Abortion

[Frank 013]

Brotherska
There have been various opinions provided in this thread. Perhaps if we started at a point of agreement then we could identify our point of divergence.

I see a couple of problems with your list.

On number one… the normal result of conception is not a baby; some two thirds of conceptions are aborted naturally.

And number seven… the national consequences? I see no problem nationally because of abortions except possibly the occasional religious whack job fire bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors.

And with the Earth already overcrowded it seems like a lesser evil than some alternative possibilities.

Lastly we have banned abortions in the past, all it does is make them illegal, then we start putting decent people in jail.

Making abortions illegal does not stop them, it forces them underground and makes them unsafe.

Later

[Thrillwriter]

Frank 013 wrote:

And with the Earth already overcrowded it seems like a lesser evil than some alternative possibilities.

Lastly we have banned abortions in the past, all it does is make it illegal and we start putting decent people in jail, it does not stop abortions, it forces them underground and makes them unsafe.

I have to agree with you Frank. Childhood abuse and neglect is a serious problem in the United States; each year, over three million children are reported abused and/or neglected. One million of these reports are substantiated; however, more than half of the confirmed cases are closed on the day of substantiation. Research has shown that a range of psychiatric symptoms and disorders in child- and adulthood are associated with early trauma, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, substance use, suicidality, self-mutilation, somatization, sexual behavior problems, dissociative disorders, and learning disorders. Moreover, abusive childhood experiences have been associated with increased risks of violent offending and being a victim of violence. Childhood abuse and neglect is a major public health problem cannot only dramatically affect the quality of life of many individuals, but also is enormously expensive for society at large.

I, myself, would rather not see a child brought into the world to face such atrosities. And don't even get me started about animal cruelty and neglect.
It is a shame and a disgrace to witness Man's inhumanity toward man.

[Frank 013]

Thrillwriter, you touch on a very particular point that seems to get lost in this debate regularly.

The vast majority of prison inmates (more than 70%) come from broken homes or homes with a single struggling mother.

Many suffer from exactly what you describe above.

It is not PC to say this but if more of these women would choose abortion the crime rate would not be nearly so high.

Later

[Trish]

It is not PC to say this but if more of these women would choose abortion the crime rate would not be nearly so high.

It stings to read that but I think there is an element of truth there. I'm going to make another shameless plug here but this is precisely why I suggested The Pivot of Civilization for the next book. There is a connection between over population and devaluing children and childhood, terrible working conditions, poor education, and thus crime. What's worse we have a system that makes it profitable to have more and more children. Even if you can't afford 1 child, have 2 or 3 (don't get married and don't get a job) and get child support from the fathers and a welfare check. Your expenses might go up by a third with each child but you can double your income. Alot of people don't choose not to have an abortion because they think life is precious, it's because babies are cheap to produce and they're a cash cow. And they say abortion destroys society... whatever.

[vampire0x0master]

keep your god damn holy book out of my wife's uturus.

abortion is fine within the first trimester

[Chris OConnor]

LOL I like this.

[seespotrun2008]

The reality is that this argument is not about “life” at all. If that were true, we would solve this discussion by educating people about birth control and how to use birth control. But that is not what happens. The same people who are anti-choice are also against birth control. There is a growing trend of pharmacists to refuse women birth control or emergency contraception based upon the pharmacist’s own “moral” beliefs. In fact, places like Target will defend a pharmacist’s right to refuse a woman birth control. Yet, as Trish pointed out, there is not a huge outcry to refuse men a right to a vasectomy. I am also wondering if a Target cashier is guaranteed the right to refuse selling a box of condemns to a man.

This argument is really about power and control over women’s bodies. It is the same argument that has been going on for centuries. In patriarchal societies, there is a need to control women’s offspring and therefore women's sexuality to make sure that lineage stays under masculine control. The premise has not changed, just the way of arguing it. As this power structure starts to crumble groups of people feel the need to retighten their grip on individual decisions. Taking away a woman’s right to make reproductive decisions does not end abortion. As Frank said, it just pushes it underground. I refuse to give up my right to make that choice. Most women are pro-choice. This is because they are ultimately the ones that will have to deal with a pregnancy. Not to say that men do not have an interest in this argument. It certainly takes two to become pregnant. However, men have always had the choice to leave an unwanted pregnancy. Since pregnancy affects a woman’s body she has no choice but to deal with it.

[Suzanne]

Thank you seespotrun2008 for the information about Target.

According to company policy, Dill said that if the pharmacists are religiously or morally opposed to birth control, they do not have to fill the prescription.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/20 ... ews-01.asp

I was not aware of this. This is something I would expect from Wallmart, and low and behold, found this:

Big news from the biggest retailer in the country. Wal-Mart has signed onto Planned Parenthood’s pharmacy policy on emergency contraception (EC), also known as the "morning-after pill." This means that Wal-Mart will provide EC in-store, without delay. Over the past few years, Wal-Mart pharmacies have been notorious for not stocking EC or refusing to provide it even when it was in stock. And without a clear corporate policy, the pharmacies were not held accountable.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4976950075

I suppose stores have the right to take certain items off their shelves, such as CDs or movies that they may feel to be offensive, however, medications with a valid perscription should be honored and filled. This gives the pharmacist power that I feel they do not own.

[Interbane]

The gatekeepers of medication should not be protected if they fail to do their job. Do they refuse to give a narcotic junkie Vicodin based on their beliefs in the immorality of addiction? In truth, I would have to say that upholding a moral code should be the responsibility of people in all sections of the chain of supply, from the manufacturer to the patient. However, it should not be an individual's moral code that is upheld.

Would a woman's freedom of religion be impinged upon if a pharmacist refuses the day-after pill? If she finds it acceptable in her moral code to take such a pill, what right does the pharmacists have to say that her beliefs are wrong and his are right?

Perhaps there is a moral directive behind pharmacists resistance, but what of the Pope calling out for people to not use condoms? What type of science advisor would honestly judge the prevention of conception as an immoral act?

"Attention all men! The Pope now advises that the practice of 'pulling out' before ejaculation is now immoral!!!"

There is a rabbit hole here that such morality is anchored in, revolving around the obscurity of the phrase 'life is sacred.' It's so ambiguous that religious nuts rationalize all sorts of nonsense to fall within it's moral purview. How can you have an absolute morality when you can't even zero in on the proper way to interpret the phrase 'life is sacred?' The dipshits chase their tails and oppress people at the same time.

[seespotrun2008]

I was not aware of this.

Yes. They benefit from people not knowing.

This is something I would expect from Wallmart, and low and behold, found this:

Yup. Walmart was stubborn for quite a while but they finally backed down. Target never has. And they are not the only place where this happens. There is a whole organization called Pharmacists for “Life”, devoted to making it harder and harder for women to have access to birth control.

http://www.pfli.org/

It is horrendous. Since when do Pharmacists have a right to decide what medication is best? I thought that was between a patient and his or her doctor. Some people think that medication for mental illness is harmful or unnecessary. Do pharmacists have a right to decide that?