Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

Uh, Martin, most anti-abortion proponents who actually care about the child typically support widespread youth care and foster care reforms.

[martinuzz]

Uh, Martin, most anti-abortion proponents who actually care about the child typically support widespread youth care and foster care reforms.

Most anti-abortion proponents also keep voting for a political colour that will never make that happen.
(even if such a thing as a healthy environment in youth care existed.  Foster parents can be a decent option, but there is a huuuuuuuuge shortage of those already, without anti-abortion laws.  You can't just 3d-print more foster parents)

[wierd]

But Trump's bestest best buddy Putin would NEVER do THAT! /s

[McTraveller]

Even aside from childcare, that 9 months of pregnancy can do untold damage to a woman's body, work environment, etc, along with the obvious cost of 9 months of their life.

There's no ethical anti-abortion stance until we can literally take out the embryo and grow it in a jar. And even then, there's the aforementioned problems with state childcare that are not remotely close to being solved.

The female body is specifically evolved (or created, whichever you prefer) to bear, birth, and rear children.  I don't understand what ethics has to do with letting the female body do what it was evolved to do.  Any "damage" done from this process is a side effect of evolution, not ethics.

Ethics only comes in from the artificial constructs and laws that humans have placed around this physical process; it's disingenuous to intertwine the two.  Treatment of women as pleasure objects, treatment of them only as breeding stock, cultural views on "career" versus "mother" are all a mess.  Consider the language used above - "the cost of 9 months of their life" - why is that a cost? Why isn't it an "investment" or "an adventure" - why is it given negative connotations?  I'd argue that painting procreation with negative connotations is quite damaging to society.  On the other side, saying "we must procreate at all costs" or "a woman's only role is to bear children" is equally damaging.

There is middle ground here, let's not lose it.  I agree it doesn't help that the politics tends to use the emotional issue to acquire power instead of providing meaningful social reform.

[DontMineYellowSnow]

Quality, Kavanaugh?

I dunno man, this was a near vote to overturn protections for women that were set almost fifty years ago (and revised almost thirty). Only reason a Republican judge flipped against it was because Texas ruled the same way four years ago. That's not adherence to the Constitution, that's Texas.

This isn't about the constitution to begin with- this is about rallying the anti-abortion right

Kavanaugh is a highly regarded judge - one of the most notable in the nation even before his nomination.  He has excellent credentials, a spotless record (as far as I've looked into it anyways), and glowing reviews from those who have worked with him.  I mean, I watched his entire hearings, they literally had to fabricate a rape story which he very effectively refuted, and that left questioning him on, I shit you not, his use of the word 'boof' in school, to try to discredit him.  So, yes, I consider him a quality judge based on what I know of him. Although, I don't know everything about him.

Abortion is a single issue.  Just one among the entire body of jurisprudence in this country.  Its such a hotly debated legal issue specifically because of judicial activism. I think that the 14th amendment simply isn't suited to making the points they used it to make in Roe v. Wage and PP v. Casey.  They didn't just infer its meanings, they made up entire new verbiage to support their position.  They also waffled the real business end of it to the 10th amendment for the states to squabble over and that was like throwing a match into a barrel of gasoline and walking away.  This is what happens when our judges let activism get in the way of doing their job.  Even if their intentions are good, it creates messes.  I understand that this is a very important issue to many and they couldn't care less about the legal jargon used to get there, but I see it as a symptom of a larger problem with our judicial branch which I really hope Trump's picks work towards fixing.

[wierd]

Damage that pregnancy causes/can cause:

Altered bladder placement (from uterine downpressure) results in poor urine retention postpartum in many women, due to muscle strength loss and other factors.
Vaginal birth weakens the wall between the vagina and the rectum, promoting the formation of an rectovaginal fistula.
Cesarean section leaves scarring on the woman's abdomen, and can weaken the uterine wall, causing complications in later pregnancies.
Microchimerism can lead to a raft of autoimmune disorders


That said, I am strongly of the opinion that sex is not a recreational activity, but I am rather biased in that opinion. Simply because you cant keep your junk in your trunk, and are addicted to dick/vag, does not mean that society should support your decision to be a goddamn jackrabbit with your sexual antics.  If you are going to be engaging in ribald acts of sexual hedonism, (Because of your adiction to bumping uglies with people on a regular basis), then go and get yourself sterilized first. Bank up some gametes at a fertility clinic or two, then go get that shit turned off.  Use the banked tissue if you want to have children.

[Eschar]

I believe abortion should be legal, or at least that it is morally acceptable, because it is a form of self defense, a fundamental human right.

[Zangi]

I'd be ok with anti-abortion if the feds/state were actually willing to take/support the children in all cases.

If our culture didn't demean women/couples who does not want to/cannot take of their own children and actually help with it or take full custody where appropriate.

No, just no on so many levels. First of all human rights. Children have a right to know, and grow up with their biological parents.
Second, you really want children condemned to the horror that is youth care institutions?
State care for a child should be very much a last resort option for those cases were there is obvious danger to the development of the child in it's home situation.  And even then it often does more harm then good.

Children also have a right to have parents willing and able to properly take care of them, without abusing them.  Reality ain't so kind. 
On the voluntary side, if the woman/couple are willing to give up the child, that probably is an indicator that they are not willing or able to take care of the child.

Condemning children to youth care institutions is the obvious solution of 'every little conceived blighter has to come out'.  The whole family need not suffer for this. 
There are also limited outlets like foster care.
There is nothing that says the biological parents can't keep in contact with the child.  Is just, they are not the ones raising the child.

That said, I am strongly of the opinion that sex is not a recreational activity, but I am rather biased in that opinion. Simply because you cant keep your junk in your trunk, and are addicted to dick/vag, does not mean that society should support your decision to be a goddamn jackrabbit with your sexual antics.  If you are going to be engaging in ribald acts of sexual hedonism, (Because of your adiction to bumping uglies with people on a regular basis), then go and get yourself sterilized first. Bank up some gametes at a fertility clinic or two, then go get that shit turned off.  Use the banked tissue if you want to have children.

Maybe if we had sex education that has solutions other then abstinence.

[martinuzz]

Maybe if we had sex education that has solutions other then abstinence.

You don't?
Over here, children are taught about how making babies works, and condoms, and IUD, and the pill, and all other possible means of contraception at around age 13, in biology classes in school.
I still remember my biology teacher bringing a box with all possible contraceptives and telling us which ones his wife prefers.

[nenjin]

Maybe if we had sex education that has solutions other then abstinence.

You don't?
Over here, children are taught about how making babies works, and condoms, and IUD, and the pill, and all other possible means of contraception at around age 13, in biology classes in school.
I still remember my biology teacher bringing a box with all possible contraceptives and telling us which ones his wife prefers.

America has a long history of being resistant to actual sexual education. TBF, my high school did a decent job. But that's not all US states and schools, some take the religious abstinence-only route with their education. On paper they're not wrong; the only way to completely avoid the consequences of pregnancy, STDs and maybe rape is to just not try to have sex. But in reality most are going to do it. But many Americans have "Not MY kid!" horse blinders on.

[wierd]

I agree-- Quality sex education is a very good thing.  However, I do not encourage the "It's Good! It's Natural! Just use a condom and it will be fine!" rhetoric, that is often favored over the "Seriously-- you should not be having sex unless and or, until, you fully comprehend what sex is, what it is for biologically, and what the likely outcome will be if you play Russian roulette with a dick over and over again.


I also agree that abortion needs to be available.  It should not be difficult to get one, because there are indeed very important health reasons for a woman to get one. (You know that urterine scarring I JUST got done mentioning? Yeah-- If you have severe scarring in there, getting pregnant can fucking kill you. Getting a chemical abortion early is how you survive. Being able to get it promptly is how you get it done early, and survive. )


The whole "Who cares, I can just get an abortion! It's outpatient, so nobody needs to know!" is what I am against.  Abortion is a tool in the public health toolchest, not a "GO fuck like rabbits and get out of pregnancy repeatedly" card.

If you want to go fuck like a damn rabbit, bank some tissue at a fertility clinic (EITHER SEX, FUCKERS), then go get that shit turned off. Get yourself screened for STDs regularly, and be a well informed and responsible person about your life choices. 

[martinuzz]

While we don't encourage 'it's good! It's natural' at all, we are also aware that to the adolescent brain, that which is forbidden tastes extra sweet.
So we go with the 'we know most of you are going to be experimenting with sexuality at around age 16, if you do, please do it safe'.

[wierd]

Repeat abortion statistic is higher than you evidently realize.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/05/repeat-abortion-repeat-unintended-pregnancy-repeated-and-misguided-government-policies


Again, If you have an over-active sex drive, and just cant get enough of the stuff, you end up on the "Very very very very probable you will either carry or sire an unwanted child, and it will fuck up your life" end of the curve.  Recognizing that you are on that part of the curve, and proactively taking the much more sensible choice of banking some tissue, and then getting your shit turned off (and then continuing to be responsible with regular STD screenings) is not only less harsh on the public health system, less ethically dubious, and less likely to result in a serious health complication (because abortions are NOT risk free!), it also has a very good curve blunting effect, which would reduce that unwanted pregnancy statistic into a far lower percentile of risk-- and still let you engage in your ribald sexual antics.


The REAL issue, is that 1) There is a perverse culture in the US's male population that getting a vasectomy makes you less manly (Fuck that machismo crap. Fuck it with barbed wire. It needs to go.) and the costs of storing gametes at a fertility clinic can become prohibitive.

I would MUCH RATHER see this, than more and easier access to abortions-

Subsidize outpatient sterilization for men, and do a public relations campaign to stamp out that machismo bullshit.
Spend the money that would be going to abortion clinics, and invest them in fertility cold storage clinics instead, and make the service affordable.


BOOM.

Actual problem MUCH better resolved, than by having abortion clinics.

[martinuzz]

If you can't control your sex drive, sterilization is the wrong answer. Go to a psychiatrist.

[wierd]

For men, AMAZINGLY significantly less.

(the biggest one is developing an autoimmune reaction to your own semen, and that is exceedingly rare.)

Compare to uterine scarring, which is the major one for abortion (and the increased mortality rate this has for subsequent pregnancies, coupled with the repeated abortion statistic, and the math speaks for itself.)


For women, it's more complicated, but if BOTH sexes are being sterilized (and better still can offer some legit documentation of that, and it becomes popularly accepted to carry such documentation), then the risks to the people that do not have the procedure done drop right along with the percentage that does.  (EG, if 80% of males, and 60% of females get the procedure, then the average unsterilized rake out there has an immediate reduction of 60% on his risk of siring an unwanted child, (assuming he does not have a means of identifying sterile females), and an unsterilized female has an 80% reduction, accordingly.)

We are not talking full hysterectomy or full testicular removal here.  More tubal-ligation for women (cut fallopian tubes, then cauterization. Ovaries are left in place, so proper hormonal activity is retained, as is the uterus.) and vasectomy for men (Vas-defrans is cut and cauterized. Testicles and other reproductive structures left intact, normal hormone function retained.)

This would allow people that want to have children, to still have them, because the costs of retaining frozen gametes is subsidized instead of the abortion clinic.


@Martinuzz

After our "sexual revolution" of the 60s and 70s, we never quite swung back from the Free Love extreme.  Many people consider "A healthy sex-life" to be "multiple partners, multiple times per week", rather than correctly identifying that as "Very high risk behavior."