Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems like the Illinois rule bans abortions after the viability of the fetus, except for the health and safety of the mother. That is when the rule KMBoots comes into play, where a post-viable fetus is being aborted to preserve the health of the mother. It's tough to say from a distance what that actually means, as the health and safety exceptions can be interpreted anywhere from proof of a physical harm, to completely free choice on the abortion eradicating the base rule.

Has it every actually been implemented?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It has been the law for 40 years so I imagine. How would I know?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not to mention safer for the infant...

Well, yes. That is why it is preferable. Although given our history with orphanages...
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you have some evidence that women in Illinois regularly go in for abortions and come out with a baby?
If they go in for an abortion, hey go in for an abortion. If the go in for a delivery they go in for a delivery. The choice surrounding viability and risk doesn't magically happen midstream, it dictates the procedure used before the process even begins.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a good point scifibum. Removing the "life or death" question from the hands of the woman/mother sounds all well and good. Until you consider that the decision still has to pass the even less personal State questions of, "Who pays for these children? What impact does it have on our population levels?"
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I agree with you and this was sort of my point. But I suspect that more than just some women would object to the effort of finding ways to save the baby. I'm speculating, of course, but based on how I've heard many people talk about the issue it seems that their objective in going for an abortion is to make the problem go away. What I'm saying - to use Pete's term - is that I suspect many pro-choice proponents are also pro-abortion.
That's why there's a careful counselling process ahead of time to explore all the possible options and associated risks and ensure that the woman is making the choice she wants of her own free will.
Something tells me you're only hearing what you want to hear, so I'll spell out what several of us are saying: If a woman could both decide what happens to her body, and if the fetus could also be saved with no risk to her, someone who's pro-abortion would contest the state's right to save the fetus anyhow. You keep talking about the woman's choice and free will as if that's what the discussion is about. As far as I know the participants here all agree on that already. The point is whether the fetus also has rights, even though those don't supersede the mother's rights. But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But in a case where the mother could terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could arrange for that termination to also not terminate the fetus, the pro-choice argument fades away and the pro-abortion issue arises.
We can already do that, that's called a scheduled C-section. Which is fine, if the woman is willing to consent to that procedure and give the child up for adoption. And Planned Parenthood does arrange those for women who want them and have no other complications that need to be urgently addressed.

But any suggestion that the doctor suddenly switch which procedure is being used without active and informed consent from the patient due to anything but immediate medical emergency is a violation of her rights.

If you go in to have your appendix out and wake up and are told "Oh we decided to grab some marrow while we had you open, since you're a good match for this other patient that needed it, it would be a legal and ethical violation of your rights, right? I mean, if we could update the process so that you'd feel no physical negative affects from it yourself, you'd be more likely to consent to it out of the gate, but doing it without your permission would still be bad practice.

The same goes here, particularly at the technology point we're talking about. If we're effectively capable of developing an embryo from fertilization to viability, then there's even less of a point of taking one from an unwilling host to give to someone else, instead we should create one from willing donors.

So long as the baby is developing within a woman's body, it needs to be the woman's call as to what happens to it and what procedures she will or won't consent to. Any less is subsuming her rights in favor of control over her. You cannot force her to submit to a live birth of any sort without curtailing her rights to personal autonomy, since the developing child is part of her right up to the moment that it's born. So long as it's part of her, she should have sole jurisdiction over whatever rights she chooses to extend to it, not any other external legal entity.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Cool! That fits my point even better. I thought 2/3 of blastocysts just flushed out. Can you help me source that? (Not an obligation, but would appreciate a pointer if you remember where you learned it.

My lover used to do bio research, and I'lol ask if she knows about that when she gets done w work.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/?no-ist
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/your-babys-leftover-dna-is-making-you-stronger/381140/

Those are some top of the heap links. It's solidly established that it happens, hte questions lie mostly in what the effects on health are.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the last of those:
quote:
A 2004 study found the presence of male genes in 21 percent of women overall—even among those who had only given birth to daughters, had a miscarriage, underwent an abortion, or had never been pregnant. Researchers speculate the unknown DNA could have come from a miscarriage these women never recognized, or from an older brother who transferred cells to their mother, who in turn passed the genes onto subsequent children. Or—here’s where the science starts to feel like sci-fi—women could have picked it up through sexual intercourse, traces of past lovers never lost.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you Pyr! Can't wait to show my better half. She was very curious at lunch.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That's part of why I side with Pete that dehumanizing is a poor tactic to justifying abortion. Medical science (excluding a resurgent dark age) will force the issue eventually.

I think that's why the personhood question is actually important. Eventually, if society wants, it will be feasible to rescue fertilized eggs from their likely doom and ensure that they develop into human beings. If we think that would be a pretty damn silly thing to do, then we need some answer to when it becomes something we should try to save.
Do is talking about fetuses. Not of unemployed fertilized eggs. All reasonable and informed persons agree a fertilized egg is not a human being. It's a bundle of stem cells, which are sometimes used to create a human being, and more often either flushed or used to make spare parts.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
There are a lot of unreasonable and uninformed people out there making law.

And interpreting it as well, sad to say. There are SCOTUS majority opinions that classify prevention of implantation as a form of "abortion.". And I am talking the very same justices who are MI's credited as ruling for a woman's sovereignty over her body. The Carhart decision reads more like a physician's sovereignty over a female patient's body
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even after cell differentiation begins, I believe the majority of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. This is not generally regarded as a crime or a tragedy.

Following DW's point, eventually we might have the tech to provide artificial wombs for any stage of gestation, and decide to do transplants rather than kill the fetus or embryo. So there has to be some kind of dividing line between "being with rights whose life we will save rather than allow it to die in the abortion" and a previous stage. I'm not talking about "dehumanizing", I'm talking about some kind of rational limit to the degree to which we invade and intervene to ensure pregnancies never fail to produce persons. So where's that line? We can't avoid it once the issue of rescue as part of abortion is part of the picture.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, there are strong arguments to make to meet the burden of proof to say an embryo should not be legally treated as a human being. I personally go with fully realized human infant brain waves, which appear at 10 weeks) as the line for unrestricted elective abortion. (NOTE THAT IS ONLY 2 WEEKS SHY OF THE 3 MONTH RULE IN ROE V WADE!)


But reasonable informed and honest persons can disagree on embryos.

The blastocyst issue is really obvious and unambiguous when we have the facts. Like I said, the blastocyst is alive, and is life, but cannot be termed 'A life'. You could make a thousand babies from a single blastocyst or just create a nerve or a gum socket or an eyeball.

[ December 02, 2015, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So don't count weeks, just run a brain wave test. How's that for a line, Sci-fi? Wanna join the pro-brain party? In the fine tradition of the US abortion debate, We can call everyone who disagrees with us "anti-brain" [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sounds like a reasonable line, Pete, although many Christians, just as an example, will never agree with that.

Do you think it would really constitute an invasion of a woman's rights to have the terms of an abortion be that the embryo or fetus is safely extracted, provided it carries no threat to the woman? As I see it the issue of 'woman's right' stems from the idea that the state cannot require of a woman that her body be subjected to a pregnancy. But I don't see how her right to determine what happens to the embryo or fetus should enter into it.

Right now stopping the pregnancy requires aborting the embryo or fetus, but once that's not so I don't see how her right to choose what happens to her body should extend to her also having the right to determine what happens to the 'body' of the embryo or fetus.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?

Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights.

Right, but that's only a technological 'coincidence.' The moment it's safe to do the question will arise and have to be dealt with. For the purposes of our discussion we seem to be talking about the principles behind people's positions, not just the restrictions our methods put on which part of our principles we can reasonably enact right now.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Brain wave test sounds reasonable. How hard is it to check?
.

Not sure how hard to check noninvasively in utero, and that's what it would have to be to be reasonably imposed as a test. Hope someone here with an academic account could look that up. Seems it can't be that hard or we would not have the knowledge we have about that pattern.

Yes, many of my fellow Christians would fight this tooth and nail because it sets an ethical and even an arguably MORAL standard for elective abortion. And would also by implication allow for some elective euthanasia.

"Fenring, for the foreseeable future, any procedure that could remove the embryo or fetus would present a significant risk of complications. That strikes me an invasion of rights"

Is seems to me that the threshold dispositive fact is not the degree of intrusion, but rather:

The Difference between the procedure VA the abortion procedure that would have been used, as far as infusion goes.

I doubt that any fetal removal procedure will ever be less intrusive than RU-486 on a 2 month embryo. But delivering a live baby may very well be reasonable in comparison to a D&X procedure.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Easily, yes. Cheaply? Not since Congress extended medical patents to twenty years. That's the problem with our fascist health care system.Orient that a Republican bill has made Americans subsidize cutting age medicine for the rest of the world.

So the rich will have convenient safe birth control a quarter century before the poor. This has the effect of concentrating wealth among fewer people.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect by the time we get the ability to do it without it being invasive surgery, unintended pregnancy will be far easier to avoid.

That depends on where the research money goes. And if fetal protection laws are in the wind, I suspect there will be more money in the convenient birth control kitty.

I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.

Best way to reduce abortion is more universal birth control.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's a tough sell when cases are going to the supreme court over religious beliefs about birth control. Republicans (because they court the votes of those who think birth control is a sin) would play the eugenics card.
Lots of folks who think birth control is a sin will still like the idea of privately taking money to get safely sterilized. Like SSM there will be a gap between the surveys and the election results.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I've argued here that the government should pay people to get sterilized on top of paying for the procedure (pay women MUCH more than men be it is more invasive and harder to reverse) but have not made any converts yet.
RISUG is looking very effective and promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

That's awesome! Thank you! Even more convenient. A five minute procedure you could do on a coffee break. The government could refurbish a bloodmobile to run out to parks and high population areas, sterilize guys and write checks. Kind of like an under the belt tooth fairy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Getting a fetus out of the womb safely won't exactly require Star Trek technology, but on the other hand even in Star Trek time I doubt they've solved people being irresponsible or accidents happening.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And fully reversible when you actually decide that you're ready to go.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not necessarily about getting the fetus out of the womb, it's about reliable development once it's out. Not to mention doing it without slicing the mother open or otherwise permanently altering her body.

If birth control turns into a one and done procedure with near-perfect reversibility the effect of accidents and irresponsible decisions would be greatly reduced.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just imagined a story idea where in the near future this reversible procedure has become so standard that people do it without even giving it a second thought. Then a major disaster strikes, like a Captain Tripps style contagion, and after celebrating their immunity the survivors realize with horror that there is no doctor around to reverse the procedure and that they will be the last generation of Americans.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about some alien visitation / abduction that is a like an intellectual rapture?

But I like that first story idea more...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Because boys who haven't yet had the procedure won't grow up and procreate? People who are not doctors are unable to figure it out?

Hey give me a break, I don't even have an editor yet.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I think the level of medical technology required to allow for embryos or fetuses to be brought to term outside of the mother's body means we'll be able to easily control reproduction.

Reproduction is easily controlled right now. From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective. These methods of control range from completely free and available to every songle person on the planet to as cheap as a cup of coffee in America and available for the asking.
I think what he means is that the success rate of these is worse than advertised. One fails when you become weak, and the other fails when you are irresponsible or incompetent. With a simple surgical procedure that carried no risk there would be no scenario of screwing things up.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
From abstinence, 100% effective, to contraceptives that are more than 99% effective.

Abstinence has about the worst failure rate of any plan, because people simply don't follow through on it. And even more, people that tr to apply it are generally less prepared with backup and contingency plans to compensate for first line failures. and far more likely to hide and fail to promptly deal with those failures than people who are more honest about what they'll likely end up doing and prepare for it properly, never mind having a clear idea of what their follow plan of action is in the worst case scenarios.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1