide, because it doesn't fit the definition. But, the images I described above (which I have seen) causes the same reaction in me that seeing piles of dead Jews in concentration camps (which I have also seen) does--it's innocent life that has been taken.

[danoyse]

But, I have to ask, if you are willing to support abortion, shouldn't you be okay with seeing images resulting from abortion? I mean, a little bag of aborted fetuses, complete with "pieces" recognizable as little arms and legs (and fingers and toes) shouldn't really faze an ardent pro-abortionist. It's just a "viable tissue mass," right?


My biggest issue is when they display those posters in public places where small kids can see them. A group in my town does that in front of a local shopping center. They don't care who sees it, and it bothers a lot of families who now have to explain it to their kids.

And the pictures are deceiving. If you have an abortion within the first weeks of your pregnancy, it doesn't look like a baby at all. Those graphic photos could be from miscarriages or who knows what else. They make it look like these were all babies who were dragged out kicking and screaming, but you don't know where they really came from. Abortions are generally carried out in the first trimester, and none of that is really formed yet.

[Handsome Rob]

My biggest issue is when they display those posters in public places where small kids can see them. A group in my town does that in front of a local shopping center. They don't care who sees it, and it bothers a lot of families who now have to explain it to their kids.

And the pictures are deceiving. If you have an abortion within the first weeks of your pregnancy, it doesn't look like a baby at all. Those graphic photos could be from miscarriages or who knows what else. They make it look like these were all babies who were dragged out kicking and screaming, but you don't know where they really came from. Abortions are generally carried out in the first trimester, and none of that is really formed yet.

I agree with you on the first point. There are definitely things little kids shouldn't see, and that's one of them.

And yes, it doesn't always "look" human. But, for people like me, that doesn't change the fact that that every stage from a zygote on is still a stage of human development. It's still a homo sapiens, and I believe it deserves protection.

[The Senator]

Maybe we should also consider outlawing masturbation, since sperm cells contain genetic code and can be used to create "life" within a mother's womb during sexual intercourse. After all, we wouldn't want millions of sperm cells to die when they could be used to create life...

[CaptainClown]

Maybe we should also consider outlawing masturbation, since sperm cells contain genetic code and can be used to create "life" within a mother's womb during sexual intercourse. After all, we wouldn't want millions of sperm cells to die when they could be used to create life...
never!:bh:

[Hobgoblin]

Maybe we should also consider outlawing masturbation, since sperm cells contain genetic code and can be used to create "life" within a mother's womb during sexual intercourse. After all, we wouldn't want millions of sperm cells to die when they could be used to create life...

Thats not really a fair comparison. A sperm cell doesnt have the full 42 chromosomes, an embryo does.

[The Senator]

Thats not really a fair comparison. A sperm cell doesnt have the full 42 chromosomes, an embryo does.

But if men were having sex with women instead of masturbating, millions of additional children could be born regardless of whether the parents can afford to have them or if our economy and environment can sustain them. Outlaw masturbation, I say, and make heterosexual mating mandatory! :cmad:

[Hobgoblin]

But if men were having sex with women instead of masturbating, millions of additional children could be born regardless of whether the parents can afford to have them or if our economy and environment can sustain them. Outlaw masturbation, I say, and make heterosexual mating mandatory! :cmad:

But what about heteros who love masterbation? :wow::csad: Are we doomed to wait for sex until her headache clears up?

[Handsome Rob]

Thats not really a fair comparison. A sperm cell doesnt have the full 42 chromosomes, an embryo does.

Right. Give a sperm cell nourishment and a proper environment, and it will never be anything more than a sperm cell. The same goes for an egg cell.

But, given nourishment and a proper environment, a zygote will go to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, and finally an adult.

[danoyse]

And yes, it doesn't always "look" human. But, for people like me, that doesn't change the fact that that every stage from a zygote on is still a stage of human development. It's still a homo sapiens, and I believe it deserves protection.

And I'm not one of those pro-choice people who thinks it's anything less than a baby from the moment it's conceived. My point is that the photos of mutilated babies you see on poster-sized signs by these protesters (including a group that I see near my office nearly every day) aren't necessarily taken at abortions, like they would have you believe. Abortions usually take place at a much earlier stage before the baby is so well-formed. That baby could have been miscarried or any other number of things.

[Spider-Bite]

Thats not really a fair comparison. A sperm cell doesnt have the full 42 chromosomes, an embryo does.
It's a perfectly fair comparison. An embryo does not have a mind of it's own, where as a person does.

An embryo has no more self awareness than a sperm cell. The point JMan made is that they are both nothing more than genetic material.

[Spider-Bite]

Right. Give a sperm cell nourishment and a proper environment, and it will never be anything more than a sperm cell. The same goes for an egg cell.

But, given nourishment and a proper environment, a zygote will go to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, and finally an adult.

One could argue that the proper environment for a sperm cell is an egg. You list these things an embryo needs to become a human, however you could make an almost identical list for a sperm cell. You give an embryo certain things and it will grow into a human being. You can say the exact same thing about a sperm cell or an egg. but it's not a human being and a mother has the right to decide if she wants to use this stuff to build one. And no she does not lose that choice when she has sex. she still has that choice as she should.

Were talking about the buiilding blocks of a human being, not an actual human being.

I am opposed to aborting fetuses, because at that point it's a living creature with a mind of it's own. That's the difference. A mind of it's own. With all your talk you avoid that difference which is obviously the most important difference. Nobody shows compassion for a vegetable, because it can't feel.

[Hobgoblin]

It's a perfectly fair comparison. An embryo does not have a mind of it's own, where as a person does.

An embryo has no more self awareness than a sperm cell. The point JMan made is that they are both nothing more than genetic material.

No, it isnt. An embryo, or even just a fertilized egg, has the full 42 chromosomes needed to make a human being. A sperm cell is just a sperm cell. I dont buy into the new definition of a human being: that they need a functioning mind and need to be contributing to society to be human. That would not include infants, the mentally challenged, the very elderly with dementia, etc. Tell someone with a murdered infant or mentally challenged friend that that person wasnt human.

[The Senator]

I was simply trying to be humorous with my post.

Now Spider-Bite has come along and bastardized the point.

Sigh...

[Hobgoblin]

Humor? In politics? There's an idea. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

Humor? In politics? There's an idea. :oldrazz:

We have humor in politics...it's currently called Sarah Palin and the Republican Party.

[The Senator]

Abortion not seen linked with depression
Reuters


WASHINGTON - No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.

"The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder," Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

An estimated 1.29 million American women get elective abortions each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 25 million women globally have legal abortions every year.

Abortion is a hot-button political issue, with many voters and members of the U.S. Congress as well as state lawmakers seeking to ban it.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, while noting that 'we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon,' cited adverse mental health outcomes for women as part of the rationale for limiting late term abortions," Blum's team wrote.

The researchers reviewed all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health.

They analyzed those that included valid mental health measures and factored in pre-existing mental health status and potentially confusing factors.

"The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not," they wrote.

"...studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion," they added. "Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions."

[Marx]

Abortion not seen linked with depression
Reuters

Ok, I'm confused. Is this article suggesting that women who have abortions do not suffer any form of mental trauma afterwards? If that's the case, I completely disagree.

[The Senator]

Ok, I'm confused. Is this article suggesting that women who have abortions do not suffer any form of mental trauma afterwards? If that's the case, I completely disagree.

The article claims that there is no link that women, on average, will suffer from depression as a result of having an abortion. This is a claim "pro-life" activists use repeatedly, that abortion should be made illegal in part because of the psychological effects mothers endure after making this decision. The scientific study says otherwise: Women may suffer from depression, but it is not something which the majority of mothers experience, nor is it an average occurrence.

[Marx]

The article claims that there is no link that women, on average, will suffer from depression as a result of having an abortion. This is a claim "pro-life" activists use repeatedly, that abortion should be made illegal in part because of the psychological effects mothers endure after making this decision. The scientific study says otherwise: Women may suffer from depression, but it is not something which the majority of mothers experience, nor is it an average occurrence.

Pro-Lifers will cling to anything that they possibly can to make the argument. That being said, I do believe that there are a number of women who experience some form of trauma afterwards. (A friend of mine among them.) However, I don't believe that just because they might suffer mental trauma is a valid reason to call for its ban.

[XpunkRocker]

i don't think there should be an outright ban. there are "good" reasons, and reasonable reasons to have one. but i think it should be more restricted and taken more seriously. i personally feel that if this country is going to decide the time of death by whether you have a pulse or not, then they should use it to determine if a person is "alive." so if the fetus has a pulse/heartbeat, it should be considered life and have some kind of rights.

[Timstuff]

My mom teaches childbirth classes, so I think you probably already have a basic idea of what my opinion on abortion is. Without going into nitty gritty, ugly details though, I simply thought I'd toss this log on the fire: during my mom's job training, she learned that 90% of mothers considering abortions who have ultrasounds end up keeping their babies rather than aborting. You don't have to be in favor of abolishing Roe V. Wade to agree that the abortion rates in this nation are ridiculously higher than what they ought to be by any rational person's standards. In theory, we could drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country simply by providing unplanned mothers with access to ultrasound scans.

The problem is that this inevitably runs into the money question, because ultrasounds are not cheap, nor is the time of the technicians who operate them. Really though, it kind of comes down to this: the money that our taxes don't have to spend on abortions could be instead spent on ultrasounds. Several states already have "witness to the womb" laws which require all women seeking abortions be given the option of having an ultrasound and other tests done before making a decision. I really hope that more states start adopting similar laws, because it would inevitably mean that more children can be born instead of getting aborted.

What really pisses me off though, is that groups like planned parenthood are digging their heels into the ground to slow the spread of such laws, even calling into question their constitutionality (which shouldn't come as a surprise though, since PP's primary agenda is to abort as many black babies as possible). I can understand if you want to argue that a woman has a right to have an abortion, but to argue that it is wrong to talk someone out of an abortion is simply sick and wrong, and tells me that such minded people are more pro-abortion than they are pro-choice. No-one should have to make a decision as big as having an abortion without at least having access to information about their pregnancy.

[Marx]

My mom teaches childbirth classes, so I think you probably already have a basic idea of what my opinion on abortion is. Without going into nitty gritty, ugly details though, I simply thought I'd toss this log on the fire: during my mom's job training, she learned that 90% of mothers considering abortions who have ultrasounds end up keeping their babies rather than aborting. You don't have to be in favor of abolishing Roe V. Wade to agree that the abortion rates in this nation are ridiculously higher than what they ought to be by any rational person's standards. In theory, we could drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country simply by providing unplanned mothers with access to ultrasound scans.

The problem is that this inevitably runs into the money question, because ultrasounds are not cheap, nor is the time of the technicians who operate them. Really though, it kind of comes down to this: the money that our taxes don't have to spend on abortions could be instead spent on ultrasounds. Several states already have "witness to the womb" laws which require all women seeking abortions be given the option of having an ultrasound and other tests done before making a decision. I really hope that more states start adopting similar laws, because it would inevitably mean that more children can be born instead of getting aborted.

What really pisses me off though, is that groups like planned parenthood are digging their heels into the ground to slow the spread of such laws, even calling into question their constitutionality (which shouldn't come as a surprise though, since PP's primary agenda is to abort as many black babies as possible). I can understand if you want to argue that a woman has a right to have an abortion, but to argue that it is wrong to talk someone out of an abortion is simply sick and wrong, and tells me that such minded people are more pro-abortion than they are pro-choice. No-one should have to make a decision as big as having an abortion without at least having access to information about their pregnancy.

There is absolutely nothing with making sure people are informed of their decisions regarding abortion. That being said, I have a very difficult time believing that people don't know what all it involves. Furthermore, that these decisions come easily. Having an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions that a person could ever face, and living with the ramifications of that decision are not easy to handle either.

[Timstuff]

Exactly, and if having an ultrasound helps a woman to make a more informed decision, I do not see why Planned Parenthood would be against making them widely available unless it was counterproductive to their agenda.

[Marx]

Exactly, and if having an ultrasound helps a woman to make a more informed decision, I do not see why Planned Parenthood would be against making them widely available unless it was counterproductive to their agenda.

To be honest with you, I was not aware of Planned Parenthood's position on ultra sounds. I'll have to look more into it.

[Timstuff]

Some Planned Parenthood clinics offer ultrasounds, however the organization has stood in opposition of laws that would require women seeking abortions to be offered ultrasounds (they and several other pro-choice groups have referred to more extreme laws, which would require ultrasounds, "emotional blackmail"). I apologize that I can't provide many on-the-books quotes from PP specifically in regards to the Witness to the Womb laws that most states are adopting, but from what I've read their opinions of them have generally been negative.

[The Senator]

If a mother wants an ultrasound, I have an idea:

SHE SHOULD GO TO HER ****ING DOCTOR.

Then she can make whatever decision she wants. Planned Parenthood shouldn't be required to perform ultrasounds when the goal of their abortion clinics is to terminate pregnancies.

[Timstuff]

Ultrasounds are expensive. Do you think that a teenage girl from a family living in the inner city is going to be able to afford an ultrasound on her own? Her doctor might not even have an ultrasound machine.

And your second paragraph is precisely why I dislike planned parenthood. Their goal is not to council unexpected mothers on what their options are and provide them to the best of their abilities, their goal is ultimately to give abortions to every pregnant woman who walks through their doors, which is why I do not support them as an organization (also they were founded with a white supremacist agenda that has not gone away, but that's a different topic for another time).

[Matt]

Pro-Lifers will cling to anything that they possibly can to make the argument. That being said, I do believe that there are a number of women who experience some form of trauma afterwards. (A friend of mine among them.) However, I don't believe that just because they might suffer mental trauma is a valid reason to call for its ban.

I'd argue there is something very wrong with you if at some point in your life you do not endure some kind of remorse or mental anguish after aborting your child. That said, you are right, it is not a valid reason to call for it's ban. I personally think abortion is a sick, disgusting act. But the government regulating it will not help. It will only lead to street clinics and coat hanger abortions. People who are truly set on aborting their child will find a way. Which is kind of sad as it is a reflection of this throw away, no-consequence for actions society that we live in.

[CaptainClown]

I'd argue there is something very wrong with you if at some point in your life you do not endure some kind of remorse or mental anguish after aborting your child.
Women have mental anguish when they unintentionally miscarry their child. I can only imagine the feeling if you intentionally did.

[Matt]

Women have mental anguish when they unintentionally miscarry their child. I can only imagine the feeling if you intentionally did.

I personally think in most cases abortion is an entirely selfish act. I have a college friend who has been trying desperately to have a baby with her husband for years and is unable to. They have had about 3 miscarriages and each one pains her to this day. They are trying adoption but ultimately the system is congested and it will take years before they get any results on that front.

However there are countless young women who are so willing to have a potential life just cut out of them so they do not have to endure a short nine months of inconvenience because of THEIR actions and THEIR stupidity. It was THEIR choice not to use the proper protection. It was THEIR choice to be sexually active. Yet they will kill a fetus...something with limitless potential, because they are too selfish to clean up their own mess? It is morally wrong. That said, what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong are two different things and it is incredibly impractical for the government to make abortion legally wrong.

[Matt]

Ultrasounds are expensive. Do you think that a teenage girl from a family living in the inner city is going to be able to afford an ultrasound on her own? Her doctor might not even have an ultrasound machine.

And your second paragraph is precisely why I dislike planned parenthood. Their goal is not to council unexpected mothers on what their options are and provide them to the best of their abilities, their goal is ultimately to give abortions to every pregnant woman who walks through their doors, which is why I do not support them as an organization (also they were founded with a white supremacist agenda that has not gone away, but that's a different topic for another time).

Likewise. Planned parenthood should take an approach that focuses more on education than, "well, lets cut that little bastard out of you."

[Marx]

I'd argue there is something very wrong with you if at some point in your life you do not endure some kind of remorse or mental anguish after aborting your child. That said, you are right, it is not a valid reason to call for it's ban. I personally think abortion is a sick, disgusting act. But the government regulating it will not help. It will only lead to street clinics and coat hanger abortions. People who are truly set on aborting their child will find a way. Which is kind of sad as it is a reflection of this throw away, no-consequence for actions society that we live in.

I agree Matt. As for the 'throw away society', I would argue that that would be the case for people who are using abortion as a means of birth control. (Not for those who are raped.)

[Matt]

I agree Matt. As for the 'throw away society', I would argue that that would be the case for people who are using abortion as a means of birth control. (Not for those who are raped.)

Oh I agree entirely. I think rape is one of two cases where I can see any kind of justification for abortion (the other being imminent death to the mother and child if the pregnancy is not aborted). In the cases of rape, the woman did not ask to be impregnated or to be violated. It would be a horribly traumatic experience to have to live through a pregnancy brought on by your rapist and give birth to his child. In those cases, I think it should be a personal choice made by the mother and really no one can judge the call she makes.

[danoyse]

Some Planned Parenthood clinics offer ultrasounds, however the organization has stood in opposition of laws that would require women seeking abortions to be offered ultrasounds (they and several other pro-choice groups have referred to more extreme laws, which would require ultrasounds, "emotional blackmail"). I apologize that I can't provide many on-the-books quotes from PP specifically in regards to the Witness to the Womb laws that most states are adopting, but from what I've read their opinions of them have generally been negative.

I would have a problem with requiring ultrasounds to anyone wishing to have an abortion. There are women who want to have these babies but can't, and it's not just a matter of not caring and tossing them away. But we have to respect their choice too - not force them to look at a picture of the baby to try to shame them into keeping it.

I hate abortion too, and I wish it didn't exist. And I think having the ultra sound option available is a good idea. But no one should be required to have one. Having known women who've had abortions - who weren't stupid or thoughtless - they had to. It would have been worse for all involved had they kept the baby. Forcing them to go through an ultrasound would have made the emotional strain of the abortion worse, and they don't deserve that.

[The Senator]

Ultrasounds are expensive. Do you think that a teenage girl from a family living in the inner city is going to be able to afford an ultrasound on her own? Her doctor might not even have an ultrasound machine.

And your second paragraph is precisely why I dislike planned parenthood. Their goal is not to council unexpected mothers on what their options are and provide them to the best of their abilities, their goal is ultimately to give abortions to every pregnant woman who walks through their doors, which is why I do not support them as an organization (also they were founded with a white supremacist agenda that has not gone away, but that's a different topic for another time).

Is that you, Slim? :whatever:

[Matt]

I would have a problem with requiring ultrasounds to anyone wishing to have an abortion. There are women who want to have these babies but can't, and it's not just a matter of not caring and tossing them away. But we have to respect their choice too - not force them to look at a picture of the baby to try to shame them into keeping it.

I hate abortion too, and I wish it didn't exist. And I think having the ultra sound option available is a good idea. But no one should be required to have one. Having known women who've had abortions - who weren't stupid or thoughtless - they had to. It would have been worse for all involved had they kept the baby. Forcing them to go through an ultrasound would have made the emotional strain of the abortion worse, and they don't deserve that.

Out of curiousity Jen...why couldn't they? Is it a matter of medical expenses, because there are numerous people out there who will pay any expense for a surrogate mother and they will take the child immedietly afterwards. Was it for health reasons? Or was it simply an inconvenience on their career/education/social life, whatever? I'm not being sarcastic or condescending here...I'd just like to know why they could not keep the baby?

[danoyse]

Out of curiousity Jen...why couldn't they? Is it a matter of medical expenses, because there are numerous people out there who will pay any expense for a surrogate mother and they will take the child immedietly afterwards. Was it for health reasons? Or was it simply an inconvenience on their career/education/social life, whatever? I'm not being sarcastic or condescending here...I'd just like to know why they could not keep the baby?

Family reasons, mostly (and others I won't get into here), since they were ridiculously young when they got pregnant. Didn't matter if someone would pay the expenses and adopt the baby, they could not walk into their home and explain to their parents that they were pregnant. They would have been kicked out. It was that bad.

It was a long time ago, but even now I'm grateful their parents never found out about it.

[C.F. Kane]

My mom teaches childbirth classes, so I think you probably already have a basic idea of what my opinion on abortion is. Without going into nitty gritty, ugly details though, I simply thought I'd toss this log on the fire: during my mom's job training, she learned that 90% of mothers considering abortions who have ultrasounds end up keeping their babies rather than aborting. You don't have to be in favor of abolishing Roe V. Wade to agree that the abortion rates in this nation are ridiculously higher than what they ought to be by any rational person's standards. In theory, we could drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country simply by providing unplanned mothers with access to ultrasound scans.

The problem is that this inevitably runs into the money question, because ultrasounds are not cheap, nor is the time of the technicians who operate them. Really though, it kind of comes down to this: the money that our taxes don't have to spend on abortions could be instead spent on ultrasounds. Several states already have "witness to the womb" laws which require all women seeking abortions be given the option of having an ultrasound and other tests done before making a decision. I really hope that more states start adopting similar laws, because it would inevitably mean that more children can be born instead of getting aborted.

What really pisses me off though, is that groups like planned parenthood are digging their heels into the ground to slow the spread of such laws, even calling into question their constitutionality (which shouldn't come as a surprise though, since PP's primary agenda is to abort as many black babies as possible). I can understand if you want to argue that a woman has a right to have an abortion, but to argue that it is wrong to talk someone out of an abortion is simply sick and wrong, and tells me that such minded people are more pro-abortion than they are pro-choice. No-one should have to make a decision as big as having an abortion without at least having access to information about their pregnancy.

Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent unplanned pregnancies by making cheap, easy-to-use condoms available to people?

[danoyse]

Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent unplanned pregnancies by making cheap, easy-to-use condoms available to people?

Exactly. :up:

[SentinelMind]

There is absolutely nothing with making sure people are informed of their decisions regarding abortion. That being said, I have a very difficult time believing that people don't know what all it involves. Furthermore, that these decisions come easily. Having an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions that a person could ever face, and living with the ramifications of that decision are not easy to handle either.

Why do you believe this? And in face of evidence that the abortion rate with ultrasound is statistically significant different than the abortion rate without ultrasound?

and Timstuff is right, PP was founded by people who had white supremacist and eugenic manipulation views.

[The Senator]

Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent unplanned pregnancies by making cheap, easy-to-use condoms available to people?

No, because condoms are evil and go against the Bible.

[SentinelMind]

How are condoms not available to the people? Can't anyone go and buy one? Or is the suggestion that condoms should distributed to the massess at no cost to user?

[XpunkRocker]

it depends on where you live. some places they are harder to get than others. and one of the main problems with condoms is that people are really made "aware" of it in a sense until they are older. they know about them at a young age, but it is something that they don't worry about as much as they should because they truly don't understand the importance of it. my opinion though. one of my best friends had his first kid when he was just 13, so.... yeah.

[The Senator]

How are condoms not available to the people? Can't anyone go and buy one? Or is the suggestion that condoms should distributed to the massess at no cost to user?

Condoms are expensive, at least for sexually-active teenagers. I personally believe condoms should be available to students at public schools.

[XpunkRocker]

if they are available at school, people should have to pay for them. But it would never work because students would be too embarressed to get their condoms from school administers

[XpunkRocker]

if they are available at school, people should have to pay for them. But it would never work because students would be too embarressed to get their condoms from school administers

[The Senator]

if they are available at school, people should have to pay for them. But it would never work because students would be too embarressed to get their condoms from school administers

No, they shouldn't. Schools should promote safe sex by offering condoms for no charge.

[SentinelMind]

I don't think my tax dollars should be used to accomodate other immature people's wrecklessness.

Plus, think about that...free for public school students, but adults have to pay when they go to the store? What sense is there in that. Tax dollars shouldn't be used to accomodate those who are incapable of thinking and planning responsibly.

[The Senator]

I don't think my tax dollars should be used to accomodate other immature people's wrecklessness.

And I don't think my tax dollars should go to support government handouts to religious organizations or to fight unnecessary multibillion dollar wars overseas, but that's where they go anyway.

[XpunkRocker]

haha, no... my taxes aren't paying for condoms. especially when the school system is underfunded enough. giving the schools more barren on their budget for something like "promoting." there are better ways to promote safe sex than just giving out freebees. much better ways. there are seminars promoting safe sex (yes, giving people knowledge can make things better), posters, and other things

Most schools that have tried what you said have failed. kids take the condoms and use them as pranks by putting them in kids' lockers all wet, throwing them up and down the hallway, putting them on teachers' desks..... just giving free stuff out to uneducated kids who don't understand what they are doing is just...silly. the bigger problem is lack of knowledge and awareness. at least that is from what i have seen and heard. my opinion though

[The Senator]

I find it hilarious that so many people are against abortion, but when there are logical solutions for the problem, those same people throw their hands in the air and complain about having to pay more in taxes to fund programs which are aimed at reducing teenage pregnancies. Well, what matters more to you-- the sanctity of human life or not having to pay an extra dollar or so a year in taxes?

[XpunkRocker]

i am not against logical solutions to the "problem." i think promoting condoms is a great idea. i just don't think spending money on condoms so most of them get thrown around as pranks is a good idea. but if you think students playing with condoms and using them as pranks is a "logical solution" than more power to ya i guess. but i would just have to respectfully disagree

you want to give out free stuff, i want to give out free knowledge. but knowledge is no place for schools. schools should be for getting free stuff.

[Kelly]

If someone can find a condom that is 100% protection, my taxes can for that......no problem here. Right now on average, they are anywhere from 75% to 80% effective. Plus, if free condoms were available, I know alot more students in my school that right now have the fear of God in them, would have less of that fear. So, give me 100% protection, my taxes are all over that.......I'll even hand them out.

[Holiday]

Where I live (small southern town) you can get free condoms at the Health Department. I think that helps though I imagine a lot people are embarrased to go and ask for them.

If we really wanted to solve the abortion issue we need better parenting. Parents have to be adults (a big stretch for some) and just have an open discussion about sex with their kids. But a lot of parents would rather avoid the subject.

In the meantime I think condoms in school would help.

[The Senator]

i am not against logical solutions to the "problem." i think promoting condoms is a great idea. i just don't think spending money on condoms so most of them get thrown around as pranks is a good idea. but if you think students playing with condoms and using them as pranks is a "logical solution" than more power to ya i guess. but i would just have to respectfully disagree

you want to give out free stuff, i want to give out free knowledge. but knowledge is no place for schools. schools should be for getting free stuff.

If you can prevent one unwanted teenage pregnancy by handing out condoms in schools, then the program works. I doubt the pranks you speak of are common in every single school, and if they are common occurrences, then they are a side effect which will have to be dealt with. Children are children and they do stupid things.

[Holiday]

Right now on average, they are anywhere from 75% to 80% effective.

I didn't know condoms we're only that effective. But that's still a hell of a lot better than the "pull out" method some people use.

[XpunkRocker]

maybe there are some schools that it will work for. but i haven't seen any that have made a successful program. even IF it worked, i think teaching people is a much better way to help the issue. just making something available doesn't mean it will help. i think most studies show the main reason kids don't use condoms is because they didn't think they needed it, not because it wasn't available to them. but i can't be too sure on it. this isn't a topic i have had to study in awhile

[Kelly]

I didn't know condoms we're only that effective. But that's still a hell of a lot better than the "pull out" method some people use.


Let me be more clear.....that % is for "usual/normal use"....."perfect use" 98% effective.


I've been teaching teenagers for 18 years........."perfect use" is.......well...........................not something I would bet money on.:cwink:

[SentinelMind]

At the rate society is going, I wouldn't be surprised if in like 15 years some inner city public schools start creating a class for middle schoolers to get free condoms, birth control pills, and detailed lessons on how to have "safe" sex with practice drills in order to make sure they know how to use those condoms properly.

[XpunkRocker]

according to this kaiser survey, 7 out of 10 kids say their peers don't use condoms when they are drinking or doing drugs. well.... if they can get drugs and alcohol, they can certainly get condoms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/19/health/main554665.shtml

also

"More than half of teens believe oral sex is not as big a deal as sexual intercourse, with boys more likely to believe this. Four in 10 consider oral sex “safer sex,” although some diseases can be transmitted this way. "

yeah, giving out condoms will teach kids the truth about oral sex for sure.

[danoyse]

At the rate society is going, I wouldn't be surprised if in like 15 years some inner city public schools start creating a class for middle schoolers to get free condoms, birth control pills, and detailed lessons on how to have "safe" sex with practice drills in order to make sure they know how to use those condoms properly.

Inner city schools? I went to school in the suburbs and there were two teen mothers in my high school graduating class.

Last week I saw a musical on Broadway that was based on a German play from the 1890s. The show was about teenagers discovering sex in an oppressed German provincial town, and because a girl's mother refused to explain to her daughter where babies come from, the girl wound up pregnant and ostracized at 15. Again, this play was from the 1890s.

I found it amazing that the idea of teaching kids about the ramifications of unprotected sex today is still so baffling to people...

[Kelly]

Inner city schools? I went to school in the suburbs and there were two teen mothers in my high school graduating class.

Last week I saw a musical on Broadway that was based on a German play from the 1890s. The show was about teenagers discovering sex in an oppressed German provincial town, and because a girl's mother refused to explain to her daughter where babies come from, the girl wound up pregnant and ostracized at 15. Again, this play was from the 1890s.

I found it amazing that the idea of teaching kids about the ramifications of unprotected sex today is still so baffling to people...


2?.......wow.....I wish that were the case where I teach......heck, I overheard a conversation between 2 girls today talking about an abortion one of them had a week ago.

[XpunkRocker]

my class was abnormal as well. my entire graduating class didn't have any girls that got pregnent while they were in school. unless they had an abortion, which i wouldn't know. my class only had 80 in it. the classes before and after us had a whole slew of issues though

[danoyse]

2?.......wow.....I wish that were the case where I teach......heck, I overheard a conversation between 2 girls today talking about an abortion one of them had a week ago.

Well, I graduated in 1992...things were quaint then.

[Kelly]

Well, I graduated in 1992...things were quaint then.


1992, I had a student who was 14 and already had a baby almost a year old.....:csad:

[XpunkRocker]

yeah, it is weird. one of my best friends, i met him when i was 16 and he was 22. he had 3 kids already, the oldest was 9. he was 13 when he had her. granted, he was the father and not the mother, but he sill took responsability. he even dropped out of school to get a job. and when i met him at 22, he had a good life. not really good, but stable. he was still with his kids and working hard for them and his girlfriend

[danoyse]

I believe a girl in my middle school had an abortion. The rumors were kept very quiet, but she disappeared from school for a few weeks and I remember when she came back she was in the guidance office a lot and the teachers seem to be giving her a lot of help.

One of the girls who got pregnant in my high school said it was the best thing that ever happened to her. The baby's father was a loser who ran off as soon as she was pregnant, but she had her baby, finished her classes in night school and got to graduate on time, and started her own business. She eventually got married and her new husband adopted her son. Having the baby really drove her to make her life better.

[XpunkRocker]

that first girl sounded like she was raped. just speculation though

[Marx]

Why do you believe this? And in face of evidence that the abortion rate with ultrasound is statistically significant different than the abortion rate without ultrasound?

and Timstuff is right, PP was founded by people who had white supremacist and eugenic manipulation views.

I have a very difficult time believing that (aside from women who use abortion as a means of birth control) those who seek to have an abortion are not knowledgable on the subject. They know what it will do to their body. They know that there is a severe potential for mental trauma. They know the ramifications.

[Marx]

ABORTION FOES OPEN NEW FRONT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122887146479593419.html


Abortion opponents are pressing state and local governments to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, arguing that the nonprofit group has plenty of cash and shouldn't be granted scarce public funds at a time of economic crisis.

Planned Parenthood receives about $335 million a year -- a third of its budget -- from government grants and contracts to subsidize contraception, sex education and non-abortion-related health care for poor women and teenagers.

The group is also the nation's largest abortion provider, and critics have long argued that the public funds indirectly subsidize abortions by keeping hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics afloat.

But the new lobbying effort, backed by conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council, focuses more on economic than moral concerns. The campaign paints Planned Parenthood as a wealthy organization that doesn't need taxpayer help. Planned Parenthood reported record revenue and a $115 million budget surplus last year, and it is building a network of elegant health centers to attract middle-class clients.

[XpunkRocker]

i don't know how much money they have, but i always could rely on them to buy advertising from me

[SentinelMind]

I have a very difficult time believing that (aside from women who use abortion as a means of birth control) those who seek to have an abortion are not knowledgable on the subject. They know what it will do to their body. They know that there is a severe potential for mental trauma. They know the ramifications.


The font in bold is important. What is the size of this population? And how do we know what those who seek an abortion know or don't know? Is there a study or research for this...something that can contradict what Timstuff provided.

[SentinelMind]

I find it hilarious that so many people are against abortion, but when there are logical solutions for the problem, those same people throw their hands in the air and complain about having to pay more in taxes to fund programs which are aimed at reducing teenage pregnancies. Well, what matters more to you-- the sanctity of human life or not having to pay an extra dollar or so a year in taxes?

So, I have to either choose between paying for someone else's contraceptive or their abortion. What a choice.

[XpunkRocker]

The font in bold is important. What is the size of this population? And how do we know what those who seek an abortion know or don't know? Is there a study or research for this...something that can contradict what Timstuff provided.


i dont have time to do the research right now, but from what i remember reading in the past as far as the population aspect is, most girls that get an abortion do it for reasons other than rape or health. so most of them get an abortion because they accidently got pregnant and they didn't mean too.

as far as the other part goes.... i don't know from experience. But depending on how far along you are, an abortion can hurt your physical health (not just mental) so i am sure the doctors/people taking care of it have to make them aware of the consequences before they make the procedure. most medical procedures require you to explain the risks to the patient. but i am not sure on any of this. it is just an assumption.

[danoyse]

The font in bold is important. What is the size of this population? And how do we know what those who seek an abortion know or don't know? Is there a study or research for this...something that can contradict what Timstuff provided.

And at the end of the day, it's none of your business. I've posted this story on this thread before: when I was 16, my mom and I were stopped by a pro-life group and my mother was asked if she was taking me for an abortion. She was taking me to the eye doctor.

But they marched right up, pointed at me, and asked her "Is she having an abortion?" And they had their signs and pamphlets all ready to go. I've never seen my mother so close to slugging someone. All she could say about it afterwards was "What if I was?"

How could these people have the nerve to step into someone's private affairs like that? If my mom was taking me for abortion that day, I know it would have been after the most difficult, desperate, decision that me and my family would have had to make. I don't need these people standing around in a parking lot to jump in with their views on the subject. They don't know me, and they don't know my family. Stay out of it.

Personally, I could never have an abortion. I think it should be an absolutely last resort. But I'm not everyone, and if they've made that decision then I'll just have to respect that, even if I don't like it.

[XpunkRocker]

the prolife groups have no right to harass people the way they did to you. that is too far and they really have to be hosed down.

but there are statistics that show the demographics of the reasons why women get obortions. they usually have to give a reason when they get one. and although we don't know what they personally say, we know how many of them said it. it is like the secret ballot we use for voting. we know how many people voted each way, but we don't know what each person voted personally. unless they make it public.

[Marx]

The font in bold is important. What is the size of this population? And how do we know what those who seek an abortion know or don't know? Is there a study or research for this...something that can contradict what Timstuff provided.

I echo what Dan said.

[Kelly]

I'm with Danoyse.......as for myself, I could not have an abortion..........BUT, I'm also not going to tell someone else that they shouldn't or should.....that's their choice.

[XpunkRocker]

yup. it is a private matter. it is between the person and their doctor. paitent/doctor privlidge.

[Hotwire]

My stance is this.

While I personally disagree with abortion, unwanted pregnancies are a fact. Now If we outlaw abortion, we'd better be prepared to offer these women with an alternative. I for one feel we can do more to educate people. Now I don't mean teaching people what goes where, but rather responsability for the choices we make. Teaching them what they do has consiquences, and they are not, in fact 10 feet tall and bullet proof. Now most of this education should come at an early age and it should come from home. But, we've all seen some of this country's stellar exampes of parenting on our many reality shows, so it's safe to say, someone else may need to do the teaching. Now, what to do with the unwanted pregnancy? Adoption would be a fair alternative, if more people would adopt the children. Rather than giving birth to 17 of their own. But, if we're going to get serious about making adoption more mainstream, it's going to need funding. Where to get it? Perhaps congress should take a page from the Automaker's Publicity Stunt Guide Book, and cut their pay to $1.00/year?

[Hobgoblin]

Condoms are expensive, at least for sexually-active teenagers. I personally believe condoms should be available to students at public schools.

Years ago the local community college got a lot of crap from the community for leaving free condoms in the bathrooms on Valentine's Day and some other event (some kind of AIDS awareness or safe sex thing). People just hated that their kids could get condoms from their school. As of last Valentine's Day, they were still doing it. :up:

Look, we all wish that there were zero need for abortion. I certainly do. The fact that the reasons for supporting Roe v Wade (incest, rape, etc) are the least likely to be mentioned by those seeking an abortion doesnt make me like it any more. But, how many women seeking abortions, who are doubtless going through one hell of a tough time, want to admit or talk about the fact that they were raped? It makes me think that rape is a more common reason for the pregnancy than is often reported. They always say that rape is so very under reported to the police.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I wish R v W were used as it was intended. As a last resort. I think of a former friend of my brothers who had two abortions due to carelessness. I know many people do not consider an embryo or fetus to be human but the fact that its a potential human should be kept in mind. I just wish that unfit parents would stop making babies.

[strikezone89]

this topic is really personal to me because in the summer my ex and I had an abortion. before we found out she was pregnant i was completely against abortion but when we found out it was a big reality check..... it was either have a child that would live in a broken house (me and my ex always fought over stupid things) and had bad parents because neither my ex or myself were ready for a child.
if anything guys please just remember to always use protection... sure its "kool" to have sex without a condom but going to an abortion clinic is the most emotionally tearing things you will ever do

[Hobgoblin]

this topic is really personal to me because in the summer my ex and I had an abortion. before we found out she was pregnant i was completely against abortion but when we found out it was a big reality check..... it was either have a child that would live in a broken house (me and my ex always fought over stupid things) and had bad parents because neither my ex or myself were ready for a child.
if anything guys please just remember to always use protection... sure its "kool" to have sex without a condom but going to an abortion clinic is the most emotionally tearing things you will ever do

Take care, strikezone. It must have been an incredibly painful experience.

[8wid]

I personally see that the concept of a completely new strand of DNA in a being. However, knowing that there all kinds of reasons women can become pregnant and how it can effect their lives and that of the child, I respectfully believe it is up to the parents to decide the fate of their unborn offspring, and not the dictation of national social order.

[Marx]

this topic is really personal to me because in the summer my ex and I had an abortion. before we found out she was pregnant i was completely against abortion but when we found out it was a big reality check..... it was either have a child that would live in a broken house (me and my ex always fought over stupid things) and had bad parents because neither my ex or myself were ready for a child.
if anything guys please just remember to always use protection... sure its "kool" to have sex without a condom but going to an abortion clinic is the most emotionally tearing things you will ever do

I'm very sorry to hear that you had to go through that Strikezone...

[Marx]

BUSH-ERA ABORTION RULES FACE POSSIBLE REVERSAL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947155578512197.html


On abortion and related matters, action is expected early on executive, regulatory, budgetary and legislative fronts.

Decisions that the new administration will weigh include: whether to cut funding for sexual abstinence programs; whether to increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control; whether to allow federal health plans to pay for abortions; and whether to overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Women's health advocates are also pushing for a change in rules that would lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.

Obama aides will have to settle many of these questions in issuing their first budget in February.

"We have a lot of work to do to fix the damage the Bush administration has done," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
As one of his first actions, Mr. Obama is likely to issue an executive order lifting President George W. Bush's restrictions on funding for research using embryonic stem cells, a move with bipartisan support.

Women's health advocates also expect early action on the "global gag rule," which bars foreign organizations from using their own money for abortion services or advocacy if they accept U.S. aid for family planning.

This policy was instituted by President Ronald Reagan, immediately overturned by President Bill Clinton and then reinstated by Mr. Bush.

[XpunkRocker]

those are some stupid laws/policies and should be reversed or amended

[Carcharodon]

I don't think my tax dollars should be used to accomodate other immature people's wrecklessness.No, clearly you'd just prefer to have your tax dollars go to the health care of individuals who resort to home-abortions and become gravely ill or injured in the process.

[Handsome Rob]

No, clearly you'd just prefer to have your tax dollars go to the health care of individuals who resort to home-abortions and become gravely ill or injured in the process.

Well, in one case, my tax dollars would go to taking care of someone. In the other case, it would go to killing an innocent person.

I think I know where I would rather have my tax dollars go, if I have to choose . . .

[SentinelMind]

No, clearly you'd just prefer to have your tax dollars go to the health care of individuals who resort to home-abortions and become gravely ill or injured in the process.

I don't know how you could possibly condemn me for someone else's decision to initiating a illegal life-threatening procedure inside their own home. But that's how the left thinks...a person's decision is someone's else's responsibility.

That's like arguing we should legalize and financially supply everyone with cocaine to make sure nobody overdoses on a bad mix it at home......

[XpunkRocker]

No, clearly you'd just prefer to have your tax dollars go to the health care of individuals who resort to home-abortions and become gravely ill or injured in the process.


Well, i would prefer that my tax dollars get speant on booze, bubble wrap, candy, and carmen electra clones. but instead they take my money and use it on iraq :(

[Marx]

I don't know how you could possibly condemn me for someone else's decision to initiating a illegal life-threatening procedure inside their own home. But that's how the left thinks...a person's decision is someone's else's responsibility.

That's like arguing we should legalize and financially supply everyone with cocaine to make sure nobody overdoses on a bad mix it at home......

Now that's not true Sent. There are many people on both sides of the aisle who feel that they should have no right in saying what someone else can do with their own body. There is no one who is pro-abortion.

[XpunkRocker]

i think that the people who actually have abortions are pretty much pro-abortion. they certainly aren't against it.

[Marx]

i think that the people who actually have abortions are pretty much pro-abortion. they certainly aren't against it.

I do not believe that anyone who has an abortion is happily skipping to the office. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the CHOICE. No one is adamantly pro-abortion.

[C.F. Kane]

i think that the people who actually have abortions are pretty much pro-abortion. they certainly aren't against it.

So, you're following the "either with us or against us" mentality then?

[Matt]

I think punkrocker has a point. Its not a with us or against mentality. He is simply saying, you cannot be pro-life and oppose abortion and then get an abortion. It just doesn't work that way.

[Marx]

I think punkrocker has a point. Its not a with us or against mentality. He is simply saying, you cannot be pro-life and oppose abortion and then get an abortion. It just doesn't work that way.

Then that reminds me of the argument 'if your daughter were raped by a minority'. When that is mentioned, all of the sudden the stance becomes 'well that's different!'

[Matt]

But should it be? If someone is 100 % pro-life, they are against abortion in any form. Therefore in such a case, they ought to support having the baby.

[Marx]

But should it be? If someone is 100 % pro-life, they are against abortion in any form. Therefore in such a case, they ought to support having the baby.

Punkrocker was saying that people who choose to have an abortion are obviously not against it, and that is debatable.

[Anita18]

Then that reminds me of the argument 'if your daughter were raped by a minority'. When that is mentioned, all of the sudden the stance becomes 'well that's different!'
That's an argument? :huh:

Man, and I thought I had heard it all....

[Marx]

That's an argument? :huh:

Man, and I thought I had heard it all....

Anytime that I have discussed abortion with adamant pro-lifers (who favor the death penalty ironically) I always ask 'well what if that person was raped by a minority?' The answer is ALWAYS 'well, that's different!'

[Anita18]

this topic is really personal to me because in the summer my ex and I had an abortion. before we found out she was pregnant i was completely against abortion but when we found out it was a big reality check..... it was either have a child that would live in a broken house (me and my ex always fought over stupid things) and had bad parents because neither my ex or myself were ready for a child.
if anything guys please just remember to always use protection... sure its "kool" to have sex without a condom but going to an abortion clinic is the most emotionally tearing things you will ever do
It must have been really hard, strikzone89, but I think you absolutely made the right decision. You were thinking about the future that child would have had, and that's not selfish.

Anytime that I have discussed abortion with adamant pro-lifers (who favor the death penalty ironically) I always ask 'well what if that person was raped by a minority?' The answer is ALWAYS 'well, that's different!'
What kind of thought process is that? Being raped by a white guy is better because....?

[Marx]

What kind of thought process is that? Being raped by a white guy is better because....?

I didn't mean it like that...

[Anita18]

I didn't mean it like that...
Oh no, I wasn't talking about you, I was trying to figure out THEIR thought process. :oldrazz: Sometimes people don't make any sense...

Or...wait, what were you trying to mean? :lmao: I haven't had coffee yet...

[The Senator]

Well, in one case, my tax dollars would go to taking care of someone. In the other case, it would go to killing an innocent person.

I think I know where I would rather have my tax dollars go, if I have to choose . . .

And yet, you support the death penalty, which is institutionalized murder paid for by your tax dollars... fancy that...

[Marx]

Oh no, I wasn't talking about you, I was trying to figure out THEIR thought process. :oldrazz: Sometimes people don't make any sense...

Or...wait, what were you trying to mean? :lmao: I haven't had coffee yet...

I thought you were referring to me...sorry. :cwink:

[XpunkRocker]

I do not believe that anyone who has an abortion is happily skipping to the office. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the CHOICE. No one is adamantly pro-abortion.


oh, i know a few. one has had 2 abortions and would gladly do it again. not to mention she encourages other people to have abortions. She will tell her friends that "their girlfriends will not be pretty anymore and they will have to pay child support, so they should have their girls get an abortion. or she tells girls that guys will leave them because they are pregnant. so she tells them to get an abortion without even telling the guy.

That is basically just as bad (maybe even worse) as encouraging someone not to have an abortion. that isnt prochoice. that is sticking your nose in other people's business, and literally promoting abortion, for REALLY stupid reasons. it might not sound all that common, but it is more common than you think. when a girl is pregnant, the first thing she has to decide is whether to keep it or not, and both sides are talking to her. and it is pretty common for a girl's friend to tell her that they think the boyfriend would leave them if they found out. especially in high school when the girls don't know any better.

[Marx]

oh, i know a few. one has had 2 abortions and would gladly do it again. not to mention she encourages other people to have abortions. She will tell her friends that "their girlfriends will not be pretty anymore and they will have to pay child support, so they should have their girls get an abortion. or she tells girls that guys will leave them because they are pregnant. so she tells them to get an abortion without even telling the guy.

That is basically just as bad (maybe even worse) as encouraging someone not to have an abortion. that isnt prochoice. that is sticking your nose in other people's business, and literally promoting abortion, for REALLY stupid reasons. it might not sound all that common, but it is more common than you think. when a girl is pregnant, the first thing she has to decide is whether to keep it or not, and both sides are talking to her. and it is pretty common for a girl's friend to tell her that they think the boyfriend would leave them if they found out. especially in high school when the girls don't know any better.

Well, those kinds of people are certainly in the smaller numbers. People who use abortion as a means of birth control disgust me.

[XpunkRocker]

most abortions are used for birth control from the stats i looked at last time. very few are dr recommended or have to do with rape cases or other health reasons.

Punkrocker was saying that people who choose to have an abortion are obviously not against it, and that is debatable.

why would they do something they were against? if you do something you dont believe in, that sounds like a pretty bad decision.... if someone makes the decision to have an abortion, they must have had some thought process that lead them to think it was the best decision for them. therefore leading them to have an abortion, therefor they supported abortion.

even if a prolifer who is 100% against abortion ends up having an abortion, they obviously changed their mind. you can't be 100% against abortion and actually have one. actually having an abortion shows that they support abortion, it at least some cases.

[danoyse]

I think punkrocker has a point. Its not a with us or against mentality. He is simply saying, you cannot be pro-life and oppose abortion and then get an abortion. It just doesn't work that way.

Or it can until it actually happens to a person and suddenly they're forced to make a decision they never thought they'd have to make. It's one thing to say you're against any form of abortion, then find yourself in a situation where you may have to consider it. It happens.

[XpunkRocker]

Or it can until it actually happens to a person and suddenly they're forced to make a decision they never thought they'd have to make. It's one thing to say you're against any form of abortion, then find yourself in a situation where you may have to consider it. It happens.

I see exactly what you are saying. i wouldnt call a person who is pro life and against abortion a hypcryte if they chose to have an abortion later on. We all have experiences that change our viewpoints. i have had many. we all grow up and learn. and it isn't something we REALLY know how we would react to until we are in that situation

I was just saying, if someone has an abortion, they are not 100% against it. it goes both ways though i think. if someone if pro choice and has an abortion, they could easliy switch too. for normal people, abortion is a pretty emotional experiece, and that changes your entire view, no matter what it is. I have no idea what my view would be if i were ever in the situation. But it would def be different than the way i see it. and it would probably be a bigger issue with me.

[Paradoxium]

Has anyone considered this conundrum.

What if a woman rapes a man and she gets pregnant. Does the man have a say in getting her to abort or not? If he does not, he would then be obligated to 18 years of child support. So he gets raped physically, mentally and financially...

I wonder what people have to say to this. :huh:

[Marx]

Has anyone considered this conundrum.

What if a woman rapes a man and she gets pregnant. Does the man have a say in getting her to abort or not? If he does not, he would then be obligated to 18 years of child support. So he gets raped physically, mentally and financially...

I wonder what people have to say to this. :huh:

That's certainly not an unheard of situation...

[Carcharodon]

I don't know how you could possibly condemn me for someone else's decision to initiating a illegal life-threatening procedure inside their own home. But that's how the left thinks...a person's decision is someone's else's responsibility.

That's like arguing we should legalize and financially supply everyone with cocaine to make sure nobody overdoses on a bad mix it at home......Okay, since you obviously missed the point, I'll try again.

1) If you make abortions illegal, this will become a reality.

2) If that person becomes ill or injured, you still have to pay for it.

Simple enough for you?

It's not a matter of Left or Right thinking. You still pay taxes. That money goes to Healthcare.

Can I actually make it any simpler?

[Carcharodon]

And yet, you support the death penalty, which is institutionalized murder paid for by your tax dollars... fancy that...Uh oh, jman...you're using logic. You may need to slow down a bit, or you just may lose him. :csad:

[Matt]

Punkrocker was saying that people who choose to have an abortion are obviously not against it, and that is debatable.

But how is that debatable. If you get an abortion, clearly you are not against it. And I know, you're going to say "people aren't for abortion," and obviously. We are having a discussion in the context of policy, this being the political forum. Thus, someone who gets an abortion, clearly does not want the government to out law it. I mean, that seems like common sense.

[Matt]

That's certainly not an unheard of situation...

Really? I've never heard of any situation along those lines. Now I remember a news story from a couple years back about a woman who saved a man's sperm in her mouth following oral sex, left the room, spit it out, froze it, had herself artificially impregnated, and he had to pay child support.

[Marx]

But how is that debatable. If you get an abortion, clearly you are not against it. And I know, you're going to say "people aren't for abortion," and obviously. We are having a discussion in the context of policy, this being the political forum. Thus, someone who gets an abortion, clearly does not want the government to out law it. I mean, that seems like common sense.

What I mean, and what Danoyse said, is that you can be adamantly pro-life all of your life and have something unexpected happen, that could result in having to get an abortion. I highly doubt that pro-lifers would force their child to go through with a pregnancy that was caused by a rape.


Really? I've never heard of any situation along those lines. Now I remember a news story from a couple years back about a woman who saved a man's sperm in her mouth following oral sex, left the room, spit it out, froze it, had herself artificially impregnated, and he had to pay child support.

You've never heard of a woman raping a man and becoming pregnant as a result?

[Addendum]

A woman raping a man? :hehe:

[Marx]

A woman raping a man? :hehe:

It happens.

[Carcharodon]

But how is that debatable. If you get an abortion, clearly you are not against it. And I know, you're going to say "people aren't for abortion," and obviously. We are having a discussion in the context of policy, this being the political forum. Thus, someone who gets an abortion, clearly does not want the government to out law it. I mean, that seems like common sense.That's the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, though.

[SuBe]

It happens.
Not often enought :o

[EdRyder]

Really? I've never heard of any situation along those lines. Now I remember a news story from a couple years back about a woman who saved a man's sperm in her mouth following oral sex, left the room, spit it out, froze it, had herself artificially impregnated, and he had to pay child support.

Terrifying:csad: Remind me to never let Matt tell ghost stories around the campfire.

[Marx]

Not often enought :o

Are you encouraging more women to 'rise up' and rape men? :huh:

[SuBe]

Are you encouraging more women to 'rise up' and rape men? :huh:
No, just my girlfriend. :csad:

[Carcharodon]

No, just my girlfriend. :csad:Lawl. :up:

[Marx]

No, just my girlfriend. :csad:

Ohh SuBe... :hehe:

[Carcharodon]

He's got a point. Usually I have to take initiative. It sucks. I wish she'd just hold me down or something.

...I think I'll stop there.

[SuBe]

He's got a point. Usually I have to take initiative. It sucks. I wish she'd just hold me down or something.

...I think I'll stop there.
I know, I know. :csad:

[SentinelMind]

Okay, since you obviously missed the point, I'll try again.

1) If you make abortions illegal, this will become a reality.

2) If that person becomes ill or injured, you still have to pay for it.

Simple enough for you?

It's not a matter of Left or Right thinking. You still pay taxes. That money goes to Healthcare.

Can I actually make it any simpler?

Hmm.... NNN tax-payer abortions.....or healthcare for a number smaller than NNN people who will still try to initiate an illegal abortion anyway and may injure themselves in the process. Not a tough choice for me. I guess we should legalize cocaine,...or shoot even suicide, since we may end up paying for healthcare for someone who injures themselves for committing these crimes.

[XpunkRocker]

a little education could go a long way. teaching young people the dangers of attempting illegal abortions would make a big difference.

[SentinelMind]

I give props for xpunk for blasting through the semantics game the left continues to play between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". However, its futile, the left will never conceed that any statistically significant percentage of the people who carried out 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade are actually pro-abortion.....they'll continue using the "ohh....they didn't really want to do it...but they did it...so they're not really pro-abortion"....pass-the-buck rhetoric.

[Addendum]

The women decided to have an abortion. It's their choice and the procedure is legal. What business is it of yours or anyone else?

[Carcharodon]

Hmm.... NNN tax-payer abortions.....or healthcare for a number smaller than NNN people who will still try to initiate an illegal abortion anyway and may injure themselves in the process. Not a tough choice for me.Which costs more? See, when you're considering this type of scenario, that's kind of thing you'll want to keep in mind.

The fact that you didn't even consider this factor in your little hypothetical "choice" speaks volumes about your ability to weigh the two scenarios rationally. :yay:



I guess we should legalize cocaine,...or shoot even suicide, since we may end up paying for healthcare for someone who injures themselves for committing these crimes.Are you even aware of how ridiculous this post is? God, I guess I actually have to explain it to you. Sad.

1) SUICIDE: Are you kidding me? If they don't succeed, legal or not, then you still have to pay for their recovery NO MATTER WHAT. If they succeed, then I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal. ...because they're dead. Or is that too complex?

This deserves:

:facepalm

2) COCAINE: The whole point of legal abortion is to prevent injury to the mother. Or did you kind of miss the crux of all my posts?

If you legalize cocaine, people will STILL OD, perhaps even more people than if cocaine were illegal. How are the two even remotely comparable??

You're really that clueless?

[Addendum]

1) SUICIDE: Are you kidding me? If they don't succeed, legal or not, then you still have to pay for their recovery NO MATTER WHAT. If they succeed, then I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal. ...because they're dead. Or is that too complex?

This deserves:

:facepalm


That's similar to something I heard earlier this year. A town in France no longer had room in it's cemetery. The mayor then said it's illegal for someone to die within the town.

[Matt]

What I mean, and what Danoyse said, is that you can be adamantly pro-life all of your life and have something unexpected happen, that could result in having to get an abortion. I highly doubt that pro-lifers would force their child to go through with a pregnancy that was caused by a rape.


But once you make the jump and get the abortion, don't you become pro-choice?


You've never heard of a woman raping a man and becoming pregnant as a result?

Nope. Got any news stories?

[XpunkRocker]

if a woman rapes me and gets pregnant, i aint paying child support.


But once you make the jump and get the abortion, don't you become pro-choice?

i would think so. anyone who is 100% against abortion will never have one, no matter what. Once you have an abortion, it shows you are at least in the middle.

[SentinelMind]

Which costs more? See, when you're considering this type of scenario, that's kind of thing you'll want to keep in mind.

The fact that you didn't even consider this factor in your little hypothetical "choice" speaks volumes about your ability to weigh the two scenarios rationally. :yay:

I'd assume the latter would be less. But since you've already reached your position and apparently did the analysis, you should be prepared to tell us which costs more immediately, or otherwise you'd appear to be a rock-throwing man who lives in a glass house.



Are you even aware of how ridiculous this post is? God, I guess I actually have to explain it to you. Sad.

1) SUICIDE: Are you kidding me? If they don't succeed, legal or not, then you still have to pay for their recovery NO MATTER WHAT. If they succeed, then I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal. ...because they're dead. Or is that too complex?

This deserves:

:facepalm

2) COCAINE: The whole point of legal abortion is to prevent injury to the mother. Or did you kind of miss the crux of all my posts?

If you legalize cocaine, people will STILL OD, perhaps even more people than if cocaine were illegal. How are the two even remotely comparable??

You're really that clueless?

No, the whole contention about abortion are -

1) is Roe v Wade a properly decided Judicial Decision or should it be a decision left to the state legislature.
2) Is abortion the destruction of human life...is a human being killed in the process. Is the embryo/fetus at any stage of point in pregnancy entitled to protection?

People who hold your position dismiss the viability of the embryo/fetus....so you then engage in arguments about mother's health as if only the mother's life is the only contentious point in the abortion. Yeah, if you automatically assume the fetus isn't alive or a human, then yes...you'd be right...but that's a huge leap, one that a clever twist of hand can't conceal. Most pro-lifers content that all abortions end in death anyway. So your argument that the number of people who would die or be injured if abortion were illegal verse legal is in DISPUTE...that's the issue here.

Furthermore, since you attempted to limit the argument for abortion purely to cost-benefit analysis...I was comparing YOUR argument that we should legalize abortions becauseclaim its cheaper than paying for healthcare of those injuring themselves is analogous to the argument we should legalize a hard drug so that's its in a safer form that if it were sold illegally on the street and are less likely to suffer dangerous medical condition from drug usage. I was also comparing it to the argument we should hold legal executions/suicide wishes than allow someone to try to commit suicide, fail, and then live rest of their life injured, which would have higher medical costs due to lower failure rate. You brought up the cost-benefit analysis of these life and death issues, so I presented analogies that demonstrate how silly the argument really is.

[Matt]

I tend to agree with the notion that men cannot be raped by women. Sexually assaulted, yes, but not raped. For a man to be raped, they would have to be hard...after all, sex does not work without penetration and penetration wouldn't really work all that well unless the penis is erect. However, doesn't erection mean that on some level a man is enjoying the sex? Erections are caused through sexual pleasure after all. Without pleasure a man would not get hard and thus could not be forced to penetrate the woman. So if the man is enjoying it, is it rape? You can't rape the willing, after all.

Now another man can rape a man through forced penetration and I suppose a woman could rape a man with a strap on, but if a piece of rubber is doing the penetration I tend to think it falls under the category of sexual assault, not rape.

[Carcharodon]

I'd assume the latter would be less. But since you've already reached your position and apparently did the analysis, you should be prepared to tell us which costs more immediately, or otherwise you'd appear to be a rock-throwing man who lives in a glass house.No, actually, I don't know. I was just wondering if that thought even crossed your mind. I never even claimed to know. :huh:

I'm really curious, though.



No, the whole contention about abortion are -

1) is Roe v Wade a properly decided Judicial Decision or should it be a decision left to the state legislature.
2) Is abortion the destruction of human life...is a human being killed in the process. Is the embryo/fetus at any stage of point in pregnancy entitled to protection?

People who hold your position dismiss the viability of the embryo/fetus....so you then engage in arguments about mother's health as if only the mother's life is the only contentious point in the abortion. Yeah, if you automatically assume the fetus isn't alive or a human, then yes...you'd be right...but that's a huge leap, one that a clever twist of hand can't conceal. Most pro-lifers content that all abortions end in death anyway. So your argument that the number of people who would die or be injured if abortion were illegal verse legal is in DISPUTE...that's the issue here. When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me. :cwink:

Furthermore, since you attempted to limit the argument for abortion purely to cost-benefit analysis...I was comparing YOUR argument that we should legalize abortions because its cheaper than paying for healthcare of those injuring themselves is analogous to my argument we should legalize a hard drug so that's its in a safer form that if it were sold illegally on the street....and the argument we should hold legal executions/suicide wishes than allow someone to try to commit suicide, fail, and then live rest of their life injured. You brought up the cost-benefit analysis of these life and death issues, so I presented analogies that demonstrate how silly the argument really is.Okay, so you're basically telling me that you didn't read that post, or you didn't understand it. :up: Good job.

I'm not going to re-explain that the legal status of suicide doesn't really matter with respect to the financial ramifications (given the NATURE OF SUICIDE...or do you need that defined?).

I'm also not going to go into the ridiculous argument of "safer" cocaine (you think there still won't be illegal dealings of GOOD cocaine?), which you somehow believe will result in LESS injury rather than MORE. I guess it's nice to be able to retreat into a fantasy world every once in a while, though, so I can't fault you for that. :up:

I've made my point, and it was disregarded in its entirety based on some form of non-logic. I'm done.

[The Senator]

I tend to agree with the notion that men cannot be raped by women. Sexually assaulted, yes, but not raped. For a man to be raped, they would have to be hard...after all, sex does not work without penetration and penetration wouldn't really work all that well unless the penis is erect. However, doesn't erection mean that on some level a man is enjoying the sex? Erections are caused through sexual pleasure after all. Without pleasure a man would not get hard and thus could not be forced to penetrate the woman. So if the man is enjoying it, is it rape? You can't rape the willing, after all.

Now another man can rape a man through forced penetration and I suppose a woman could rape a man with a strap on, but if a piece of rubber is doing the penetration I tend to think it falls under the category of sexual assault, not rape.

Viagra and bondage solve that quandary. :cwink:

[XpunkRocker]

I tend to agree with the notion that men cannot be raped by women. Sexually assaulted, yes, but not raped. For a man to be raped, they would have to be hard...after all, sex does not work without penetration and penetration wouldn't really work all that well unless the penis is erect. However, doesn't erection mean that on some level a man is enjoying the sex? Erections are caused through sexual pleasure after all. Without pleasure a man would not get hard and thus could not be forced to penetrate the woman. So if the man is enjoying it, is it rape? You can't rape the willing, after all.

Now another man can rape a man through forced penetration and I suppose a woman could rape a man with a strap on, but if a piece of rubber is doing the penetration I tend to think it falls under the category of sexual assault, not rape.

ooohhhh yea? what if some crazy ugly woman tied some guy up, downed some viagra to get him hard, and then banged him against his will ;)

(i dont think this has happened, or at least i never did hear about it)

[Matt]

Okay, okay. In the case of drugging with viagra, I will agree that a man can be raped. If simply tied down however and is forced upon by a woman...I say if he gets hard, he's enjoying it.

[XpunkRocker]

haha, i got what you were saying, and i agree. I just wanted to throw in an unlikely scenario in there.

although it is true techincally, i don't think it is something that happens very much, if at all.

[Paradoxium]

I tend to agree with the notion that men cannot be raped by women. Sexually assaulted, yes, but not raped. For a man to be raped, they would have to be hard...after all, sex does not work without penetration and penetration wouldn't really work all that well unless the penis is erect. However, doesn't erection mean that on some level a man is enjoying the sex? Erections are caused through sexual pleasure after all. Without pleasure a man would not get hard and thus could not be forced to penetrate the woman. So if the man is enjoying it, is it rape? You can't rape the willing, after all.

Now another man can rape a man through forced penetration and I suppose a woman could rape a man with a strap on, but if a piece of rubber is doing the penetration I tend to think it falls under the category of sexual assault, not rape.When I was younger, I would have agreed.

Without going into great detail, I knew someone who basically go induced into a drunken state (encouraged by girl) and was raped by her. She was (to put it bluntly and not so nicely) a war pig (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=war+pig). He was basically too embarrassed to report it to the police; thought they would have a hard time believing him. Drugs and alcohol and non consent are the main key with women raping men.

On a somewhat unrelated, in the NBA, the have these little mandatory tutorials where they teach the players about predatory females. Who try to get knocked up on purpose (child support = $$$$). So theoretically speaking, if a woman rapes a man, gets pregnant - the man is obligated to pay child support or he gets thrown in jail.

[Addendum]

Don't think your dick and you'll be fine

[XpunkRocker]

haha, war pig. that is a funny term. that and the battle toad one. women have so many bad names to get called. i wonder why.

Don't think your dick and you'll be fine

maybe when you are sober, that is easy. but after you have 10 shots of tequilla and do a keg stand or two, it isn't so easy.

[SentinelMind]

No, actually, I don't know. I was just wondering if that thought even crossed your mind. I never even claimed to know. :huh:

I'm really curious, though.



When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me. :cwink:

Assume? Sort of like you did in first part of this post?:cwink: I find slightly disingenuous for you to use that argument to imply one would be cheaper than the other that, attack me for it, and now admit you don't have the analysis ready.


Okay, so you're basically telling me that you didn't read that post, or you didn't understand it. :up: Good job.

I'm not going to re-explain that the legal status of suicide doesn't really matter with respect to the financial ramifications (given the NATURE OF SUICIDE...or do you need that defined?).



Just like some pro-lifers think the legal status of abortions should be re-examined....regardless of financial costs.

Now, you're getting it. :cwink:

[Addendum]

That's what they get for going to places where one can be taken advantage of.

[Carcharodon]

Just like some pro-lifers think the legal status of abortions should be re-examined....regardless of financial costs.

Now, you're getting it. :cwink:Jesus Christ, I know I said I was done but you really didn't get it. It's amazing how one person could be so obtuse. :huh:

[Paradoxium]

haha, war pig. that is a funny term. that and the battle toad one. women have so many bad names to get called. i wonder why.



maybe when you are sober, that is easy. but after you have 10 shots of tequilla and do a keg stand or two, it isn't so easy.
Well it got to the point. We could always post tons of pictures.

Imagine you are stuck in bed with hand cuffs, piss drunk out of your mind. And she starts straddling you.




Her:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6521/warpigwt6.jpg

I'd probably be screaming my lungs off till I start crying :o

..... I am a terrible person :o

[XpunkRocker]

That's what they get for going to places where one can be taken advantage of.

so if a girl has a ton a shots and isn't at all able to comprehend where she is and cant even walk, i can STILL sleep with her and she cant call it rape the next day? sweeeet.

[SentinelMind]

Jesus Christ, I know I said I was done but you really didn't get it. It's amazing how one person could be so obtuse. :huh:

I understood you were done, but I have a right to reply to your arguments on this public forum,.... you can't present arguments "Scream I'm done!!!" and claim victory.

The real question is if you were really done, why are you replying? :huh:

[Carcharodon]

I understood you were done, but I have a right to reply to your arguments on this public forum,.... you can't present arguments "Scream I'm done!!!" and claim victory.

The real question is if you were really done, why are you replying? :huh:Of course you have a right to respond. When did I ever indicate otherwise?

Now I'm not even calling your ability to reason into question...I'm more concerned with your ability to read.

In any case, I responded because your post indicated a monumental failure on your part to understand any of the primary point of those posts of a magnitude too great NOT to respond. It was so gloriously ridiculous that it was almost mandatory to respond.

[Carcharodon]

Ooooh, now I see where you misunderstood. When I said "it," I was referring to my primary point concerning suicide, not me being done with the argument.

[Addendum]

so if a girl has a ton a shots and isn't at all able to comprehend where she is and cant even walk, i can STILL sleep with her and she cant call it rape the next day? sweeeet.

If I decide to get ****faced drunk, I run the risk of being taken advantage of by others.

If you swim with sharks, don't be surprised if you get bit

[XpunkRocker]

If I decide to get ****faced drunk, I run the risk of being taken advantage of by others.

If you swim with sharks, don't be surprised if you get bit

that is exactly what i will tell the judge when i get brought in under rape charges. stupid girls should know better.

[Paradoxium]

If I decide to get ****faced drunk, I run the risk of being taken advantage of by others.

If you swim with sharks, don't be surprised if you get bitYes, I agree. Now try arguing with a feminist sometime on this (woman gets drunk alone in a shady bar and gets raped) - like talking to a brick wall :funny:

[XpunkRocker]

exactly. it is too easy to get caught for "rape." i will just tell the judge it is her fault.

[Paradoxium]

Both parties are culpable. One for rape, the other for stupidity

On the other hand if you are about to have sex with a girl who is drunk (or semi-buzzed), but afraid she might 180 on you and charge you with rape if you piss her off down the line. Have her sign a consent form with a witness

[Kelly]

Yes, I agree. Now try arguing with a feminist sometime on this (woman gets drunk alone in a shady bar and gets raped) - like talking to a brick wall :funny:


No brick wall, just a brick in my hand........:yay:

[Matt]

I think 'Dox has a point. How can you really tell what is rape. If a girl comes onto you in a bar and you sleep with her, what happens if the next morning she wakes up, claims she was impaired and didn't want to have sex with you? Did you commit rape regardless of the fact that she initiated? What if the man is also drunk, then what? Did they rape each other? Now getting a girl drunk to the point of unconsciousness, then taking her home and having sex with her is most definitely rape as someone who is not conscious obviously cannot consent...but where is the line?

[Paradoxium]

No brick wall, just a brick in my hand........:yay:Oh noeeessss a feminist, say it ain't so kel *sprays on feminist repellent*

[XpunkRocker]

Both parties are culpable. One for rape, the other for stupidity

On the other hand if you are about to have sex with a girl who is drunk (or semi-buzzed), but afraid she might 180 on you and charge you with rape if you piss her off down the line. Have her sign a consent form with a witness


no way you are getting laid by making her sign something ;).

either way, it doesn't make the rape illegal. if a man keeps his house unlocked, and people rob it. It doesn't mean the robbers are innocent of robbery. If a girl is really drunk and you kill her in the back of an alley, you still murdered someone. If there is a girl who is REALLY drunk, that doesn't give you the right to rape her. if it did, girls would get raped more often then they already do

I think 'Dox has a point. How can you really tell what is rape. If a girl comes onto you in a bar and you sleep with her, what happens if the next morning she wakes up, claims she was impaired and didn't want to have sex with you? Did you commit rape regardless of the fact that she initiated? What if the man is also drunk, then what? Did they rape each other? Now getting a girl drunk to the point of unconsciousness, then taking her home and having sex with her is most definitely rape as someone who is not conscious obviously cannot consent...but where is the line?

we have a very sloppy system in determining it. i think a lot of rapest get away and a lot of innocent people get put away.

[Matt]

no way you are getting laid by making her sign something ;).

either way, it doesn't make the rape illegal. if a man keeps his house unlocked, and people rob it. It doesn't mean the robbers are innocent of robbery. If a girl is really drunk and you kill her in the back of an alley, you still murdered someone. If there is a girl who is REALLY drunk, that doesn't give you the right to rape her. if it did, girls would get raped more often then they already do


But is it rape? We are not talking about girls who are laying on the bar floor, blacked out, are we? I thought we were discussing girls who are accepting of advances (if not initiating them) and the next day claiming they were raped because they were too drunk to consent. Is that really rape?

we have a very sloppy system in determining it. i think a lot of rapest get away and a lot of innocent people get put away.

Sadly, you're right.

[Paradoxium]

The women who keep abusing the system (false accusations of rape) ends up damaging the credibility and believability of ACTUAL victims. To me false accusations and perversion of justice is just as heinous as rape.

[IncrediNate]

The women who keep abusing the system (false accusations of rape) ends up damaging the credibility and believability of ACTUAL victims. To me false accusations and perversion of justice is just as heinous as rape.

i thought people go to jail for false claims as well though?

[Paradoxium]

But is it rape? We are not talking about girls who are laying on the bar floor, blacked out, are we? I thought we were discussing girls who are accepting of advances (if not initiating them) and the next day claiming they were raped because they were too drunk to consent. Is that really rape?



Sadly, you're right.The golden rule for men is:

- DO NOT have sex with any women with any booze in her period. I don't care if she is Meagan Fox and she is trying to undo your pants with her mouth.

- NEVER get into a relationship with women at work. Even if the girl is madly in love with you and she is really really hot. My favorite deterrence method is buying a ring and pretending you are married.

[Paradoxium]

i thought people go to jail for false claims as well though?Slap in wrists in most cases compared to the jail time of a rapist. And a lot of times, her false claims does not get shown on her record or get used in court in some jurisdictions. It's a twisted loophole for shielding rape victims (I don't understand how it works).

[XpunkRocker]

But is it rape? We are not talking about girls who are laying on the bar floor, blacked out, are we? I thought we were discussing girls who are accepting of advances (if not initiating them) and the next day claiming they were raped because they were too drunk to consent. Is that really rape?


I think we are all talking about something different, but we mean the same thing. i think most girls who are drunk are capable of saying "no." as soon as she says no, that means don't touch her, even if she says "yes" later. if she is so drunk she can't say "no" and you sleep with her, that is rape.

that is my standard, but i don't know how it fits legally. But if she is capable of saying no, and she doesn't, then it shouldn't be rape. but if she says no, or she isn't capeable of saying no, then stay away

[IncrediNate]

man, you think they'd close at least a couple loopholes that bad people couldn't manipulate

[Handsome Rob]

And yet, you support the death penalty, which is institutionalized murder paid for by your tax dollars... fancy that...

jman, we've gone over this before (I think). But, in case I'm wrong, I'll repeat myself.

The sole reason for which I can justify the use of the death penalty is against an individual who has murdered another person. That's it. That is all that is needed to support the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty being used against people who have not committed murder (i.e., they are innocent of murder), regardless of the circumstances. I don't support executing rapists or even pedophiles.

A fetus (person) who is aborted essentially has the "death penalty" applied to it (abortion is a legal process of terminating a growing fetus--hanging, gas chambers, and lethal injections are legal processes of terminating an adult). And, this penalty is carried out without guilt on the part of the fetus--i.e., it is innocent of murder. I have yet to hear of a fetus who has committed murder. If you can find one that has, I'd be thoroughly impressed. And, I'll support the death penalty for it, if that's what the jury decides.

The difference between innocence and guilt is why I can support the death penalty but oppose abortion.

[Marx]

I give props for xpunk for blasting through the semantics game the left continues to play between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". However, its futile, the left will never conceed that any statistically significant percentage of the people who carried out 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade are actually pro-abortion.....they'll continue using the "ohh....they didn't really want to do it...but they did it...so they're not really pro-abortion"....pass-the-buck rhetoric.

Ok, I can't take this anymore. I have nothing but respect for you Sent, but you know better than this. I grow tired of people in a certain party accusing the other side of being 'pro-abortion'. ABORTION IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE PARTY. There are people within all political parties that are pro-life and pro-choice.

I'm even more frustrated by being accused of playing semantics. PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION. PRO-CHOICE MEANS THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN BODY. IT DOES NOT MEAN 'LET'S GATHER UP A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND GO GET ABORTIONS TOGETHER!'

I am adamantly pro-choice. HOWEVER, I do not support abortion. (With the exception of a few cases.) I believe that I shouldn't have the right to tell someone else that they cannot go through with the procedure.


But once you make the jump and get the abortion, don't you become pro-choice?

You would have to ask someone that has been in this situation. I have not, and anything that I say is purely opinion. To a person who is pro-life and decides to get an abortion, they may still consider themselves pro-life.



Nope. Got any news stories?

WOMAN RAPES MAN
http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/spokane.shtml

WOMAN HELD FOR RAPING MAN IN STOCKHOLM
http://www.thelocal.se/12046/20080527/

FIVE WOMEN RAPE A MAN
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/04/23/4007.html

MAN 'GANG RAPED' BY THREE WOMEN
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,271442_1759365,00.html

LOCAL MAN CLAIMS WOMAN RAPED HIM
http://www.10news.com/news/14173622/detail.html

Would you like me to continue?

[Matt]

Ok, I can't take this anymore. I have nothing but respect for you Sent, but you know better than this. I grow tired of people in a certain party accusing the other side of being 'pro-abortion'. ABORTION IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE PARTY. There are people within all political parties that are pro-life and pro-choice.

I'm even more frustrated by being accused of playing semantics. PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION. PRO-CHOICE MEANS THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN BODY. IT DOES NOT MEAN 'LET'S GATHER UP A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND GO GET ABORTIONS TOGETHER!'

I am adamantly pro-choice. HOWEVER, I do not support abortion. (With the exception of a few cases.) I believe that I shouldn't have the right to tell someone else that they cannot go through with the procedure.




You would have to ask someone that has been in this situation. I have not, and anything that I say is purely opinion. To a person who is pro-life and decides to get an abortion, they may still consider themselves pro-life.




WOMAN RAPES MAN
http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/spokane.shtml

WOMAN HELD FOR RAPING MAN IN STOCKHOLM
http://www.thelocal.se/12046/20080527/

FIVE WOMEN RAPE A MAN
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/04/23/4007.html

MAN 'GANG RAPED' BY THREE WOMEN
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,271442_1759365,00.html

LOCAL MAN CLAIMS WOMAN RAPED HIM
http://www.10news.com/news/14173622/detail.html

Would you like me to continue?

I haven't read all the stories, but did they use the rape as means of impregnation, which was my question. I mean, I've heard of stories of a guy being allegedly raped by women, but my question was specifically about impregnation.

On that note...how did we even get into discussion of females raping males in the abortio thread? :huh:

[Marx]

I haven't read all the stories, but did they use the rape as means of impregnation, which was my question. I mean, I've heard of stories of a guy being allegedly raped by women, but my question was specifically about impregnation.

On that note...how did we even get into discussion of females raping males in the abortio thread? :huh:

Didn't someone pose the question about men having the right to ask for an abortion if a woman's pregnancy was the result of a rape?

*looks at Matt*

[Matt]

:o As much as that sounds like something I would do, it wasn't me.

[Marx]

:o As much as that sounds like something I would do, it wasn't me.

My apologies to you then sir. But I do remember reading a comment like that, and I believe that is how we got from point A (abortion) to point B (women raping men). :cwink:

[Gilpesh]

My apologies to you then sir. But I do remember reading a comment like that, and I believe that is how we got from point A (abortion) to point B (women raping men). :cwink:

Damn. This thread is getting sexier by the minute...

[XpunkRocker]

just wait til the victoria's secret comes out.

[The Senator]

The golden rule for men is:

- DO NOT have sex with any women with any booze in her period. I don't care if she is Meagan Fox and she is trying to undo your pants with her mouth.

- NEVER get into a relationship with women at work. Even if the girl is madly in love with you and she is really really hot. My favorite deterrence method is buying a ring and pretending you are married.

I've got a better solution: Never get in a relationship with a woman, period. I doubt very many men randomly accuse other men of rape. :cwink:

[Carcharodon]

I've got a better solution: Never get in a relationship with a woman, period. I doubt very many men randomly accuse other men of rape. :cwink:I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[The Senator]

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I may get that free toaster oven yet...

[Marx]

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I may get that free toaster oven yet...

:funny:

How many more subsciptions do you need to meet that prize level?

[XpunkRocker]

I've got a better solution: Never get in a relationship with a woman, period. I doubt very many men randomly accuse other men of rape. :cwink:

id take the rape charge ;)

i live life on the edge anyway

[The Senator]

:funny:

How many more subsciptions do you need to meet that prize level?

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.

[Carcharodon]

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.Given the subject of current discussion, I lol'ed.

[Marx]

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.

:oldrazz:

[Gilpesh]

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.

You know, you should pretend to be a former crack addict so that more people sign up for your subscriptions.... like Steve.

[Addendum]

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.

Make sure you got the song "Comanche" by The Revels playing in the background to set the mood

[Hobgoblin]

This is an...unusual story.

Its a little disturbing, thus the spoiler tags.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351730,00.html

Yale Student Insists Abortion Art Project Is Real, Despite University's Claims of 'Creative Fiction'

Friday, April 18, 2008

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans



A Yale University student who touched off a campus firestorm with her shocking claims of repeatedly artificially inseminating herself and then inducing miscarriages as part of an art project stood by her story Friday, despite statements from the university that her version of events is "creative fiction."

In a guest column that ran in Friday's Yale Daily News — which first reported her claims in Thursday's edition — senior art major Aliza Shvarts maintained that she had conducted artificial inseminations and carried out what she characterized as self-induced miscarriage procedures, though she never actually knew whether she was pregnant.

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages," Shvarts wrote in Friday's column. "Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization.

"On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there (sic) was ever a fertilized ovum or not.

"The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading."



She reiterated that the display, which she herself drew attention to with a press release circulated Wednesday, was meant to provoke discussion about the link between art and the human body.

"This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body," she wrote.

Click here to read Aliza Shvarts' column in Friday's Yale Daily News.

Yale officials disputed Shvarts' story, and in a strongly-worded statement Thursday night said the student told several high-level university officials that she did not do the things she said she did in constructing the exhibit.

Shvarts told Yale College Dean Peter Salovey and two other senior officials investigating her claims that she neither impregnated herself nor experienced any self-induced miscarriages, the campus newspaper reported.

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," Helaine S. Klasky, associate dean and vice president for public affairs at Yale, said in the statement sent to FOXNews.com.

"Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art."

Shvarts' campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. While she did not explicitly mention Yale officials' version of events in her Friday column, Klasky told various media that Shvarts had indicated what she would do if the university contended her story was false.

"She said if Yale puts out a statement saying she did not do this, she would say Yale was doing that to protect its reputation," Klasky told The Associated Press.

The public affairs official also wrote an e-mail to the Yale Daily News late Thursday night saying that Shvarts "denial is part of her performance. We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.”

Shvarts shot back at the school, claiming her project was “university sanctioned,” according to the paper.

“I’m not going to absolve them by saying it was some sort of hoax when it wasn’t,” she told the Daily News. “I started out with the university on board with what I was doing, and because of the media frenzy they’ve been trying to dissociate with me. Ultimately I want to get back to a point where they renew their support.”

Shvarts said her project had the backing of Yale's Davenport College Dean Craig Harwood, as well as at least two faculty members within the School of Art.

The Yale Daily News' top editor said Friday that the paper stands by all its coverage of the controversy.

"The Yale Daily News stands by its original as well as its subsequent reporting," wrote editor in chief Andrew Mangino in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

He said there had always been uncertainty as to whether or not Shvarts had managed to get herself pregnant and induce actual miscarriages.

"From the beginning, there was ambiguity as to whether or not Aliza Shvarts had successfully impregnated herself — the original story points out that she did not take a pregnancy test and refused to provide some key details of her self-insemination," he said. "But the fact remains that she might have been pregnant on multiple occasions."

The art major told the paper that Yale misrepresented her explanation of her work to school officials, according to Mangino.

"Although an official Yale statement suggested, though did not outright state, that her project essentially amounted to a hoax, Ms. Shvarts told the News on Thursday that this very statement was misleading and an inaccurate representation of what she had told school officials earlier in the day," Mangino said.

"This story, on one level, therefore amounts to a he-said-she-said with ambiguous language being employed by all parties."

But the editor said the paper's coverage by a team of four reporters and five editors "indicates that Aliza's project is not a hoax."

Yale officials didn't respond to requests for a reaction to Shvarts' column, but did confirm their comments in Friday's Daily News article were accurate.

Before the university contended that Shvarts did not actually perform the acts, the story about the project sparked widespread disgust and outrage, with critics characterizing the young woman as sick, depraved, unethical and attention-seeking. Advocates on both sides of the abortion-rights debate condemned the exhibit.

In standing by her work, Shvarts on Friday provided further details, saying she is the only one who knows how many sperm donors — whom she calls "fabricators" — she used and which herbal drugs she took to induce the possible "miscarriages."

"To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used," the college senior wrote in her Daily News column. "Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling."

Yale issued its statement several hours after the campus paper first published the story on Thursday, suggesting that university officials had taken the young woman's claims seriously enough to launch a full-scale investigation and question her directly.

"Her art project includes visual representations," said Klasky. "[Schvarts] stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. ... Had these acts been real they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns."

Whether it's real or fake, the exhibit — which Shvarts has described as a large cube suspended from the ceiling and wrapped in layers of plastic that are smeared with blood samples from the purported miscarriages mixed with Vaseline — is slated to be unveiled next week.

Videos she claims show her experiencing induced miscarriages in her bathtub will be projected on the sides of the cube and the gallery walls.

"The most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood," Shvarts wrote.

The exhibit will be on public display from April 22 to May 1 at Yale's Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall. Shvarts is scheduled to be honored at a reception April 25.

The young woman gave Daily News reporters a tour of her studio and a sneak peak at the footage included in the upcoming exhibit that has stirred such controversy. The campus paper published a photo of Shvarts at work.

"Two News reporters demanded and received physical evidence as well as graphic (and, at times, bloody) photographs in order to confirm that the project indeed has a physical manifestation beyond the shock value of its public explanation," Mangino told FOXNews.com. "It does."

Before coming to Yale, Shvarts was a student at The Buckley School, a Los Angeles prep school for children in kindergarten through the 12th grade. She graduated as valedictorian, according to Buckley's Web site — which by Friday had removed archived references to Shvarts.

Buckley officials did not return calls seeking comment.

During her time at Yale, Shvarts penned an essay about getting her period for the first time in 1999, which was posted on a site called My Little Red Book with girls' writings about the experience.

She also apparently constructed an art installation addressing the same subject as part of a series she called "Disarticulation." Both her written and art pieces about menstruation are titled "The Ming Period."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[The Senator]

Well... it's her body, her choice... but I'm definitely going to say that she's an irresponsible twit and ought to be ashamed of herself.