Men must speak up on abortion debate - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2011, 10:36 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:47 PM
That's so far off base it's not even funny. You're missing my point. All I'm saying is that to me, the only reason this is a "womens" issue is because it incidentally involves a uterus. To me this is an issue of health and privacy and who gets to decide what decisions someone can make about their own health and why. I'd prefer these decisions be left up to those individuals involved and their doctors. Nothing is cut and dry, or black and white. Abortion is hardly the only life/death issue out there where people have to make a call one way or the other. I know people struggling right this very minute with decisions about whether their child is "living" having every breath supported by machines. Unfortunately ordinary people get thrown into these circumstances every day and I just don't think it's appropriate or fair for anyone to judge or have any say in the decision unless they are part of the family or medical support. If someone is against abortions or a doctor is against performing them, it has always been their right to abstain.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 12:59 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Stay away from Peefs peen. He might be all up in yo womb, but he'll have non of that reciprocation.
__________________

__________________
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 08:18 AM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i have a problem with viewing abortion as a "convenience" -- no woman makes that decision lightly as if she's ordering a milkshake.
Thank you.

I've been at a center where women go for these things. Let's just say nobody, NOBODY looked even remotely happy to be there.

At least most of the people there had people with them to lean on, though. I saw one girl sitting in a corner all by herself, looking scared out of her mind. I felt horrible for her. I'm sure the people yelling at everyone outside over the fence probably didn't help matters, either.

There are some instances of women being very callous about this decision, I think, yes, but lightheartedly made it is not.

And I don't disagree with Dalton that we should teach more responsibility related to sex and all the things that result from it. Yes. We should. I've always said that if we actually got serious about tackling all the problems that lead to abortion in the first place, you'd see them continue to happen less and less. Just saying, "Let's ban it!" won't solve anything-women will still have them, and all that does is sweep all the surrounding problems under the rug, where they'll continue to fester and make the situations worse than they already are.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 03:29 PM   #64
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,701
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Where is it even "convenient" to get an abortion these days, anyway? From all I hear, there are fewer and fewer doctors and/or facilities who do it (I think I read 2,000 in the US? That's pretty scary.).

And thanks to all sorts of fun legislation, there are hoops to jump through. You have to wait. You have to be lectured. You have to run around the block 18 times while balancing a ball on your nose or whatever bullshit thing they're going to come up with next.

There are always the arguments that point to an example of a woman having abortions as birth control. Like Dalton so wonderfully said earlier, they like to fuck and don't want to live with the consequences. God, that makes me so mad.

Are there women out there who have had multiple abortions? Probably. Are there some who might actually be cavalier about it? I'm sure you could find a couple, maybe even one who isn't just "a friend of a friend who's cousin knows this one guy who's girlfriend has had 18 abortions in the last two years."

I'm being flippant in my anger, but if someone has numbers about that kind of thing, please bring them up. I'm of course making an assumption that most women who have abortions are not using them as a form of birth control. Because, you know, it's not like buying a milkshake.

Edit: some info on the number of providers in the US:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/c...nclick_check=1

Almost four decades after Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion, one of the big obstacles is access to a trained doctor. One-quarter of California counties and 87 percent of U.S. counties have no known provider.

...

Now only 2 percent of ob-gyns perform half of all abortions. Many are approaching retirement. Others are weary of stigma, threats and violence. The number of providers has declined by 37 percent since 1982.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 03:36 PM   #65
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,701
Local Time: 11:47 AM
By the way, I read an excellent book written by a doctor who is/was an abortion provider. Fascinating and frightening.

Amazon.com: This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor (9781586486471): Susan Wicklund, Alan Kesselheim: Books
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 05:25 PM   #66
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,789
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Thank you.

Also, I'd like to point out that most people on the pro-choice side are NOT "for abortion". That's another gross misconception that I REALLY wish would stop.

Angela
Right. The phrasing implies that all those in favor of choice are also in favor of baby stew. No.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 05:59 PM   #67
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 01:47 PM
I know 3 women who have had abortions (probably more, but 3 that have honestly said so), and at least one of them has had two. All of them chose an abortion because of not wanting a child at the time or not wanting a child with the man who was the father. Their own age was a factor, as was finances. I believe alcohol was involved in at least one of the cases, and a broken condom in another.

I'm glad they were able to make the choice for themselves. That's how I see it. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a very difficult choice for a woman to make, but I feel it is the woman's choice because it is their body. Whatever led to the decision is between the woman and whatever value system she chooses to live by.

My job as a guy is to not have sex with someone I wouldn't want to potentially have a child with. That's the reality. I don't have sympathy for guys that get caught off guard by that.

I speak up on a woman's right to choose by donating money and with my votes. I feel the anti-choice movement is yet another way our male-dominated society works to keep women down.

FWIW
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:31 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
MsPurrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Heartland (Indiana, USA)
Posts: 42,640
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
I know 3 women who have had abortions (probably more, but 3 that have honestly said so), and at least one of them has had two. All of them chose an abortion because of not wanting a child at the time or not wanting a child with the man who was the father. Their own age was a factor, as was finances. I believe alcohol was involved in at least one of the cases, and a broken condom in another.

I'm glad they were able to make the choice for themselves. That's how I see it. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a very difficult choice for a woman to make, but I feel it is the woman's choice because it is their body. Whatever led to the decision is between the woman and whatever value system she chooses to live by.

My job as a guy is to not have sex with someone I wouldn't want to potentially have a child with. That's the reality. I don't have sympathy for guys that get caught off guard by that.

I speak up on a woman's right to choose by donating money and with my votes. I feel the anti-choice movement is yet another way our male-dominated society works to keep women down.

FWIW
Excellent post. And I wish more "men" subscribed to your philosophy:

"My job as a guy is to not have sex with someone I wouldn't want to potentially have a child with."
__________________
MsPurrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:46 PM   #69
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsPurrl View Post
Excellent post. And I wish more "men" subscribed to your philosophy:

"My job as a guy is to not have sex with someone I wouldn't want to potentially have a child with."
It wasn't always easy. That's for sure.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 01:35 AM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 08:47 PM
out of interest, what about things like the morning-after pill - is this readily available/deemed more acceptable in the US?
__________________
mama cass is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 04:38 AM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 01:47 PM
It is available in some places, and is still a viable option that is recommended, but I also have heard stories of places refusing to sell it because of "moral beliefs" and stuff of that nature-even that option still gets some people bothered here, unfortunately. Which is what I don't understand. People are so hellbent on stopping abortion from happening but have a problem with the methods that can be used to do such a thing. I don't get it.

Also, Mark and Cori, excellent posts .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 02:40 PM   #72
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,701
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
...places refusing to sell it because of "moral beliefs"
Oh god, don't even get me started on that. raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 03:31 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 02:47 PM
sort of related, food for thought:



Quote:
Why Monogamy Matters
By ROSS DOUTHAT

Social conservatives can seem like the perennial pessimists of American politics — more comfortable with resignation than with hope, perpetually touting evidence of family breakdown, social disintegration and civilizational decline.

But even doomsayers get the occasional dose of good news. And so it was last week, when a study from the Centers for Disease Control revealed that American teens and 20-somethings are waiting longer to have sex.

In 2002, the study reported, 22 percent of Americans aged 15 to 24 were still virgins. By 2008, that number was up to 28 percent. Other research suggests that this trend may date back decades, and that young Americans have been growing more sexually conservative since the late 1980s.

Why is this good news? Not, it should be emphasized, because it suggests the dawn of some sort of traditionalist utopia, where the only sex is married sex. No such society has ever existed, or ever could: not in 1950s America (where, as the feminist writer Dana Goldstein noted last week, the vast majority of men and women had sex before they married), and not even in Mormon Utah (where Brigham Young University recently suspended a star basketball player for sleeping with his girlfriend).

But there are different kinds of premarital sex. There’s sex that’s actually pre-marital, in the sense that it involves monogamous couples on a path that might lead to matrimony one day. Then there’s sex that’s casual and promiscuous, or just premature and ill considered.

This distinction is crucial to understanding what’s changed in American life since the sexual revolution. Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.

When social conservatives talk about restoring the link between sex, monogamy and marriage, they often have these kinds of realities in mind. The point isn’t that we should aspire to some Arcadia of perfect chastity. Rather, it’s that a high sexual ideal can shape how quickly and casually people pair off, even when they aren’t living up to its exacting demands. The ultimate goal is a sexual culture that makes it easier for young people to achieve romantic happiness — by encouraging them to wait a little longer, choose more carefully and judge their sex lives against a strong moral standard.

This is what’s at stake, for instance, in debates over abstinence-based sex education. Successful abstinence-based programs (yes, they do exist) don’t necessarily make their teenage participants more likely to save themselves for marriage. But they make them more likely to save themselves for somebody, which in turn increases the odds that their adult sexual lives will be a source of joy rather than sorrow.

It’s also what’s at stake in the ongoing battle over whether the federal government should be subsidizing Planned Parenthood. Obviously, social conservatives don’t like seeing their tax dollars flow to an organization that performs roughly 300,000 abortions every year. But they also see Planned Parenthood’s larger worldview — in which teen sexual activity is taken for granted, and the most important judgment to be made about a sexual encounter is whether it’s clinically “safe” — as the enemy of the kind of sexual idealism they’re trying to restore.

Liberals argue, not unreasonably, that Planned Parenthood’s approach is tailored to the gritty realities of teenage sexuality. But realism can blur into cynicism, and a jaded attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social conservatives look at the contemporary sexual landscape and remember that it wasn’t always thus, and they look at current trends and hope that it doesn’t have to be this way forever.

In this sense, despite their instinctive gloominess, they’re actually the optimists in the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/op...=1&ref=opinion
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 05:01 PM   #74
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
But there are different kinds of premarital sex. There’s sex that’s actually pre-marital, in the sense that it involves monogamous couples on a path that might lead to matrimony one day. Then there’s sex that’s casual and promiscuous, or just premature and ill considered.
That seems awfully simplistic. It's either sex in a relationship headed towards marriage, or it's casual and promiscuous sex?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 05:09 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I also have heard stories of places refusing to sell it because of "moral beliefs"
i can't believe that isn't a crime for pharmacies and doctors to not offer something like that just because they don't feel like it.
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com