well all things considered

[blakagant]

Agree with you spec, one of the many things which i am happy Australia isn't fussed about. I'm also of the opinion that American politics is weird to me. I really dont understand why everyone gets worked up about it.

[Seastallion]

@Spec8472

I think the part that you are missing, is the part of personal responsibility. As some people are fond of saying, "actions have consequences", and if people aren't ready for kids, then they should act responsibly and not get themselves into situations where they might very well end up with that consequence. If a person absolutely doesn't want kids EVER, they should get themselves 'fixed', then they don't have to worry about it. Or at the very least use multiple methods to prevent pregnancy, if they know they are going to engage in behavior that could lead to it. That isn't unreasonable.

In addition you have groups such as Planned Parenthood that have actually proposed using abortions to select things like gender, if the parent finds out they aren't carrying the gender they'd prefer. Or groups that advocate abortion no matter how late term it is. I've seen moderately graphic depictions of the abortion process (at about 20 weeks), and quite frankly it is sick. I consider myself to have a reasonably strong stomach, and I felt rather sick, even with drawings that weren't THAT graphic. The whole process is quite ghastly and disturbing.

Also the argument is about whether unborn children have any rights themselves. Abortion laws would seem to indicate they don't, yet people can be prosecuted for murder if they assault a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, regardless of the stage of development. That would seem to indicate that the unborn DO have rights. It is a kind of double standard. The mother can kill her own child (or hire another to do it), but no one else can without being liable for the charge of murder. When "life begins" is a murky topic, that depends on an individual's views, but it is at the heart of the debate. I personally think life begins at conception, and I think arguments to the contrary are basically just excuses. But that is me. There were some that tried to convince my mom to abort me... As an almost abortion victim, I say "Thank God she didn't listen..."

Still, there are cases where abortion may very well be preferable. I don't discount those cases, but those cases aren't nearly as numerous as some would have people believe. Also, Abortions have dangers for the mothers themselves as well. They have been known to cause complications in later pregnancies, as well as an increased suicide risk, statistically.

Again, I agree with Fel, it should be Safe, legal, and RARE.

[GBLW]

Then there's the other extreme view on abortion by a strongly religious country such as Northern Ireland where they refuse to perform an abortion as long as there is a foetal heartbeat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

I my opinion that instance is nothing less than murder of both the mother and the unborn child.

[Bester]

@Seastallion

That is the other side of it; does a conceived fetus count as a sentient being so that the termination would count as murder. That is a side I can see to a certain point, though I don't necessarily agree with it. Up to a certain extent (which I personally consider mid-to-late pregnancy), I think that it is a biological process that has the potential to become a sentient child. So is the sperm, and so is the egg. In my mind a similar argument that you could be similarly considered would be that not having unprotected sex would result in the death of a child on the basis that the sperm was never given opportunity to fertilize the egg; heck, from my understanding of the Catholic viewpoint (which admittedly might be mistaken, as I am not that familiar with Catholicism) that is their argument against birth control. So where do you step off of that slippery slope? In my opinion, the government has no business getting on the slippery slope; that is a moral/religious decision between the potential mother and whatever/whoever she believes in. Again, when in doubt, the government should never be involved.

As to personal responsibility, I addressed that in my previous post. Given the disgraceful state of education on the subject (which is by a large part driven by the more extreme of the anti-abortion group), I think this is hypocritical. Also, again, the support mechanisms of society for these people affected needs to be looked at and drastically improved. I will say that I don't hold much sympathy for grown adults that fall into these traps, but I don't think they make up a significant portion of the problem.

As to the Planned Parenthood selective abortion thing, I have to admit that I had not heard of this before. When I did some quick Googling to familiarize myself, I found that most of it seems to sting from a 'sting' video from an anti-abortion group. Several things about this, with the caveat that I haven't been able to watch the video in question (at work) and so am basing this off of the descriptions and articles describing it:

A) As a rule, I take political 'sting' videos like this with a large grain of salt. If you are using a hidden camera, and go in with an agenda, you can make the innocent seem diabolically evil. That is even without selective editing (which, again since I didn't actually watch the video, I don't know if they did or not). Michael Moore has made a career out of this on the other side of the fence, and I hold him in just as much contempt.

B) Taking an entry level worker anywhere, ambush him with a hidden camera and an agenda, fluster him, and watch what comes out. Chances are it won't be flattering to the organization. I could go out and ambush an entry-level worker in my company and chances are that I can get him to say things that would infer we routinely committed mass murder, despite being in the food production industry. At least have the decency to ambush someone that actually knows what they are talking about, like a supervisor or a manager, that would actually have a realistic chance of presenting an accurate side of the organizations views; unfortunately, the people that do this don't want that realistic view, they want to find something so out of context that they can use it to flash across national news and vilify.

C) Planned Parenthood, as soon as they saw this, immediately fired the worker in question and sent in a cleanup crew to retrain everyone in that location. Those are not the actions of an organization that supports this sort of thing. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood has been in the cross hairs since their start, and they have no qualms about standing behind and defending a position that they do support; if PP did support this position, they would have defended it.

Between those things, I think that the idea that Planned Parenthood supports selective gender abortions is a fairly base misrepresentation/lie, if not outright libel (IANAL, though, so take that with the appropriate grain of salt).

There is, amongst the most vocal of the First Amendment defenders a saying that the answer to evil speech isn't censorship, it is more speech. That is a way to say that even though it is intuitive to want to silence speech you consider wrong or evil, it is both more effective and more moral to counter it with more speech. Speech that is censored becomes martyred, and develops supporters, while speech that is ridiculed as idiotic tends to die away on its own with a lot less ongoing ramifications. That argument has certain similarities with the subject of abortion IMHO. The way to minimize abortion isn't to try and eliminate it or outlaw it, the way is eliminate the need for it. No one wakes up and thinks "I want to have an abortion today," or "I want to perform an abortion today," or "I want to convince someone to have an abortion today." All of those things happen, regretfully for the person involved, as what they see is the best thing to do in the situation. Even the most vociferous pro-choice advocates don't want more abortions to happen; they just want the option available for the darkest circumstances where it is (as they see it) needed. From my understanding Planned Parenthood (despite the vilification they receive by the right) spends the vast majority of their efforts on counseling and avoidance of abortions; as an organization, my understanding is that they look at it as a necessary evil that someone needs to be willing to do. As Fel best puts it, "safe, legal, and rare." That is a four word summary that I think everyone pro-choice can agree with.

I sympathize about your almost-abortion, but without knowing the situation she was in I really can't speak to that. Obviously, she decided against that, and that is a good thing. I, and just about everyone else that believes in pro-choice, hopes that in virtually all cases the mothers will decide not to abort. The more we can properly educate and support and have not needing to go that route, the healthier our society will be, IMHO.

[kd7mvs]

The Pro-Life folks need to go one step further, to Pro-Quality-of-Life. Proper pre and neo-natal care, affordable childcare, all sorts of stuff to provide the best environment for the nurture of loving people; it's all fine and dandy to say no abortions, but if one argues the sanctity of life one needs to belly up to the bar and show concern for what kind of a life it is. To say "I chose life" should be a major commitment of one's resources to insure it's a good life.

[ettoren]

Welcome to the new/old system, J-man.

And btw, I agree with a lot of what you put up there. I belong to no party because no party wants me. I'm a fiscal conservative with moderate leanings, so the democrats hate me because I think that welfare should have a hard cap and anyone on welfare should be forced to report to a work center and sit at a table for 8 hours a day to get that welfare if there's no work available picking up trash or digging ditches. But, I'm also a social moderate with libertarian leanings, which means the Republicans think I'm the antichrist because I believe that I have no right to enforce my personal beliefs on others.

This is what pisses me off more about the Republicans than anything else. To me, anyone who votes based on their religion with the intent of forcing others to adhere to their beliefs are no better than the Taliban or Al Qaeda. It's political terrorism carried out with a ballot, not a bomb. Those who say they believe that America has freedom of religion and then turn around and try to make everyone conform to THEIR religion are the darkest and most sinister kind of hypocrite ever devised. Jesus warned his followers not to get involved in politics, "render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's." This was a stern warning that no Christian should try to use their religion as a battering ram in a political venue. As a Christian, albeit a nearly heretical one by most other Christian's measurements, I am of the firm and enduring belief that religion has no place in law, and one can uphold the law while objecting to it on religious grounds. That is the very essence of what "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of religion" meants to me at the deepest level.

Do I like abortion? Hell no. I think that it should not be a form of birth control, that it should ONLY be used in the events of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Safe, legal, and RARE is my view. But do I try to change the law to make others conform to my moral belief? Hell no. Abortion, in my opinion, is legal under our Constitution, and while I don't like how some women are using that right, I will uphold their right to have access to it.

Both George Washington and Alexander Hamilton PLEADED with the people not to form political parties. The one time we should have listened to them, greed overtook common sense, and we're paying for it some 200+ years later.

Sums up my political and religious feelings quite well. Law is the law, Religion is Religion. Never the two shall meet. I'm not happy Obama got re-elected but I'm a whole lot happier that nutcase Romney didn't win.

[Seastallion]

That is the other side of it; does a conceived fetus count as a sentient being so that the termination would count as murder. That is a side I can see to a certain point, though I don't necessarily agree with it. Up to a certain extent (which I personally consider mid-to-late pregnancy), I think that it is a biological process that has the potential to become a sentient child.

It can be, and IS argued that sentience is NOT a factor. Animal Rights activist would certainly make that argument, and they have, when going after people that have collected eggs of endangered species. Those people had said, "well I didn't kill any of that endangered species, I just took some eggs, which aren't said species". To which the Activists would argue, "Well, they're GOING to be..!" I'm not saying that humans are an endangered species, but the substance of the argument is the same. The moment of conception, is the ONLY point at which autonomous development begins of a distinguishable life form. It is true the mother is a 'life-support' apparatus of sorts (looking at things clinically), but the unborn child is NOT an extension of the woman's own biology, it is an autonomous organism that is dependent in its early stages. The same is true of EVERY unborn life-form, including those that develop in egg shells. If a chicken or turtle didn't do the appropriate things to ensure the survival of their offspring, after laying their eggs, they could arguably be said to have effectively 'aborted' them. I admit, that almost sounds ridiculous, but it IS true.

So is the sperm, and so is the egg. In my mind a similar argument that you could be similarly considered would be that not having unprotected sex would result in the death of a child on the basis that the sperm was never given opportunity to fertilize the egg; heck, from my understanding of the Catholic viewpoint (which admittedly might be mistaken, as I am not that familiar with Catholicism) that is their argument against birth control. So where do you step off of that slippery slope? In my opinion, the government has no business getting on the slippery slope; that is a moral/religious decision between the potential mother and whatever/whoever she believes in. Again, when in doubt, the government should never be involved.

I'm not Catholic, so I won't make their arguments for them. However, it has always been MY understanding that LIFE begins at conception and at NO other time. Sperm and eggs, of their own individual accord, do NOT have the capacity to develop into anything other than what they are. Alone they are only HALF of the equation necessary to perpetuate life, and therefore can't be considered 'alive' on their own. They will not grow, develop, or do anything that would meet the generally understood conditions for life. A fertilized Embryo DOES, and it does so instantly at conception. My understanding of Catholic objections to birth control is that it stems primarily from methods which kill an already fertilized egg, and also (in part) the whole sex outside of marriage thing. There are contraceptive methods that can get around the first part of that objection. As to the second part, that is none of the Catholic church's business.

As to personal responsibility, I addressed that in my previous post. Given the disgraceful state of education on the subject (which is by a large part driven by the more extreme of the anti-abortion group), I think this is hypocritical. Also, again, the support mechanisms of society for these people affected needs to be looked at and drastically improved. I will say that I don't hold much sympathy for grown adults that fall into these traps, but I don't think they make up a significant portion of the problem.

I don't think there is ANYONE of potentially child bearing age that hasn't heard of contraceptives from SOMEWHERE. Even if someone hasn't gone to some special class, the topic is discussed so much in media programming, that just about everyone has SOME idea about them. People have generally heard of contraceptives, even if it is only amidst whispered giggles of immature reference, ridiculous as that may be.

It is true that peer and societal pressures can cause people (young and old) to make poor choices, but that isn't a very good excuse in and of itself. Someone pressured to steal a car, or do drugs, (or whatever) all must face the consequences of their choices. Causing the death of someone (even unborn), ought not to be any different. Using abortion as a waiver from consequence, without any other penalties applied, simply perpetuates irresponsible behavior. I ABSOLUTELY agree, that males get off TOO easily on this. The consequences shouldn't belong to the woman alone. It takes TWO to bring about the consequence, so TWO should be held accountable for their actions. Is this not the same reason that dead-beat dads are considered so abominable? Because they don't take responsibility?

I'm not saying that such irresponsible people should go to jail or something, but there DOES need to some kind of mechanism in place that impresses upon them the gravity of their actions. To be perfectly honest, I think that the study of action and consequence should be a REQUIRED ongoing course in schools (from Elementary to High School), that keeps a consistent "in your face" presentations about the importance of personal responsibility, civic duty, and risk analysis in life choices. I think THAT would probably help with MANY of the ills that plague society, and NOT just abortions. Young people are consistently make poor choices that are not in their best interests due to peer and societal pressures, to do and act in ways that aren't beneficial to themselves or society as a whole.

I recognize that economic and social factors do play a part in the ability of many people to succeed and make wise choices, but it has been proven time and again, that people CAN rise above those things. It isn't easy, but it can be done, and there are those that do it all the time. The problem is that too many don't believe they can, and so allow themselves to be pulled into situations that they KNOW isn't a good idea. Part of the problem is that sometimes people are of the notion that things can't get any worse, when in fact, they can.

For me, abortion is a SYMPTOM of societal problems, not the disease. If people were educated about making proper choices (NOT about contraception per se), then I think it would help. The problem isn't not knowing about choices, the problem is not understanding the need to make GOOD choices, and why. Too many people (the young particularly) live like there ARE no consequences, and think that life is just one big party. Yeah, I suppose I'm being the stick in the mud, but I believe people act irresponsibly because they were irresponsibly raised.

As to the Planned Parenthood selective abortion thing

Putting aside the various arguments over Planned Parenthood, I'll just say that there is little doubt that they push abortion as a casual option, and they get a considerable amount of there revenue from abortions. The percentage of the funding they get from abortions varies depending on who you ask, but it is well over a $150 Million dollars per year. They are hardly an unbiased faction on the issue. In addition, they have openly stated that they will support abortions with little to no discrimination of the circumstances.

There is, amongst the most vocal of the First Amendment defenders a saying that the answer to evil speech isn't censorship, it is more speech. That is a way to say that even though it is intuitive to want to silence speech you consider wrong or evil, it is both more effective and more moral to counter it with more speech. Speech that is censored becomes martyred, and develops supporters, while speech that is ridiculed as idiotic tends to die away on its own with a lot less ongoing ramifications. That argument has certain similarities with the subject of abortion IMHO. The way to minimize abortion isn't to try and eliminate it or outlaw it, the way is eliminate the need for it. No one wakes up and thinks "I want to have an abortion today," or "I want to perform an abortion today," or "I want to convince someone to have an abortion today." All of those things happen, regretfully for the person involved, as what they see is the best thing to do in the situation. Even the most vociferous pro-choice advocates don't want more abortions to happen; they just want the option available for the darkest circumstances where it is (as they see it) needed. From my understanding Planned Parenthood (despite the vilification they receive by the right) spends the vast majority of their efforts on counseling and avoidance of abortions; as an organization, my understanding is that they look at it as a necessary evil that someone needs to be willing to do. As Fel best puts it, "safe, legal, and rare." That is a four word summary that I think everyone pro-choice can agree with.

I think my earlier point about the need for education about Personal Responsibility, Civic Duty, and Risk Analysis of Life Choices from grade school to high school, covers this generally. I think education on contraception is less of an issue than the other I mentioned, in terms of effective life skills. To be clear, there ARE factions that DO think that abortions are safer and preferable to childbirth. That is not at all a proven idea, and in fact there is plenty of data that points to the precise contrary.

However, I DO think, that most reasonable people DO agree with the idea of "safe, legal, and rare" where abortion is concerned...

I sympathize about your almost-abortion, but without knowing the situation she was in I really can't speak to that. Obviously, she decided against that, and that is a good thing. I, and just about everyone else that believes in pro-choice, hopes that in virtually all cases the mothers will decide not to abort. The more we can properly educate and support and have not needing to go that route, the healthier our society will be, IMHO.

My own 'almost-abortion' WAS in fact argued as a matter of convenience. My mother didn't think it was a good enough reason, and resisted those trying to persuade her. Lucky me...

[Bester]

First of all, let me say that is nice to have a debate on something as touchy and controversial as abortion without it quickly devolving into Godwin territory.

That said, we can quibble more and I don't think that you are going to convince me of anything further, I don't think that I'm going to convince you of anything further, and everyone else is probably rolling their eyes. Since this isn't really a good forum for these discussions, and to make sure that neither of us offends anyone, I'm going to leave this as it stands. I think we both made good points, and hopefully it caused everyone to think a little.

[Seastallion]

Agreed, my friend..!

I've always believed it is more than possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[GBLW]

Then there's the other extreme view on abortion by a strongly religious country such as Northern Ireland where they refuse to perform an abortion as long as there is a foetal heartbeat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

I my opinion that instance is nothing less than murder of both the mother and the unborn child.

It seems that after the foetus finally died, the doctors did perform the abortion, only by that time the woman was already dying of blood poisoning.

Since the foetus hadn't drawn a breath, it can't legally be regarded as a viable life, so I'd let the murder charge slide on that count, but I'd like to see the doctors, the hospital, and the government all charged with the murder of the dead woman. Of course that's an idealistic wish which could never come true, but if there ever was a time when an abortion should have been performed, I see this as one.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a person who is out to see abortion as a common method of birth control, but I do think this was a travesty of justice. In other words I think there are cases where abortion is a viable choice, not just for the woman, but for society as a whole. BTW I'm not out to provoke debate, I'm just expressing my opinion and I will not respond or argue the point.

[Spec8472]

@Spec8472

I think the part that you are missing, is the part of personal responsibility. As some people are fond of saying, "actions have consequences", and if people aren't ready for kids, then they should act responsibly and not get themselves into situations where they might very well end up with that consequence.

Suggesting that you (or anyone else) knows all the possible circumstances leading to pregnancy and that you can declare just a few reasons as a legitimate cause for termination is preposterous. Even if you could - to permit others to control the body of another is enabling virtual slavery.

In places where abortion is illegal for whatever reason, women must go outside the health system to obtain 'back yard' abortions. These back yard abortions carry a massive risk to the woman's life, and there's virtually no way to stop them occurring.

Consider everything involve in carrying a pregnancy to term, and then giving birth to a child. There's months of carrying the child, loss of wages, diminished or altered social life, physical discomfort and pain, and a huge amount of mental distress. Plus there's the long term effects on the woman's body, and the need to either give the child up for adoption or raise it.

What I'm trying to get across, and I really want to make it clear here - there's a truely vast number of side effects to a decision to ban or limit the availability abortions.

I do believe people should be responsible for their actions. However not all actions have a permanent life changing effects. Life is full of mistakes; Where we can, we work to mitigate their ongoing impacts to ourselves and others. Banning sex except for reproduction is simply not going to work, we've proven that many times over. People will have sex, and even with protection, unintended pregnancies will occur.

If a person absolutely doesn't want kids EVER, they should get themselves 'fixed', then they don't have to worry about it. Or at the very least use multiple methods to prevent pregnancy, if they know they are going to engage in behavior that could lead to it. That isn't unreasonable.

Yes, it is unreasonable.
As for getting yourself 'fixed' - that too is not completely effective. Even using multiple forms of protection, which few will do, are not effective.

Abortions have dangers for the mothers themselves as well.

Yes, but it's not too far from the dangers for childbirth either.

Total deaths within 12 months of termination of a pregnancy, where there were pregnancy related causes: 1294.
Pregnancy-related mortality rate: 15.1 per 100,000 live births. Total live births: 4,317,119. This gives ~651 deaths.
(2007 figures, from CDC.gov)

Unfortunately it doesn't go into the causes of the 1294 deaths. It's not unreasonable to think a number of these were from backyard abortions in places where abortions are illegal or restricted.

[Seastallion]

Suggesting that you (or anyone else) knows all the possible circumstances leading to pregnancy and that you can declare just a few reasons as a legitimate cause for termination is preposterous. Even if you could - to permit others to control the body of another is enabling virtual slavery.

I would NOT suggest that I know EVERY possible scenario that could lead to a pregnancy. That is ridiculous, if only because life can sometimes be stranger than fiction. However, that being said, life scenarios GENERALLY tend to follow certain predictable patterns. The vast majority of unintended pregnancies CAN be prevented with proper decision making concerning life choices. Sure, you'll have a small handful of cases where you have bizarre factors at work, but generally, it is just a 'normal' case of bad choices.

In addition, no one is suggesting 'controlling' anyone, outside of normal societal controls of education (my earlier mention of instituting required Personal Responsibility courses in school), and the realization of individuals considering their own self interests when making life choices. If people (young and old, but young in particular) would just stop and THINK about the consequences of their actions, that ALONE would limit bad life choices, which would in turn reduce unwanted pregnancies.

In places where abortion is illegal for whatever reason, women must go outside the health system to obtain 'back yard' abortions. These back yard abortions carry a massive risk to the woman's life, and there's virtually no way to stop them occurring.

Okay. No disagreement here, EXCEPT that the U.S. does have legal abortions, and it isn't going anywhere. Anyone suggesting otherwise is off their rocker. Maybe it is a bit parochial of me, but I'm not as concerned about how other countries address their own issues. Sure I hope those other countries make good choices, but I'm more concerned with the welfare of my own nation first.

Consider everything involve in carrying a pregnancy to term, and then giving birth to a child. There's months of carrying the child, loss of wages, diminished or altered social life, physical discomfort and pain, and a huge amount of mental distress. Plus there's the long term effects on the woman's body, and the need to either give the child up for adoption or raise it.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that pregnancy is ever easy. That would just be silly (or stupid) to do so. The reasons you state are precisely why only ADULTS should be having kids. It is precisely why it should be made ABUNDANTLY clear to teens that there are DEVASTATING consequences to poor life choices. Poor behavior results in poor results. Period.

Abortion is available, yes, but it should NOT simply be a waiver for poor choices. Such people that find abortions necessary because of poor choices should be required to go to remedial classes on Personal Responsibility. The purpose of the class wouldn't really be a punishment, it would be an opportunity for people to reassess the path their lives are taking. A time where they HAVE to confront their own poor choices, rather than ignore them. Then, hopefully, they will do something about it, if they have any sense.

What I'm trying to get across, and I really want to make it clear here - there's a truely vast number of side effects to a decision to ban or limit the availability abortions.

Again, abortion isn't going anywhere in this country. Kind of a non-issue here... I'm stressing the need for education. NOT about contraceptives (that information is EASILY gotten), but about how to make good choices, because quite frankly, too many parents these days AREN'T raising their kids to do so. We're living in a time where Parental Responsibility is either being taken lightly or completely ignored.

I do believe people should be responsible for their actions. However not all actions have a permanent life changing effects. Life is full of mistakes; Where we can, we work to mitigate their ongoing impacts to ourselves and others. Banning sex except for reproduction is simply not going to work, we've proven that many times over. People will have sex, and even with protection, unintended pregnancies will occur.

No one is suggesting that ALL mistakes are life altering. Clearly they aren't. I agree, life IS full of mistakes. That is part of being human. However, SOME mistakes ARE life altering. I have a sister who had an unintended teen pregnancy. She chose to have my nephew and raise him, and she loves him very much. She was fortunate to have an understanding mother that was there to help her out, and she has still been able to pursue some of her own interests. In addition my nephew shares some of her interests, so it helps for making some happy memories between them. I am well aware not everyone in such situations are so lucky as she, and I am grateful for her sake in that regard.

I don't think my sister would change having her son for anything, but I don't doubt that she wishes she had made some better choices for herself either. We all have regrets about better choices we could have made. Learning how to make good choices is critical for people to choosing good paths for their lives to lead. The problem is NOT that people don't have choices in this country (some would argue there are too many), rather, the problem is that too many people don't know HOW to make good choices, or at least don't realize the importance of making them.

----If a person absolutely doesn't want kids EVER, they should get themselves 'fixed', then they don't have to worry about it. Or at the very least use multiple methods to prevent pregnancy, if they know they are going to engage in behavior that could lead to it. That isn't unreasonable.-----

Yes, it is unreasonable.
As for getting yourself 'fixed' - that too is not completely effective. Even using multiple forms of protection, which few will do, are not effective.

How is that unreasonable? People have to get insurance to drive cars, so why should they not have to take proper precautions before having sex? Or are we just saying, "go ahead, get pregnant, because you can just get an abortion, and everything will be okay again. No harm, no foul. It's not like a life was ended..."

If your referring to vasectomies, so long as they are done properly, then they are VERY effective. Follow up checks, and complete discharge of remaining sperm (within a few months after the procedure) ensures the effectiveness. So long as it is done properly it is extremely rare for their to be failures. The same is true of women getting their tubes tied. Yes, there is the extremely rare occasion where someone still manages to get pregnant, but it IS rare.

If people are refusing to use protection, then is that not poor decision making? A sexually active woman that doesn't want to get pregnant SHOULD be using birth control on a regular basis (like the 'pill'), and any guy she's having sex with OUGHT to be using condoms if only to prevent STD's, pregnancy aside. Yes, there are cases where either of those can fail, but for the most part, if your using both, the odds of pregnancy goes down a VERY great deal.

Will their always be exceptions? Sure, but that doesn't stop society from reducing risks and having an overall effect on the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. The key to doing that? MAKING GOOD LIFE CHOICES...

------Abortions have dangers for the mothers themselves as well.------

Yes, but it's not too far from the dangers for childbirth either.

Total deaths within 12 months of termination of a pregnancy, where there were pregnancy related causes: 1294.
Pregnancy-related mortality rate: 15.1 per 100,000 live births. Total live births: 4,317,119. This gives ~651 deaths.
(2007 figures, from CDC.gov)

Unfortunately it doesn't go into the causes of the 1294 deaths. It's not unreasonable to think a number of these were from backyard abortions in places where abortions are illegal or restricted.

If those numbers your are citing are from the U.S. then it IS unreasonable to think that any significant percentage of those are coming from 'places where abortions are illegal or restricted'. Abortion IS legal in the U.S., and even if there is an obstacle in one state, one can very easily cross state lines to get around it.

[nicolai]

An interesting thread, here.

On abortion, my own opinion is that, as a man, I have no real say in the matter. It is a subject for the pregnant woman and her doctor to decide. The father, and other family members on both sides, should only be involved when she decides to allow it.

On the election, I am terribly disappointed. I have been voting for 40 years now, and this ballot was, by far, the most abysmal I have ever seen. It literally turned my stomach to have to choose among the names listed. There was not one, not a single one, that I would vote for, even for as minor a position as freshman class president. And I had to choose who was going to be the leader of our country.

And, as a friend of mine has noted, even if you choose the lesser of evils, you are still choosing evil.

Romney or Obama, or one of the minor also-rans who won't even be acknowledged in the media, it didn't really matter. Once they're in office, you have to look at the label to distinguish between them. Which is even more true when you look at either house of Congress.

Just to give everyone an idea of how I feel, I will present my beliefs on two of the touch-stone issues in this country. I am, obviously, pro-abortion, or pro-choice if you want to be politically correct. See my signature for my opinion on that. I am also, very strongly, pro-gun. The first stance is tending toward strongly Democratic, at least according to their platform. The second is even more strongly Republican. Personally, I see no conflict there. Both of these are examples of individual liberty, and are areas that the politicians have no business sticking their noses into.

I used to describe myself as a Libertarian, but that party has disintegrated into a minor splinter that is simply hanging on with essentially no chance of ever gaining any power. Sad, they were one of the best options we had.

To me, government is best described by a quote from Robert Heinlein:

Keep a government small and weak and it is an excellent servant. Let it get strong, and it becomes a terrible master.

The exact same thing can be said about fire.

[Fel]

Yes, Nicolai, this is an interesting thread.

I've enjoyed reading it, and I've enjoyed how civil everyone is being while discussing such charged, and often personal, topics.

I just wanted to chime in and ask that things please REMAIN civil, since people are starting to quote and reply to each other's posts. As long as we maintain this level of civility and intelligent discourse, continue to discuss away.

But the instant I think it's starting to turn personal or get a little unfriendly, I'm going to lock it.

Note that I'm not being accusatory in the slightest, guys. Nobody's said a single thing that I would think is out of line, and I'm VERY impressed at how mature you guys are discussing these sensitive issues. I just want to make sure it STAYS that way.

[Griffinmane]

Fel, with all due respect (and your stories have earned you a lot of respect from me!) I thing the racism your attributing to the TEA party is a regional thing. I grew up in Ohio and my grandmother was raised in WV and I heard plenty about how racist and 'hillbilly' people from WV were. Of course there was plenty of racism to be heard in Ohio as well. Now hillbillies are called red necks and white trash and other racist types of remarks (which I also think is being racist.)

I attended one of the early TEA party rallies in Joliet IL, which is just outside Chicago. Most of the signs had to do with stopping spending and government irresponsibility and how we felt we weren't being represented those elected. Plenty about Obamacare as well, and this was before it was passed. The crowd was predominantly white. However the crowd was very accepting of an no-whites and everyone was in high spirits because we were all among those who felt the same. We were mostly upset about how Obama and Bush for that matter had raised the national debt from $3 trillion to $6 trillion under Bush in 8 years, and then Obama doubled the national debt in a few short months with these stupid bailouts that didn't appear to have much effect.

The T.E.A. party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Some of the entertainers at this event were black. One black singer I remember was cheered just as much as all the whites. I've been told by many that the TEA party is racist and I've been quite confused about it and I blame the liberal media. I saw the coverage of the TEA party rally I attended. While there I asked a police officer of his opinion of how many were there. He said there were about 150,000 people and there were so many trying to gain entrance that they had to shut down access to the site because is was blocking the highway. The news that night said there were about 10,000 there and really down played it.

I can't honestly say of course that the party hasn't since been highjacked and corrupted, but at least at the beginning it wasn't. Perot's Reform party was also corrupted be established politicians. I remember Pat Buchanan ran under the reform party ticket, so I know it happens.

Just by 2 cents.