I don't think abortion should be "post-sex contraception"

[Zormingash]

First off, i'm pro abortion. I think it's a woman's decision whether to have one or not. If a woman is raped, they are entirely justified in having an abortion. There is no discussion about that. I also think it IS killing, since i find all that talk about the precise moment when the feotus suddently happens to become human to be PC crap that dances around the issue ("it has developped XY body parts, now it's alive!" , "it was ejected from the birth canal, so now it's alive !"). But i still think it should completely be free and legal, and treated like other medical procedures, including being covered by healthcare, etc.

What prompted me to start this threat is a discussion about contraception with my young cousin, who said at the end "well doesn't matter if the condom breaks, ill just have an abortion" (by the way, i know the "condoms break ALL THE TIME" myth is bs, which i told her, but she seems to believe it). I've heard that a few times here and there.

Everyone has a different view of abortion and the moral standing of it, but i really do think that thinking of it as a "second line of contraception" is a problem.


I don't think it's a legal issue at all - abortion should be free and legal. I also don't think there should be a taboo on having an abortion as if it's something to be ashamed of. But i do think there is a growing cultural perception, coupled with the age people start having sex lowering year after year, that makes abortion be seen as the "easy way out" : "why use protection, i can just have an abortion !" Especially amongst teenagers.

Having an abortion is a big deal. I don't know how others see the state of the embryo/feotus but i humbly think that it's more than a simple parasite to be disposed of. It shouldn't be done lightly.

Anywho, this has been on my mind.

[rowan]

*yawn* We've discussed this a bajillion times already.

Boring.

i really do think that thinking of it as a "second line of contraception" is a problem.

At least she's not using it for first line defense, eh?

I don't know how others see the state of the embryo/feotus but i humbly think that it's more than a simple parasite to be disposed of.

I think you don't understand the horrible effects pregnancy has on a woman. Also, you're not really being "humble" about it here, by judging other people.

[Aum]

How women decide to frame an abortion when they decide to get one is their own business. If they frame it as contraception then there's not much anyone can do about that. Besides, if abortion is included in their pregnancy prevention plans, then I would say that yes indeed it counts as a form of contraception, just like the morning-after pill would be.

[monk]

The main problem with entertaining discussions like these is that it gives room for asshats like this to slippery slope radical legislation.

Apparently in cases of violent rape women have some magical way to self abort and prevent pregnancy.

Do we all need to move to Missouri and vote for Claire McCaskill?

[lillerina]

Hey, you know what's heaps of fun, so much so that I do it recreationally? Having a serious medical procedure.

If you're pro-choice, you're pro-choice. Not pro-choice as long as the pregnant person* is sufficiently virtuous/can prove that xie did enough to prevent pregnancy/isn't a person of whom you disapprove.

*not every person who gets pregnant and doesn't want to be identifies as a woman or prefers female pronouns

[Zormingash]

The main problem with entertaining discussions like these is that it gives room for asshats like this to slippery slope radical legislation.

Apparently in cases of violent rape women have some magical way to self abort and prevent pregnancy.

Do we all need to move to Missouri and vote for Claire McCaskill?

I don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument in discussions. People say we shouldn't talk about weed legislation because it will lead to legalizing 14 year olds using crystal meth, or that we shouldn't talk about gay rights because it will lead to man/dog marriages.

I can't believe how insane everyone went over that Todd Akin story. First, who cares what that one guy says ? He's one asshat in the House, there's, what, 250 other Republicans there ? In any group of 250 people (no matter the group), you can find a bunch ofcrazy shitheads. Heck i'm pretty sure i could find one in my family or yours.

His words have no effect on anything. If he said he would vote to legalize rape or something like that, it could matter, but a crazy asshole saying something crazy is not news. And it's certainly not worth the attention it gets from the media.

Also having a stupid crazy position on one (although important) subject does not make someone a bad person or a bad Senator. People are more complicated than that. I disagreed with Christopher Hitchens' (RIP) comments on "why women are not funny", but i still think he was an amazing person.

[Zormingash]

Hey, you know what's heaps of fun, so much so that I do it recreationally? Having a serious medical procedure.

If you're pro-choice, you're pro-choice. Not pro-choice as long as the pregnant person* is sufficiently virtuous/can prove that xie did enough to prevent pregnancy/isn't a person of whom you disapprove.

*not every person who gets pregnant and doesn't want to be identifies as a woman or prefers female pronouns

for the "*" part, i can't believe how far this trend to be sure not to ever offend anyone ever has gone, that you can't use words like "he" or "she".

[anonymousrabbit]

First off, i'm pro abortion. I think it's a woman's decision whether to have one or not. If a woman is raped, they are entirely justified in having an abortion. There is no discussion about that.

Cool.

Everyone has a different view of abortion and the moral standing of it, but i really do think that thinking of it as a "second line of contraception" is a problem.

Noted. So you won't either get pregnant and feel this way, and/or get anyone else pregnant who feels this way.

What else do you want us to say about this? Also, since this discussion really only seems to apply to your personal sexuality, and your rights are not in any way being limited by the topic of this discussion, I fail to see how this fits into "feminism"; maybe this thread should have been in "ranting" instead?

[Neko]

If you're pro-choice, you're pro-choice. Not pro-choice as long as the pregnant person* is sufficiently virtuous/can prove that xie did enough to prevent pregnancy/isn't a person of whom you disapprove.

*not every person who gets pregnant and doesn't want to be identifies as a woman or prefers female pronouns

for the "*" part, i can't believe how far this trend to be sure not to ever offend anyone ever has gone, that you can't use words like "he" or "she".

It's not about avoiding to offend people. It's about including trans* people in the discussion rather than using traditionally heteronormative language that passively excludes them. You're not going to be jumped on if you don't adopt gender neutral pronouns--like xie--but since we're talking about pregnancy, what lillerina said holds truth: Not everyone who gets pregnant is a woman.

This isn't a point that needs to be argued, though. Unless you really want to make a separate thread about it.

[octarineoboe]

Do we all need to move to Missouri and vote for Claire McCaskill?

I don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument in discussions. People say we shouldn't talk about weed legislation because it will lead to legalizing 14 year olds using crystal meth, or that we shouldn't talk about gay rights because it will lead to man/dog marriages.

I can't believe how insane everyone went over that Todd Akin story. First, who cares what that one guy says ? He's one asshat in the House, there's, what, 250 other Republicans there ? In any group of 250 people (no matter the group), you can find a bunch ofcrazy shitheads. Heck i'm pretty sure i could find one in my family or yours.

His words have no effect on anything. If he said he would vote to legalize rape or something like that, it could matter, but a crazy asshole saying something crazy is not news. And it's certainly not worth the attention it gets from the media.

He's an asshat who's on the fucking House Science Committee and doesn't understand science. Yeah, I care about that. And there's an out-of-proportion amount of crazy shitheads in the current Republican house members, so we can't dismiss them so easily. Moreover, he's running for Senate, in which there are only 100 members and therefore each one has more voting power than a House member, who is one of 400-something. When a crazy asshat is trying to get into a position of power from which he can act on his crazy asshat ideas in a way that will seriously harm many of the people he's supposed to be governing, yeah, I care. His words DO have the potential to have an effect, and that's why it matters.

Yes, we should all vote for Claire McCaskill. She's awesome.

sorry for carrying this somewhere off-topic, but I was already thinking about starting a thread on the Todd Akin thing (though couldn't decide whether to put it in feminism or ranting, ugh) so if someone wants to split it I guess that'd make sense. I'm also sort of touchy about this because Missouri is my home state and I hate seeing it in the news so negatively. I don't live there now, so I can't actually vote against him and I'm not really financially able to contribute to McCaskill's campaign. All I can do is be angry about it, and Zorm, you just triggered it.

[rowan]

It's ok, I and many others contributed (and probably more will) to Claire McCaskill's campaign. So even if you're not there now, those of us who are can help.

I think we should split this into a new topic since I want to discuss it too.

[phantasmalkitty]

Abortion is a very expensive, and often difficult to obtain, medical procedure. I don't think anyone has an abortion casually. This article says it better than I can:

The biggest problem facing women wanting or needing abortion services is accessibility. Before I started working here, I could have told you that over 87% of all U.S. counties do not have a known abortion provider, but I didn't know what that statistic looks like. Now I know it looks like exhausted women who travel from Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, even Canada, in search of services. It looks like desperate women who must sell precious and needed belongings, borrow and beg from friends and family to finance their journeys and procedure costs. It looks like frightened women who must travel alone to have their abortions among strangers and away from loved ones who support and nurture them. It also looks like the invisible faces of the women who couldn't borrow, beg or sell enough to travel here and won't be able to have an abortion.

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/1000ab.htm

[Axiomatic]

Aren't you lucky? Since abortion isn't post sex contraception, anywhere, you live exactly in the world you want.

[Fitzi]

Whichever way to look at the abortion is taking somebody's life. It stops life functions. Did you notice which political,"ethical" systems, always promoted (promote) an abortion ? Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, fascism, comunism, poor uncivilisated countries all where using (and use) abortion on a mass scale. Can't you see that abortion is against the people and ethic, can't you see it's a step back with civilisation. What were the usuall ways of justifying an abortion: pure race, slaves control, labour control, eliminating "weak" or sick people, financial status, political status, etc. What are today's reasons: lack of responsibility (everone knows what can happen when you sleep with other people), egoism, wrong point of view, comfort-loving and in many cases restrictions with knowing what is good and what is bad, "brain-washing" stereotypes and idols, etc. We don't need any war to destroy ourselves, we just need a stupid law. Abortion is not a freedom. Abortion is just taking somebody's life. The End.

[Axiomatic]

poor uncivilisated countries all where using (and use) abortion on a mass scale

I'm going to pick this part out to point it out as completely and utterly wrong. Poor, uncivilized countries, especially in Africa, all ban abortion because they're highly religious. I don't know the legal status of abortion in Nazi Germany or the USSR, but I doubt it was legal in either, since Hitler wanted women to have as many babies as possible, and awards and medals were awarded if you had...more than 7, I think it was?

No society built on the idea that women need to have lots of children who will then grow up to be soldiers, whom the political leaders can then throw into meatgrinder wars, ever allows abortion, because they want to maximize their manpower.

And your statement that it's a step back with civilization is also wrong, since in order for you to be right, abortion would need to be legal and approved of in the dark past, and then become illegal as civilization progressed - and that's exactly wrong.

[anonymousrabbit]

Can't you see that abortion is against the people and ethic, can't you see it's a step back with civilisation.

No, I can't. Apparently what is self-evident to you is not so obvious to me. Please, enlighten me. (if you can, that is)

[Eldin]

Whichever way to look at the abortion is taking somebody's life. It stops life functions. Did you notice which political,"ethical" systems, always promoted (promote) an abortion ? Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, fascism, comunism, poor uncivilisated countries all where using (and use) abortion on a mass scale. Can't you see that abortion is against the people and ethic, can't you see it's a step back with civilisation. What were the usuall ways of justifying an abortion: pure race, slaves control, labour control, eliminating "weak" or sick people, financial status, political status, etc. What are today's reasons: lack of responsibility (everone knows what can happen when you sleep with other people), egoism, wrong point of view, comfort-loving and in many cases restrictions with knowing what is good and what is bad, "brain-washing" stereotypes and idols, etc. We don't need any war to destroy ourselves, we just need a stupid law. Abortion is not a freedom. Abortion is just taking somebody's life. The End.

Indonesia has approximately 2-2.6 million abortions per year. Abortion is illegal here.
America has about 1.2-1.6 million abortions per year. Abortion is legal there.
If your goal is to decrease abortions you should legalize abortion and fund sex education as prolifically as possible. Teach them to have sex responsibly and not simply pretend they won't have sex because their teachers or parents said not to.

Also, abortion is not murder any more than a woman having a period is murder. It's a collection of cells that is not a viable life. There's no moment when it goes from being a cell that's part of the woman's body to an individual being until it is just that, an individual being. Furthermore, a person has the right to do anything with their body that they choose. If there's something in their body and they do not wish to have it in their body, you do not have the right to tell them they can't/shouldn't take it out. Even if you view that collection of cells as being a separate life, you can not tell the woman what she must do to benefit that life any more than you can force some one to donate blood in order to save some one else's life.

As to the general point, I see no reason why a woman shouldn't use abortion as her first/only form of contraception if that is what she really wishes to do. I don't find that likely as everything I have read implies it's a quite unpleasant experience. However, if a woman does do this, why does it matter?

[rowan]

everything I have read implies it's a quite unpleasant experience.

It's not that bad, but it certainly is worse than being on the pill or using a condom.