The great topic of abortion

[Smokestack]

I was reading the thread about the debate and I saw abortion was brought up. I've been thinking more about this topic lately and want to hear where the wonderful people of anr.org truly stand on the issue. I want to give a little background on why I've been struggling with this issue recently.

I'm 32 years old. I was raised in a southern baptist home. Growing up, my mom took me to at least one anti abortion protest. For most of my life, I was very much on the pro life side of things. Killing babies doesn't seem like a side anyone would want to be on. I never really changed position much on the topic. But then, when I turned 23, something happened.

I started dating a girl from work. She was getting out of a long term relationship. She also had a one year old child and the father was not around much. We had only been dating for about a month, when she called me and told me some news. She was pregnant. I was speechless at first. I made $8.24 an hour and I was happily going nowhere in life. It was kind of an asshole question, but I asked her after a minute or so of absorbing the news, when the last time she slept with her ex. That's when I found out it could be mine or his. I never asked her to get an abortion. I honestly don't remember if I hinted around it or not. I still believe it wasn't mine, but I obviously don't know. She ended up terminating the pregnancy quickly and that was that.

It hit me at that point, I have never walked in a person's shoes who has been left with that choice. Here I am, a Christian who says he stands up for pro life causes, and I did nothing to talk her out of this. I was a scared. I didn't know how to deal with it.

Now, I'm married and have two sons. After being a dad for a few years, it made me realize how awesome I think being a dad is. In hindsight, if she did go through with the pregnancy, and the child was mine, I could have made made it work. I was an immature, selfish kid. I made a mistake by not saying anything at all.

The last thing I wanted to bring up was how fucking barbaric an abortion is. I don't know the percentages, but I'm sure the majority abort as soon as they find out. I'm not a big supporter of that, but it's better than allowing the child to grow, then aborting. I've watched videos of how abortions are performed once the child reaches the second trimester. I made it a point to find a video that wasn't made by someone with an agenda. I just want to see it for what it is. It's a very sad thing to see. And partial birth abortions should be a capital offense. Basically, if the baby's head comes out first and starts breathing on its own, it is considered a live birth and cannot be aborted. But they turn the baby to come out feet first, then clip the brain stem with a surgical tool before it can take a breath on its own. This should be outlawed.

My stance is this: If you decide to have an abortion, it should be done inside of six weeks. Exceptions should be made for rape and incest. But after that, I find it to be a very bad choice. I also believe that if women want birth control and can't afford it, the government should pay for it. I don't mind paying for it out of my taxes if it prevents abortions. I'm not looking to start a fight about the topic, just looking for some different views on the issue.

[LJF]

The government shouldn't control this issue, it should be up to each person. I completely agree with what Biden said last night, that it isn't the governments right to tell a women what to do with her body.

[farrellgirl99]

The government shouldn't control this issue, it should be up to each person. I completely agree with what Biden said last night, that it isn't the governments right to tell a women what to do with her body.

I agree with this. Abortions should be legal and available to anyone who wants one. It is a personal choice.

[Smokestack]

The government shouldn't control this issue, it should be up to each person. I completely agree with what Biden said last night, that it isn't the governments right to tell a women what to do with her body.

I agree with this. Abortions should be legal and available to anyone who wants one. It is a personal choice.

I do agree with both of you. I don't think Rowe v Wade should be overturned. What I can't get past is abortions after the first trimester. I'm not for ending abortion, I'm for ending abortion after the first trimester.

[creep]

The government shouldn't control this issue, it should be up to each person. I completely agree with what Biden said last night, that it isn't the governments right to tell a women what to do with her body.

I agree with this. Abortions should be legal and available to anyone who wants one. It is a personal choice.

i agree

i have no problem with people being against abortions and they should have no problem with how i feel. the problem is that they do have a problem with that.

[Juana]

I believe that abortion should be legal no matter what. There should also be other options for people that are pro-life but will not take care of the child properly as well. Adoption information should be easier to get for people that do not want to abort.

But its a woman's body and if she wants to end the pregnancy then that is her choice.

[Artemis]

I too agree that a woman should have the choice. Ultimately, it is the woman who has to live with her choice mentally and physically. Her decision to abort a fetus has no impact on my life in any way, so why should I care if she wishes to terminate a pregnancy? It might not be a choice I would make, but I want to have that choice.

For all the pro-lifers who squawk about abortion and call it murder, I would like to ask them if they are prepared to raise these unwanted children. I mean, if they feel so strongly about it, then they should step up, adopt some children to prevent abortion.

In my opinion, it is worse to raise an unwanted child than to have an abortion. There are too many unwanted children who grew up really disadvataged and unloved. Some are lucky and get a way out, but most don't.

[Hype]

I don't really feel like talking much about this topic, because I think it's empirically settled already.

It is the case that in Canada there are no abortion laws (they were struck down long ago and were never replaced). Abortion rates went down. It turns out when you offer the option, and you have country-wide sexual education that doesn't lie to kids, and free access to contraception, not only are abortions rarer, but when they do occur, almost all of them are in the first trimester anyway, even without a law against late-term abortions. Of late term abortions performed in Canada, they are at the discretion of the doctor, and almost all of them, if not all of them, are performed because of the health/safety of the mother or because it is discovered that the child has a very serious congenital defect/disorder that will result in greater suffering and early death if brought to term.

I understand Smokestack's worry about late term abortion, but I think if you look at the data, a law against it isn't the way to get what you really want.

[Juana]

Well I think a lot of the "laws" are steeped in religion and that is why I also do not agree with the laws. Anything steeped with religion needs to be stricken from the laws and needs to not be considered when it comes to policy makers.

Almost all pro-life people I have met were that way for religious reasons.

[Hype]

Well I think a lot of the "laws" are steeped in religion and that is why I also do not agree with the laws. Anything steeped with religion needs to be stricken from the laws and needs to not be considered when it comes to policy makers.

Almost all pro-life people I have met were that way for religious reasons.

The problem for religious people who are pro-life is to find a way to show that their view is universally acceptable, without having to believe any particular tenet of that particular faith. If they could do this, then it would be irrelevant that it was a religiously motivated view, since there would be independent reasons for anyone to accept it.

But the empirical reality of it provides reasons to think there's a) no need for a law, and b) when there are laws about this, it pushes the practice underground and female death rates go up.

[SR]

It is notr a popular position, one that often alligns me with right wing freaks with scoped .22's in the woods shooting at unsuspecting doctors in their homes. I am against abortion, but think that it is an impossible issue to legislate. The science since Roe v. Wade is substantially more informed. I am against it for the very same reasons I oppose the death penalty (and more) of course. I am not a misogynist, but I think the argument that it's a woman's body is a false dilemma, though I do understand the excruciating distress that some conditions of pregnancy can place on a woman....and to a lesser degree, a man.

As for rape and incest, I struggle greatly with being in service to the virtues that brought me to oppose it, I simply fail here. Population and the parental consequences of an unwanted pregnancy through immaturity or malice are of supreme concern as well. It's a ghastly issue all around.

[Hype]

It is notr a popular position, one that often alligns me with right wing freaks with scoped .22's in the woods shooting at unsuspecting doctors in their homes. I am against abortion, but think that it is an impossible issue to legislate. The science since Roe v. Wade is substantially more informed. I am against it for the very same reasons I oppose the death penalty (and more) of course. I am not a misogynist, but I think the argument that it's a woman's body is a false dilemma, though I do understand the excruciating distress that some conditions of pregnancy can place on a woman....and to a lesser degree, a man.

As for rape and incest, I struggle greatly with being in service to the virtues that brought me to oppose it, I simply fail here. Population and the parental consequences of an unwanted pregnancy through immaturity or malice are of supreme concern as well. It's a ghastly issue all around.

Huh... so you're in opposition to it even in the first week (in which a double-dose of birth control pills can work as effectively as RU-486? Not even necessarily as an abortifacient, if taken very soon after intercourse.)

I don't think you're right that it's a false dilemma to say that it's a woman's body. Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous paper on the topic lays out pretty clearly how this works. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm
Which part of that is the false dilemma?

[SR]

Well, the two variables with many abortion arguments rely on the mother (her body) and the procedure itself. The fetus (human person, living human, thing) is conveniently ignored...as is the father.

I am familiar with the acorn and oak paper, but I haven't read it in a decade and a half. I just printed it and will read it again.

And, no, I have no objection to the morning after pill. The convergence of living things att this point in conception does not constitute a human being.

[Hype]

Well, the two variables with many abortion arguments rely on the mother (her body) and the procedure itself. The fetus (human person, living human, thing) is conveniently ignored...as is the father.

I am familiar with the acorn and oak paper, but I haven't read it in a decade and a half. I just printed it and will read it again.

And, no, I have no objection to the morning after pill. The convergence of living things att this point in conception does not constitute a human being.

Ah, I see. Your view is more nuanced than it seemed from the way you presented it at first. JJT's paper provides strong reasons to "ignore" the fetus and anyone else for very specific reasons. This would be the "violinist" objection. Perhaps there are reasons to think her argument breaks down at a certain point, but I don't think it does.

[blackcoffee]

I'm pro-choice. My choice was to have a child, and then another child.

I think as pro-choice people go we can be a little cavalier about the topic in print, media, and conversation in general. I also think that there is something wrong about having 5 abortions. I know a rich, white Southern Californian woman who has (at last count). That is not the poster child I want for my pro choice stance.

I believe in a woman's right to govern and make decisions over her reproductive health.

[Romeo]

Interesting take, smokestack. But now you do understand why it's called "choice". You have a choice to have or not have a termination.

I worked for 12 years for Planned Parenthood. I've seen & heard both sides or all sides of how a woman came to the decision to terminate (or continue, YES women do go to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care) a unintended pregancy. One of my jobs was to help with the decision making process, so that the client had all the information regarding continuation of the pregnancy, the options of adoption and termination. Some women knew what they wanted to do before I met with them, some changed their minds at the last minute. Every decision was met with respect.
With that said this process needs to between the client, their Family, the counselor, the nurse practitioner & the doctor. Not the Senator or Congress Represenative with whom they never met. Nor the Supreme Court. This is a medical decision. Period.

If a woman decides to have 1 or 6 abortions is still no ones business but her's. Her doctor or medical provider should be informing her of the medical complications that can arise from having multi abortions and what it can do when and if she does decide to parent.

[kv]

The government shouldn't control this issue, it should be up to each person. I completely agree with what Biden said last night, that it isn't the governments right to tell a women what to do with her body.

I agree with this. Abortions should be legal and available to anyone who wants one. It is a personal choice.

i agree

i have no problem with people being against abortions and they should have no problem with how i feel. the problem is that they do have a problem with that.

^

[Hype]

Here's an article that backs up a claim I made earlier. If religious pro-lifers were really serious about what it is they actually care about (i.e., lowering the number of abortions overall, rather than say, controlling women's reproductive rights or foisting Victorian era sexuality that NEVER was the norm (see: the spread of syphilis in Victorian era Europe, the ubiquity of mistresses in the moneyed class) onto everyone else), you'd think they'd pay attention to stuff like this: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-10-a ... birth.html

Abortion rates plummet with free birth control
October 4th, 2012 in Obstetrics & gynaecology

Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by 62 percent to 78 percent over the national rate, a new study shows.

The research, by investigators at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, appears online Oct. 4 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Among a range of birth control methods offered in the study, most women chose long-acting methods like intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants, which have lower failure rates than commonly used birth control pills. In the United States, IUDs and implants have high up-front costs that sometimes aren't covered by health insurance, making these methods unaffordable for many women.

"The impact of providing no-cost birth control was far greater than we expected in terms of unintended pregnancies," says lead author Jeff Peipert, MD, the Robert J. Terry Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "We think improving access to birth control, particularly IUDs and implants, coupled with education on the most effective methods has the potential to significantly decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country."

Unintended pregnancies are a major problem in the United States. Each year, about 50 percent of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, far higher than in other developed countries. About half of these pregnancies result from women not using contraception and half from incorrect or irregular use. The Contraceptive Choice Project enrolled 9,256 women and adolescents in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. Participants were 14-45 years of age, at risk for unintended pregnancy, and willing to start a new contraceptive method.

Participants had their choice of birth control methods, ranging from long-acting forms like IUDs and implants to shorter-acting methods such as birth control pills, patches and rings.

The women were counseled about the different methods, including their effectiveness, risks and benefits. The extremely low failure rate (less than 1 percent) of IUDs and implants over that of shorter-acting forms (8 percent to 10 percent) was emphasized. In all, about 75 percent of women in the study chose IUDs or implants.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among study participants ranged from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. This is a substantial drop (62 percent to 78 percent) over the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

The lower abortion rates among CHOICE participants also is considerably less than the rates in St. Louis city and county, which ranged from 13.4 to 17 per 1,000 women, for the same years.

Among girls ages 15-19 who had access to free birth control provided in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

While birth control pills are the most commonly used contraceptive in the United Sates, their effectiveness hinges on women remembering to take a pill every day and having easy access to refills.

In contrast, IUDs and implants are inserted by health-care providers and are effective for 5 to 10 years and 3 years, respectively. Despite their superior effectiveness over short-term methods, only a small percentage of U.S. women using contraception choose these methods. Many can't afford the cost of IUDs and implants, which can cost more than $800 and may not be covered by insurance.

"Unintended pregnancy remains a major health problem in the United States, with higher proportions among teenagers and women with less education and lower economic status," Peipert says. "The results of this study demonstrate that we can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and this is key to reducing abortions in this country."

More information: Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology. Oct. 4, 2012.

Provided by Washington University in St. Louis

"Abortion rates plummet with free birth control." October 4th, 2012. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-10-a ... birth.html

Such data also show that the abortion issue is at least in part an economic (and in America, thus, a racial) issue. By curtailing access to safe abortion while simultaneously preventing access to adequate information about and access to contraception, lawmakers would essentially simply be making life very difficult for the worst off people in the country. Rich people can afford birth control, and can travel to Mexico or Canada to have abortions if they want to, even if it's made illegal. Poor women will continue to be marginalized.

Where is the Christian ethic when it comes to these people?