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

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Roe vs. Wade (revisited) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Roe vs. Wade (revisited)
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
we have argues abortion to death, but i don't really intend this to be a topic about abortion.

i led a debate today about Roe vs Wade and womens' rights. because some of the students (the girls) were worried about the Supreme Court seat (this comes of reading Glamour magazine. they showed me the article)

it is my opinion that womens' rights are very closly tied into Roe vs Wade - the right to NOT be tied down in a family because of an accident or a rape or whatever. this is my fear - Roe vs. Wade is overturned. then you have to be 18 to get birth control. this leads to an even higher teen pregnancy rate...which slowly spirals into women being thought of as mothers/wives FIRST, and the then ONLY. (again)

i have admitted before that i am paranoid. but i am a woman, and i STILL struggle randomly getting men to listen to me. some months ago two guys i know were taking about 9-11 and the possiblity of another attack and that they thought bin Ladan was dead. when i tried to join in (by saying that i thought he was alive, because he would be too useful as a martyr and so forth) they were both patronizing and demeaning. these were not strangers - i have known both for years! they know that i am intelligent and that i know a bit about military matters (being a military brat, this was self-defense

but one of them actually said to "not worry my pretty head - the men of this country would protect me".

and im the one who beat off a house burgler with a sword.

so i was wondering on Ornery opinions for the Roe vs. Wade in regards to womens' rights. (not ABORTION. this is not a discussion about abortion! its about womens' rights and how Roe vs. Wade relates to them)


Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think Roe v. Wade DOES directly address women's rights, as women still have the right to give up their child for adoption if they don't want to raise a family.

You're talking about ramification-free sexuality as if it were an issue of sexual politics, and I don't think it can be extrapolated that way.


Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
no, im not.

im talking about nine months of hell for many women, months that they have to give over to something they don't want, even if the give the baby up for adoption.

and you didn't even address the rest of the (paranoid) train of thought - that after abortion goes, then birth control. birth control is the single biggest boon to fem lib - we can act just like men! (that was a joke.)


Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't address it because it IS paranoid. Enough men AND women want birth control to continue existing that it'll never go away -- not unless the percentage of practicing Catholics in this country goes way up.

Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puretext
Member
Member # 823

 - posted      Profile for Puretext   Email Puretext   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Technically, the percentage of practicing Catholics in this country is expected to go way up. We have this immigration issue, see...
Posts: 921 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Etan Moonstar
Member
Member # 836

 - posted      Profile for Etan Moonstar   Email Etan Moonstar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One thing that is frequently overlooked in today's clamour for more and more "rights" is that rights inevitably come with responsibilities.

If I go play the slots in Vegas and lose, can I demand the legal right to rob or sue the casino so I don't have to deal with the consequences of not beating the odds? After all, I was just having some fun, and everybody plays the slots anyway, right? Should I really be expected to spend the next, oh, nine months or so giving luxuries up so I can pay off the debt I ran up while losing at slots?

Obviously, in this hypothetical situation, nobody forced me to play the slots. I chose to do so, had the fun, and because I didn't beat the odds, I have to pay the consequences. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing with sex. If you choose to have sex, you choose to test the odds (risking pregnancy and/or STDs), and you should have to pay the consequences. I'm all for birth control (to improve the odds, while not avoiding the consequences), and I'm in favor of abortions for women who were raped (thereby removing the consequences from the victims who didn't make the choice to risk them in the first place).

I'm all for the right of women to not be tied down in a family--they can choose not to have sex. If they choose to play the odds, then I believe they should also be given the right to bear the consequences.

As far as Roe vs. Wade....I fail to see how respect for women is tied to whether or not they're having consequence-free sex. My respect for someone, at least, is tied to the thoughtfulness of their opinions, their actions, or the quality of what they produce, not to whether or not they're going to get pregnant if I hop in the sack with them. If anything, I suspect consequence-free sex leads to LESS respect for women, as it encourages men to treat them as sex objects.


Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puretext
Member
Member # 823

 - posted      Profile for Puretext   Email Puretext   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This issue always makes me confused. I have some difficulty understanding the concept of a child being a "consequence" in the "punnishment" sense of the word.
Posts: 921 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Etan Moonstar
Member
Member # 836

 - posted      Profile for Etan Moonstar   Email Etan Moonstar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Personally, I don't view any consequences as "punishments" so much as "logical results." (Actually, the behavioral management techniques I learned while getting my degree in education were very adamant in showing children how consequences followed naturally from their actions, while avoiding the appearance of the teacher personally punishing the child). As an example of positive consequences, the consequence of studying and doing the work in college is a degree. If in this thread it seems that "consequence" is being equated with "punishment," it is undoubtedly because those people who don't want to experience the consequences of sex frequently view said consequences as a punishment.

Edit: As a clarification and contrast to "consequence," I consider a "punishment" to be a negative result arbitrarily imposed upon someone as a response to their action that (whereas a consequence is a logical result caused by their action). You bring the consequence upon yourself when you choose to perform the action, someone else imposes the punishment upon you as a response to your action.

[This message has been edited by Etan Moonstar (edited December 11, 2002).]


Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If Roe V. Wade were overturned, then it wouldn't mean that abortion would be suddenly illegal, it would instead be up to state legislatures to pass, or not pass, legislation restricting abortion.

It would also almost certainly result in a massive landslide of Democrat elections as concerned female voters turned out in droves.

Most of the coastal states would have abortion policys that are roughly in line with what is currently legal, whereas central states would have much narrower circumstances under which it would be allowed. So individuals who felt they needed an abortion, would go to the more liberal policy states.

Poor individuals and young women would either start having abortions much earlier in their term (assuming some abortion was still allowed in those states that restrict it), or there would be an increase in illegal abortions among the poor and young women, or there would be a population boom of children to poor and young women.

It is unlikely that any changes in the availability of contraceptives would occur (practicality trumps religious views very strongly in this respect).

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Etan Moonstar
Member
Member # 836

 - posted      Profile for Etan Moonstar   Email Etan Moonstar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If Roe V. Wade were overturned, then it wouldn't mean that abortion would be suddenly illegal, it would instead be up to state legislatures to pass, or not pass, legislation restricting abortion.

It would also almost certainly result in a massive landslide of Democrat elections as concerned female voters turned out in droves.


So, given the above, it's possible that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, women might become more politically active and end up with even more of a governing voice than they already have. Or in other words, overturning Roe vs. Wade might lead to MORE women's rights (granted by their increased political influence)?


Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Junpei
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Junpei     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well said Etan; I find myself agreeing with everything you've said so far.

>> im talking about nine months of hell for many women, months that they have to give over to something they don't want, even if the give the baby up for adoption.

This is one thing I don't understand. Pregnency used to be thought as a good thing, a thing that woman are lucky to experience. Of couse, some parts of it suck, but there's a lot of benefits. How'd this mentality change all of the sudden?


Posts: 146 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Pregnency used to be thought as a good thing, a thing that woman are lucky to experience

I used to think so until my wife got pregnant. It may be a good thing for other women (one of her sisters says she liked her pregnancy) but my wife didn't enjoy either of hers. BTW, it was no fun for me to have the person I love most in the world being miserable.

We both think that the kids were more than worth it (Den and Luny probably thinks that about Luny's daughter too) but I can see why (for women who do not enjoy it) the option to give the baby up is not exactly attractive.

That being said, I also agree with Etan. Pregnancy is a consequence rather than a punishment (whether it turns out to be a good or bad experience).


Posts: 1718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
While we are at it, I should mention that abortion is also a consequence and is often a very bad experience. I have known several women who regret having an abortion (all of them in the first trimester) because of how horrible they felt afterward.

At least one of these women had no moral regrets about it. Years later after having kids, she said that non of her pregnancies made her feel as bad as the week(s) after the abortion. It was these feelings (physical reaction, hormones etc.) that she said she regreted.

I guess what I am trying to say is that pregnancy whether it leads to motherhood, adoption or abortion is always a consequence. No laws passed by people in some court (UN, Federal, state, or other countries) are likely to change that. Thinking of it as a punishment rather than a consequence is not very useful (especially for young girls how are being exposed to these concepts for the first time).


Posts: 1718 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
i didn't say that birth control would go AWAY - i said that it may become possible that you would have to be 18 to get it. some states have already gone this route (Alabama for one, you have to be 21) and there has been huge pressure for the STATE to step into the parents' place and get rid of sex.

this is stupid, and as i said will lead to even MORE teen pregnancies - which is almost invariabley a tragedy, as chances are the father skips or is unrealiable and you ahve this 16 teen whose parents are pissed and this child to take care of and no money and slim chances of finishing HIGH SCHOOL, let alone higher education.

so in 10 years a good whack of our future is on welfare and miserable and not doing anything. and guys look around and see all these women with kids, and teach THIER kids that women are like this...
yes that is the paranoid view. but it is slowly happening.

abortion and birth control didn't change anything except now a girl doesn;t have to marry the guy who talked her into doing more (and likly 100 years ago she didn't even really know what she was doing). this is FREEDOM for women - we are no longer complete slaves to our bodies! and if you are on birth control and get pregnant, your risk of a miscarriage is over 50%, it increases in risk, and if the child IS born there will probalby be major flaws with it.

i know that roe vs. wade won't overturn ABORTION... its a step by step process to OTHER things that i fear. the horror stories from illegal abortions make freddy and jason look like nice guys - and makes suicide seem a safer bet.

and reproductive freedom DOES have alot to do with current general freedom in women - not just sex. it means we can pick and choose more, have say in our pleasure, walk away from a guy if he turns into a beast, and not feel chained to the first guy with silver in his mouth. this is honestly alot - and i have begun to resent the current attitude that reproductive freedom, and wanting it, means that we just want to have sex sex sex! it really is so much more...


Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cedrios
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Does anyone else besides me see the coming change? Right now the health-care for the unborn has gone unchallenged. As a logical provision under the intent of that law some federal court will soon rule abortion to be hindering the health-care of the unborn (murder) and reverse Roe v Wade in such a total and sweeping manner.
The SC who put Bush in office will probably not go against this ruling as they have had ample chance with suits in the past few months regarding the new law.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"yes that is the paranoid view. but it is slowly happening."

But Roe v. Wade is still legal, Denelian. If it's already slowly happening, in your opinion, what's the primary cause?


Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Denelian,

you stated

quote:
i said that it may become possible that you would have to be 18 to get it. some states have already gone this route (Alabama for one, you have to be 21) and there has been huge pressure for the STATE to step into the parents' place and get rid of sex.

and TomD

quote:
But Roe v. Wade is still legal, Denelian. If it's already slowly happening, in your opinion, what's the primary cause?

Well from Dens post, it would appear that it is our societys view of children (or even young adults - 21?) as property and incapable of mature decision making.

Why should anyone other than whose welfare and health are at risk have final decision making authority in this respect?

Of course this applys to the broader issue of medical rights to consent to treatment and to refuse treatment
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/shield/

quote:
The crucial question is, then, when does the child have the capacity to make such decisions? There is no simple answer to this. In her recent book Priscilla Anderson gives data on children undergoing paediatric orthopaedic surgery; she discusses the age when patients, parents, and health professionals thought that children could decide for themselves whether they wanted surgery that was not lifesaving. The children themselves set the highest threshold age for self determination at 14 years; the parents put it slightly lower at 13.9 years; and remarkably, the health professionals chose the lowest figure, 10.3 years.

So in other medical procedures, there seems to be a consensus from both patients and adults that such self determination is reasonable at age 14, whereas health professionals put it at age 10.

Of course consent is a somewhat different question, than electing to have surgery.

There is also the question of non surgical methods such as RU-46 (sp?).

So it seems more an issue of the disenfranchisement based on age.

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Denalian -

To what kind of birth control are you referring? I'm assuming you aren't talking about barrier birth control, but are you talking about hormone injections, the pill, or some other form? Does the pill have the same rate of damage to an infant that injectable hormones do? (And isn't it cruel to knowingly use a form of birth control that will harm any baby that manages to be conceived in spite of said birth control?)

As for being complete slaves to our bodies, are you implying that women have the same amount of self-control as beasts in the field? Isn't that derogatory to all women? As a woman (who, incidentally, has faced the fear of an unwanted pregnancy out of wedlock), I find that attitude insulting at best. Women make bad choices, just like men, but to suggest that women can't control themselves turns us into the mindless puppets our patriarichal society has always tried to make us out to be. When you can't control yourself, you invite others to do it for you.

Edit: As for your comment on the horror of illegal abortion, "do-it-yourself" abortion kits are part of the standard UN birth control package. If the UN has it, the black market has it as well. The majority of abortions in a world without R v. W would be perfectly safe (as much as a surgical procedure can be). Even the majority of pre-R v. W (please prove me wrong on this) were performed illegaly by doctors who were familiar with the procedure. That's how my mother got an abortion. Also, with RU-486 around, I doubt the ethics of coat hangers will be a problem. More than likely, it will be the ethics of a mother killing a baby that survived the procedure that we have to face.

Regarding sex tied to freedom...what do you mean by pick and choose more? No kind of birth control is 100% outside of abstinence. When a person uses birth control, they should (key word here) understand that a pregnancy might still occur. Yes, you are putting the odds in your favor (as Etan mentioned) but it may still occur.

If it's not just about sex, why aren't you mentioning more committed relationships in your equation? Why are you instead focusing your fears on teenagers who can't (without the permission of their parents) get married or live together? The teenagers I knew who were emotionally mature enough to have sex decided on their own to wait until they got married or the equivalent.

I agree that women should decide on our own whether or not to have children. We bear (no pun intended) the brunt of the experience. But I don't agree that your fears are founded.

[This message has been edited by DM (edited December 12, 2002).]


Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
LetterRip -

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this.

Considering what you've written, do you feel that the marriage age should be lowered to its old levels? I read an article recently stating that we have raised the age for marriage because we have lengthened childhood. Whereas 12 year old boys were working hard to save enough money to build an adequate home for a wife, most are now spending their time playing Nintendo. The author stated that most of this was due to economic concerns, but I've read other articles that state it's because society needs an "innocent", a group who holds the society's nostalgia in their very existence.

What is your opinion? (or would you rather move this to a different thread?)


Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cedrios
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I think the sign that Roe v Wade is slowly going away is the health-care for the unborn as I stated above. Funny how noone is addressing it, just repeating themselves that Roe v Wade has not been overturned yet.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Cedrios -

Sorry, didn't see your post. Traditional feminism tends to get me furious. I need to stop getting so emotional.

Interesting thought concerning unborn children. I suppose it all goes back to the original intent of Roe v. Wade to allow abortions that occured before the first trimester (all others being against the law according to the decision). I've forgotten what the key part of development was that the court used (the heart?) but the intent was that if the baby could exist outside the womb, then it was an individual (since it didn't need to depend on its mother for support) and protected. Recent legislation has only affirmed that original intent in my mind.

The problem is other rulings after Roe (that aren't publicized nearly enough) that changed the original intent and made people believe that abortion was legal in all circumstances and at any point in the pregnancy. Don't have the names of those rulings in front of me. Must find them.

So, if we're going by Roe v. Wade, there is no regression in the current trend of taking care of the unborn. There is a danger, however, from those who believe that society must be cleansed of children with disabilities instead of trying to fix them before the child is born. (I had one in my pro-choice debate team in college. None of us knew her true views until the debate got heated and she blurted out that no disabled child had a right to live because it was a drain on the economy. I hear her words now each time I read Nazi propaganda endorsing their eugenics program.)


Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
DM,

quote:
I'm assuming you aren't talking about barrier birth control, but are you talking about hormone injections, the pill, or some other form?

Any of the contraceptives that alter hormone balance (injections, the pill, implants, etc.) can, in the event of a pregnancy, potentially result in an unhealthy fetus.

quote:
Does the pill have the same rate of damage to an infant that injectable hormones do?

No idea.

quote:
(And isn't it cruel to knowingly use a form of birth control that will harm any baby that manages to be conceived in spite of said birth control?)

I don't believe so. First we are talking of a fetus, so if the fetus is not brought to term, then using a method that prevents the creation of a fetus is less cruel than allowing the creation of the fetus and then destroying it. (Although it is arguable that the destruction of the fetus is 'cruel' at all, especially if it is prior to formation of the CNS, etc. I generally restrict cruelity to intentional harm to something sentient (harm being broadly defined, breaking a childs toy is cruel, although the harm they experience is emotional). Some arguement can be made that not allowing a fetus to develop to term is cruel, but it is a fairly slippery arguement to make which can lead to argueing that not fertilizing all eggs is cruel, or not utilizing all sperm is cruel...))

If there is a reasonable alternative birth control method that can equally reduce the odds of pregnancy, but has a lower chance of fetal disease or deformity, then the method with less fetal impact should be used. However, there does not seem to be the case.

It might be equally reasonable to ask if drinking alcohol, or not eating and exercising properly is cruel, since if a woman becomes pregnant poor nutrition and/or alcohol can lead to severe fetal difficulties.

Poor prenatal nutrition has probably led to far more fetal problems than has birth control (and alcohol orders of magnitude more problems), so these behaviors would have to be judged more cruel than the birth control usage.

quote:
As for being complete slaves to our bodies, are you implying that women have the same amount of self-control as beasts in the field?

No I don't think that was what she was implying. I believe she was refering to once a pregnancy is initiated there is little physiological choice in the matter (asside from abortion...). Just as we might also be considered 'slaves to adolescence', that is males have little control over their voices deepenning, nor women over their breasts developing.

quote:
As for your comment on the horror of illegal abortion, "do-it-yourself" abortion kits are part of the standard UN birth control package.

I've never heard of them, I'll have to research on it. That sounds rather scary.

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Considering what you've written, do you feel that the marriage age should be lowered to its old levels?

Before I answer, let me back up a bit. There are three trends in our country (and others), that make discussions like this difficult.

1) Improved nutrition, and other factors (such as extensive exposure to non familial males) are resulting in much younger physical maturation

2) Society has greatly delayed the maturation of individuals, especially in regards to areas of responsibility

3) The requirements for working require a great deal larger knowledge base and social development than of many years ago.

4) The value of child labor to the family has greatly declined since we are no longer an agragarian society. Thus children no longer represent near term growth in wealth, but instead are often a drain on the economic resources of the family until they leave home.

5) A greatly reduced support structure for raising the child in the event of a pregnancy. (Due to increased physical mobility so extended families are not closely clustered...)

These combined trends result in a certain age range being largely unemployable, lacking the skills and abilitys needed to prosper independently, while having a decreased capability for making sound long term decisions, with a simultaneously earlier biological drive to sexual behaviour and increased liklihood of becoming pregnant (if not using contraceptives), and decreased societal and familial support in the event of a pregnancy.

So, changing the marriage age doesn't seem to have any particular positive outcomes (asside from the potential to claim fewer children born out of wedlock), but it doesn't seem like it could have particularly negative outcomes either (since how would a decision to get married change the behavior?). Or do you mean by marriage age, the ability to declare independence from ones parents?

Note that the average age of marriage for men is 31 or so, and Ithink for women it is 23 or so.

quote:
I read an article recently stating that we have raised the age for marriage because we have lengthened childhood.

There is also no longer an interest in marrying young. If the legal age for marriage were 8, we still wouldn't see any real changes in the marriage rate.

quote:
adequate home for a wife, most are now spending their time playing Nintendo. The author stated that most of this was due to economic concerns, but I've read other articles that state it's because society needs an "innocent", a group who holds the society's nostalgia in their very existence.

Well, there are a number of factors. Part of the reason childhood was extended early on was to reduce the size of the labor pool. Also the need for skilled labor has increased, and the need for manual labor has decreased. Also, the need for the increased knowledge and skills before independence results in greater dependence upon ones parents. The economic power relationship essentially forces the rest of the relationship to be one of dependence. Some children are raised to be fairly much adults by the age of 12 or so. Whereas others are not raised to be adults until they are in their mid thirties (if then).

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
LetterRip - I'm going backwards through your post...please forgive me.

I just heard about this not too long ago myself. Had many other things to research when I found it out and only remember that it contains the suction device that doctors use. It was part of a site that had a quote from a health care worker in Afghanistan (?) complaining that they were getting birth control kits instead of the antibiotics and blankets they requested. I'll look for the site and post it as soon as I find it.

I do know that the UN has complained about doctors who object to performing abortions and recommended that abortions be available on demand in public hospitals. See: Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women : Croatia. 14/05/98. A/53/38, para. 109, 117. But that doesn't really address the issue of abortion kits, so I'll keep looking.

As for my comment concerning self-control, it stems from the debates I had (both official and casual) concerning condoms in high schools which always come down to the same thing: kids can't control themselves. They do have a point in that teenagers seem to be pretty irresponsible, but how much of that is cultural conditioning, and how much is innate inability? But that's a whole other topic.

Interesting point about not using all sperm/eggs. Doesn't the Mosiac Law state that a guy shouldn't "spill his seed"? Yet again, a different topic.

Concerning pre-natal nurtrition, I do agree that it is cruel for a woman to knowingly take poor care of herself during a pregnancy. However, problems may still show up in a woman who has taken excellent care of herself. We don't know all details of pre-natal care.

But for Denalian to state that 50% of children conceived in spite of birth control suffer from it shows that she knows the risks. It is the same as purposefully not taking care of yourself or drinking during pregnancy in my mind. It shows a lack of caring about others...a lack of respect for yourself and those who you may affect.

Granted, barrier birth control isn't as effective (with a condom and spermicide you can get the chances down to 4%) but there is no harm to any baby that's conceived (at least, none that's been found to my knowledge). It just seems irresponsible (at best) or sadistic (at worst) to me for a woman to know the risk she's taking, know that a pregnancy could occur, and still use a method that would harm a baby. But that's my personal opinion.

Concerning the statistic she was citing, I was honestly curious if that applied equally to all forms of hormone birth control or if it varied with each method.

I guess I get so upset because this issue is no longer about women's rights or what's good for this nation's future children. It's about business (which is primarily dominated by men).

[This message has been edited by DM (edited December 12, 2002).]


Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Very interesting points. Will be thinking about them.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
DM,

quote:
Concerning pre-natal nurtrition, I do agree that it is cruel for a woman to knowingly take poor care of herself during a pregnancy. However, problems may still show up in a woman who has taken excellent care of herself. We don't know all details of pre-natal care.

You misunderstood. I meant for a woman of child bearing years to not be eating the best possible nutrition when not pregnant, on the chance that she might unknowningly become pregnant. The pill is taken with the expectation to avoid pregnancy. A womans eating and drinking behavior is iwth the expectation that she is not pregnant. If she knowns she is pregnant, then yes it would be 'cruel' or immorral to continue consuming alcohol, or to eath badly, or to take birth control pills. However, to my mind, engaging in those behaviors without knowledge of being pregnant is not imorral or cruel (other than to the extent that they are otherwise imorral).

quote:
But for Denalian to state that 50% of children conceived in spite of birth control suffer from it shows that she knows the risks.

That sounds high. Actually I believe the harmis from the unknowning continued taking of birth control pills after the pregnancy has happened that causes the damage. (Similar to the case of imbibing alcohol when one is unknowingly pregnant). I'll do a bit of research later...


quote:
Granted, barrier birth control isn't as effective (with a condom and spermicide you can get the chances down to 4%) but there is no harm to any baby that's conceived (at least, none that's been found to my knowledge)

What I meant, was what if you are using the pill with a condom and spermicide?

You increase the odds of any conception leading to malformation, but decrease the odds of a conception.

quote:
It just seems irresponsible (at best) or sadistic (at worst) to me for a woman to know the risk she's taking, know that a pregnancy could occur, and still use a method that would harm a baby. But that's my personal opinion.

I think the situation is avoiding pregnancy versus having an abortion. The individual is taking greater responsibility of reducing the odds of a pregnancy so that they have a lesser chance of having to have an abortion. Thus if the pill were not used, then the higher rate of pregnancy would mean more abortions, but abortions of healthier fetuses. (Whereas the pregnancies with continued use of birth control would result in a lower rate of abortions, but with those fetuses more frequently unhealthy.)

quote:
Concerning the statistic she was citing, I was honestly curious if that applied equally to all forms of hormone birth control or if it varied with each method.

I'll see if I can find anything...

quote:
I guess I get so upset because this issue is no longer about women's rights or what's good for this nation's future children.

Eh? Could you expand on that point a bit?

Thanks for your thoughtful response,

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
DM -
that was quite alot, so if i miss something, please forgive me, point it out to me, and i will address it then.

I AM a feminist, with some very odd leanings and ideas. being that i have both fibromalgia and porphyria (with the secondary nerve damnage it can cause) there are LOTS AND LOTS of things that i cannot physically do. i don't mow the lawn, i get one of my (usually male) friends to do it. on the other hand, when people need help with papers or other homework, they come to me.

but this isn't just about femisism, its about the state of democracy in our families (this seems an odd statement. hear me out
too many parents try to keep their kids from learning about birth control. and about sex in general. so when a couple of twelve year olds play "house", and the girl gets pregnant, not knowing what they were doing...
this IS extreme, and i meant it to be. i remember going to school and being able to talk about sex. now, the word seems to be outlawed in HIGH SCHOOLS. we raise children who are physically mature at 13 and mentally/emotially mature at 25 or so... and withhold vital information.

roe vs wade helped balance that a little, because if a pregnant teen wanted an abortion, she could get one, esp. if she didn't even know what was going on! this really is more common than you might think... not a plague, mind you, but it happens.

that little court case also helped save my life - as i can die if i try to carry a child to term.

"pick and choose" - would YOU like to be chained to a man who is "unpleasing" in bed for the rest of your life? or walk into a marriage with no idea WHAT to do in bed? (i am not saying that sex is the biggest part of marriage. but it is a part and should be treated as one, and not as a "duty")

birth control. 50% does reflect taking the pill after pregnancy occurs, being on depo, norplant, and similar. >I< have a norplant (and oh how i hate the fact that they will no longer be available!!!) but condoms are supposed to be used in CONJUNCTION with a hormonal birth control. most problems with condoms are "user error", and i consider condoms more for STD prevention than kid protection (not counting the joke that life is an STD <G> )

freedom/slavery to your body. as you may have figured out, i was pregnant. before all the porphyria related shite that almost killed me, i had morning sickness - ALL DAY LONG. i actually lost a job over it. (i quit, as i couldn't go in...) the weight gain, the sickness, bloating, pain,clothing to by...not mention LABOR! plus there are many many people who don't want kids until they are in stable places - married, with a job making this much and a house and the cars paid for and... kids are expensive.

roe vs. wade was a big step on the march to sexual equality. now when the jackass who got you pregnant runs off, you don;t have to deal with it.

morally, i have problems with abortion as a means of birth control - at least as the only means. if you did everything that you were supposed to and you hit the 1 in 10,000 jackpot anyway... but if abortion is outlawed (which could happen in all too many places) what do you do if you are raped? incest? illness?

and what happens to all those teens, full of hormones and not told the truth, if you have to be a certain age to get birth control? there are lots of places looking at a mandatory age to get birth control, thinking that this will lower teen sex. it might, a little (those who are mature or smart enough to figure a baby is a big risk) but teen pregnancy will raise, ALOT. and then what?

I also don't understand why you say that the issue is no longer about women's rights or the future of our children...?!


Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"that little court case also helped save my life - as i can die if i try to carry a child to term."

No, it didn't. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was still legal in medically-necessary cases.


Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cedrios
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Can we all agree to be practical when we're discussing abortion's historical presence here? Obviously its been legal for a long time, however, the government discouraged it and hindered it. Lets face it, abortion is a health service. Its easier to get one now than it was before planned parenthood, before Roe v Wade. Also Tom, the Social Stigma was bad, even for those who claimed medical necessity.

Abortion can be legal and still dissappear. Everyone says people will resort to home-made or "back-alley" but those would be few of the present numbers. That's what we're talking about here, Roe v Wade doesn't HAVE to be reversed for some court to rule health-care for the unborn precludes any health-care entity in the US from offering abortion.

[This message has been edited by Cedrios (edited December 13, 2002).]


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, Ced, you're the only one talking about that. The rest of us have already accepted it and moved on.

Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cedrios
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The rest of you have accepted the fact abortion will be expelled by this administration? I don't think so.....
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think we've accepted the fact that the administration is willing to let the courts chip away at the edges of legalized abortion, yes.

Posts: 20834 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cedrios
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I am talking about near-eradication through legal, social, and ultimately financial means.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
DM said:

quote:
The teenagers I knew who were emotionally mature enough to have sex decided on their own to wait until they got married or the equivalent.

And my reply: Huh? Where (and when) did you go to high school? I live in a rather consevative rural area, and I would estimate that up to 50% of my graduating class were virgins, which leads to the conclusion that the majority of teens that "I knew who were emotionally mature enough to have sex decided on their own notto wait until they got married or the equivalent"


Posts: 345 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puretext
Member
Member # 823

 - posted      Profile for Puretext   Email Puretext   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brian, actually, if you look at what she said, it implies a truism: If you have sex before some kind of permanent commitment, then you're aren't mature enough to have sex, therefore everyone who waited was mature enough...
Posts: 921 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DM
Member
Member # 850

 - posted      Profile for DM     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, let's see if I can get all this done within the hour.

LetterRip -

I found only one link so far that mentions what a birth control kit supplied by the UN contains. Unfortunately, it seems to be related to a pro-life site.

quote:
The UNFPA had announced its intentions to distribute the kits - containing condoms, birth control pills, intra-uterine devices and manual vacuum aspirators (for abortions) - to 350,000 people for six months. Some doctors on the scene have complained that contraceptives and abortifacients have supplanted other medical supplies and even food from supply convoys. "I don't want to seem ungrateful," said one doctor, "but much superfluous material has arrived. Today a shipment of birth control. Explain to them that we need other things." PRI president Steve Mosher said that given the traumas suffered by so many helpless Kosovar women, and the filthy conditions of refugee camps and "reproductive health" facilities, he is concerned about the women's health, safety and rights.
From http://www.lifesite.net/interim/1999/july/digest_international.html

I'll keep looking for something more concrete. While I was looking, I also found a paper supposedly written by Henry Kissenger detailing why de-population of other nations is crucial to national security. I think I'll post it on a different thread as it's old and takes the discussion more into the realm of world politics, which I don't believe was Denalian's intent with this thread.

This is, of course, assuming I have the time this weekend. Holidays are starting early for me this year.

As for the cruelty issue, I agree with you completely. I was merely stressing that if you know there's a chance you could get pregnant, it's cruel to any life form you may create to do anything that would harm it. I think where we are finding disagreement is that I am assuming the mother to be may change her mind and either keep the baby or put it up for adoption. You are assuming that the mother will not change her mind and kill the fetus as her intentions by taking birth control were to avoid getting pregnant at all.

As for this no longer being about women's rights, my research on the issue has shown greater competition among abortion clinics in the Chicago area in 2000, and links between clone research and abortion clinics. This, combined with a recent study by the University of North Texas (a student posing as a teenage girl impregnated by an older man called a number of abortion clinics...not only did they not report the statutory rape or counsel the girl to do so, the majority of workers at abortion clinics were willing to lie and tell the girl what lies she needed to tell in order for the girl to have an abortion) make me wonder if those with real power (males) are using women's bodies (yet again) as a way to make a buck and increase their own power.

I'm not saying that all, or even most of the people who support abortion have anything less than the best interests of women at heart. Just those who allow feminism to take root in our country (elitist males). It would probably take an entire thread for me to go through my whole thought process on the issue, but that's a small portion of my views.

Denelian -

In your case, I most certainly would support an abortion if you were pregnant. I'm not a rabid pro-lifer. (Have you gone through any sterilization procedures, or would the surgery be more dangerous than the abortion?)

As for your example, I and every girl I knew at the age of 12 knew exactly what would produce a child and we didn't need our parents to tell us. Sex is thrown at kids nowadays at every turn. Luckily, so is information about contraceptives. Whereas our ancestors may have been ignorant of even basic coitus interruptus (a state that Sanger outlines well in numerous papers), nowadays you can buy condoms at Wal-Mart. I really don't see vital information being withheld from anyone in their adolescent years.

I do know that there it is a fad right now for people to remain virgins until they're married. Maybe the reason why they don't want to talk about sex is because it makes them think about it, and the more they think about it, the more they want it. I know one girl who was a Promise Keeper avoided the subject for the most part and said that her own thoughts were the battlefield. That doesn't mean she didn't know anything about contraceptives or sexuality, just that she didn't talk about it.

I'm sure it does happen that a teenager gets involved with a guy who pushes too far and before she knows it she's pregnant. But recent studies are showing that 80% of all abortions are performed on women 20+. Now, either this means that teenage girls are using contraceptives more, or are having less sex, or that adoption is being used more often.

As for being chained to a man who's "unpleasing"...well,...all my research says that men learn all their sexual "moves" from women. Men show very little creativity themselves in this department. (I know I'm going to get flamed by the men for that comment, but that's what I'm seeing in the studies I'm looking at.) So, if a man's ego keeps him from listening to a woman's desires, he probably isn't listening in other areas. This can show up without ever getting into bed. That's been my experience, anyway. Completely anecdotal...please take it with a grain of salt.

Concerning your other comments, like I said, I'm not a rabid pro-lifer. I do believe there are exceptions to the rule (health and moral issues) and that doctors should be trained in performing abortions. So, I guess you could say that I do support abortion to a small degree.

Puretext and Brian -

That's exactly what I was getting at. Could elaborate, but have run out of time.


Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here is information on the device, known as a 'Manual Vacuum Aspirator'
http://www.ipas.org/mva/ http://www.ipas.org/new/MVAeffectiveness.htm

Apparently it is has other uses other than induced abortion, such as as removal of miscarriages.

The kits also contain,

This site claims the dangers of MVA
http://www.pop.org/briefings/wb062502.htm

The author keeps making severe claims, and then never backs them up with references.

Ie.

quote:
To use MVAs for any procedure is so substandard that it presents extreme risks to women.

quote:
The high maternal death rate in the developing world because of MVA abortions, clearly indicates that promoting MVA in the name of women’s health is misleading.

Extreme risk and high maternal death rate, these are certainly powerful arguements against if the claim is true. However, the author seems surprisingly unwilling or unable to substantiate such claims.

quote:
Complications following the ingestion of morning-after pills (MAPs) are common.

Again, another powerful arguement if it can be backed up with fact.

There are 42 pubmed papers on MVA, and probably even more on MAPs, since these are such dangerous procedures and methods finding support for those powerful claims would, I'd think, be easy.

The authors avoidance of substantiating such claims makes me suspect that the claims do not reflect the research.


DM,

you stated

quote:
You are assuming that the mother will not change her mind and kill the fetus as her intentions by taking birth control were to avoid getting pregnant at all.

What I was getting at, is that a woman using condoms and no birth control pills, who does not get adequate nutrition, or who imbibes alcohol must be considered more cruel than the woman using bcp's, because there is a much higher chance of her getting pregnant, and that the poor nutrition and alcohol are capable of causing just as severe fetal abnormalities as the bcp.

Ditto for spermicides, working as a chemist or in a job requiring chemical exposure, use of household cleaners, certain dieting regimens, some vitamin supplements, and a ton of other behaviors.

All of these put any potential fetus at higher risk for fetal abnormalities. Yet I could not condemn any woman as cruel to engage in these behaviors unless she knows she is already pregnant.

To me, only the deliberate endangerment of a known or likely fetus should be considered cruel, I would consider unknowing endangerment as unfortunate.

LetterRip


Posts: 7812 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
timeskimo
Member
Member # 731

 - posted      Profile for timeskimo   Email timeskimo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would disagree with any comments that sex gets thrown at kids all the time these days. While I am male, and therefore unaware of whether information gets across to the female half of the population, I see a definite trend towards telling nothing. We got the video that says, "part A fits part B. Baby. (FIN).) That's not giving information. Health classes are only available to juniors and seniors. The extent of the information I've seen is the video, the fact that condoms exist, the fact that birth control exists, and the fact that sex is one of the most evil horible abominable satanic things to ever disgrace God's green earth and if you ever have sex before a priest says to, God will forsake you and you will be condemned to everlasting hellfire for ten eternities per sexual encounter. Paraphrased, of course

Still, that's the message that gets conveyed. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's tricky to find honest numbers. I think the rationale is that you don't teach kids about protection to early because it'll teach them to be promiscuous. All of this little playing around with facts, showing worst-case evidence without giving numbers or real information, just shock designed to make people fear sex, it's BS. I'll get faith in the system on sex ed when it starts making sense. Personally, I wouldn't mind terribly much a system where they teach abstinence, but if a kid asks a question of the teacher related to sex, the teacher answers, no matter the question.

I don't know the details of Roe v. Wade, a little before my era, if you don't mind, perhaps someone could offer a short summary?

Just so you can have these numbers to play with: to quote a poll taken by the CDC, published in the December 9 Newsweek: about 33% of 9th graders, just over 40% of 10th, about 51% of 11th, and just over 60% of 12th graders say they've had sex. Teen pregnancy(15-19) around 5% of the birthrate. by gender, they've got it pegged as 42% of femailes and 48% of males. Total of 45% of high-school age kids say they've had sex.

There you go. Keep in mind, this is south-central texas, quite a conservative area.
-timesk


Posts: 96 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
timeskimo
Member
Member # 731

 - posted      Profile for timeskimo   Email timeskimo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would disagree with any comments that sex gets thrown at kids all the time these days. While I am male, and therefore unaware of whether information gets across to the female half of the population, I see a definite trend towards telling nothing. We got the video that says, "part A fits part B. Baby. (FIN)." That's not giving information. Health classes are only available to juniors and seniors. The extent of the information I've seen is the video, the fact that condoms exist, the fact that birth control exists, and the fact that sex is one of the most evil horrible abominable satanic things to ever disgrace God's green earth and if you ever have sex before a priest says to, God will forsake you and you will be condemned to everlasting hellfire for ten eternities per sexual encounter. Paraphrased, of course

Still, that's the message that gets conveyed. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's tricky to find honest numbers. I think the rationale is that you don't teach kids about protection to early because it'll teach them to be promiscuous. All of this little playing around with facts, showing worst-case evidence without giving numbers or real information, just shock designed to make people fear sex, it's BS. I'll get faith in the system on sex ed when it starts making sense. Personally, I wouldn't mind terribly much a system where they teach abstinence, but if a kid asks a question of the teacher related to sex, the teacher answers, no matter the question.

I don't know the details of Roe v. Wade, a little before my era, if you don't mind, perhaps someone could offer a short summary?

Just so you can have these numbers to play with: to quote a poll taken by the CDC, published in the December 9 Newsweek: about 33% of 9th graders, just over 40% of 10th, about 51% of 11th, and just over 60% of 12th graders say they've had sex. By gender, they've got it pegged as 42% of females and 48% of males. Total of 45% of high-school age kids say they've had sex. Teen pregnancy(15-19) around 5% of the birthrate.

There you go. Keep in mind, this is south-central texas, quite a conservative area. (personal experience is TX, poll is I believe national.)
-timesk

[This message has been edited by timeskimo (edited December 14, 2002).]


Posts: 96 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Denelian
Member
Member # 531

 - posted      Profile for Denelian   Email Denelian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
there is lots i want to reply to here. but i have to get ready for work.

will back later, just wanted everyone to know


Posts: 1139 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   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