Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Pro-Choice.

But I think if the pro-life crowd would put even half the effort into improving welfare, adoption laws, and sex education that they put into passing anti-abortion laws they would probably prevent more abortions than they do now.

QFT! Take an exalt.

 daedalus wrote:

 kronk wrote:

If you're too poor or stupid to have kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Kronk for Emperor, 2016. Vote early. Vote often.

Tempting. What form of birth control? I would imagine hormonal pills would do ungood things to kids at such a young age.

Also, what metric do you use for "poor or stupid"?

Dunno the answer to either. I'm more of a big picture guy than a details guy. I do know this. More cowbell and fewer stupid people is always the answer.

 daedalus wrote:
Also, what metric do you use for "poor or stupid"?

For "stupid" it should include an automatic fail for anyone using the words "sawg" and/or "YOLO"

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility or thinking. It should not be, for lack of a better term, a cosmetic or conveinence thing.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that abortion is being mainly used to replace responsibility or thinking? That there is a trend of it being mainly cosmetic or for convenience?

According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm , in 2009 there were 784,507 abortions in the US. The majority of those were women under 30. Though reasons were not given, I strongly suspect pregnancies due to rape or incest were a tiny fraction of the pregnancies aborted, which may indicate convenience as a reason.

According to Wiki

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[45]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

Convenience seems to be a major reason....

PRO-choice as a last resort. Regardless of whether it's currently often a "cosmetic" choice or not I firmly believe that it shouldn't be.

Pro-choice, even though I don't agree with it on a number of levels. I do detest the practice of late-term/partial birth "abortions" and I worry about selective abortions. But, in the end, I'm not a woman so I can't tell women what to do with their bodies.

~Tim?

Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

Probably going to be that way for a while....

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility or thinking. It should not be, for lack of a better term, a cosmetic or conveinence thing.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that abortion is being mainly used to replace responsibility or thinking? That there is a trend of it being mainly cosmetic or for convenience?

According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm , in 2009 there were 784,507 abortions in the US. The majority of those were women under 30. Though reasons were not given, I strongly suspect pregnancies due to rape or incest were a tiny fraction of the pregnancies aborted, which may indicate convenience as a reason.

According to Wiki

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[45]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

Convenience seems to be a major reason....

Could you please specify which ones you categorize as a convenience?

You shouldn't be a parent unless you're willing to be. An unwilling parent will do more damage than good.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Could you please specify which ones you categorize as a convenience?

Absolutely.

74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest


All the ones in orange, and I would bet a portion of the "Concerns about my health" and "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" would fit too (but think that is up to a Doc to figure out).

 CptJake wrote:


25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

In a lot of places, even in the US still, there's cause for stuff like this becoming public knowledge to have dramatic consequences. Perhaps if the social conservatives caved a little on what they felt like people could and couldn't do with their bodies, and when, then so many of the abortions they demonize would take care of themselves?

I mean, when you're told stuff like "if you get pregnant, we're throwing you out on the street" and your parents are backward and uncompromising enough to actually DO it, and you wind up getting pregnant when you're 16-17, you're probably going to overreact and make decisions based out of fear.

All the ones in orange, and I would bet a good portion of the "Concerns about my health" would fit too.

Why? Which portion?

 daedalus wrote:
You shouldn't be a parent unless you're willing to be. An unwilling parent will do more damage than good.

There is always the ability to give up for adoption.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

I'm pro-life, because I believe in freedom of choice and women's self determination of their own bodies. Many abortions will not be due to rape/incest, but equally the number of women that treat it as a 'convenience' is grossly overstated by people that are little more than attempting to slut-shame women. The reality, is that there can be many reasons for an abortion as carrying a pregnancy through to full term can have serious mental, physical health and of course financial implications.

Some people think no women should be allowed that choice, but I think it's something that people should be allowed to make their own decision on. Some people wouldn't have a termination for anything others feel that the many burdens of pregnancy and childhood are too great. I will not judge women who have an abortion, and nor should anyone else.

I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

But for the people who oppose it, it's not about the womans uterus. It's about the human being inside of it that is being killed. A humans life trumps womans uterus.

There is no end of means of birth control out there. Cheap, easily obtainable birth control. "Convenience" often times trumps that life though, and to me, that is sad.

Might I recommend a rephrase?

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that claims it is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

Personally, I'm of the same camp. It doesn't affect me. Go nuts, or don't.

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

Or another way of looking at it, one of the few valid purposes for gov't is to protect people's rights, especially those who cannot protect their own. The argument then goes to 'when is the collection of cells inside a pregnant woman a person with rights worth protecting'?

 CptJake wrote:
The argument then goes to 'when is the collection of cells inside a pregnant woman a person with rights worth protecting'?

When it's 18 and out of the house, naturally.

 djones520 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

But for the people who oppose it, it's not about the womans uterus. It's about the human being inside of it that is being killed. A humans life trumps womans uterus.

There is no end of means of birth control out there. Cheap, easily obtainable birth control. "Convenience" often times trumps that life though, and to me, that is sad.

Is it so convenient and readily available? Because I know many people describing that not always being the case in the US. Also there are many attempts to limit sex education in schools. Which supposedly is to stop them wanting to have sex but instead means they don't know one end of a condom from the other.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

But for the people who oppose it, it's not about the womans uterus. It's about the human being inside of it that is being killed. A humans life trumps womans uterus.

There is no end of means of birth control out there. Cheap, easily obtainable birth control. "Convenience" often times trumps that life though, and to me, that is sad.

Is it so convenient and readily available? Because I know many people describing that not always being the case in the US. Also there are many attempts to limit sex education in schools. Which supposedly is to stop them wanting to have sex but instead means they don't know one end of a condom from the other.

Pretty much any pharmacy, Stop and Rob, or grocery.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
I find it amusing that in the US, the political party that is all for small government and not being told what to do by the state, is quite happy to regulate a womans uterus.

But for the people who oppose it, it's not about the womans uterus. It's about the human being inside of it that is being killed. A humans life trumps womans uterus.

There is no end of means of birth control out there. Cheap, easily obtainable birth control. "Convenience" often times trumps that life though, and to me, that is sad.

Is it so convenient and readily available? Because I know many people describing that not always being the case in the US. Also there are many attempts to limit sex education in schools. Which supposedly is to stop them wanting to have sex but instead means they don't know one end of a condom from the other.

A box of condoms can be purchased... anywhere. Anywhere.

You can get them for free in almost any medical clinic around.

And I started receiving sex education in the 4th grade. There is no shortage of that in the US as well.

 djones520 wrote:

And I started receiving sex education in the 4th grade. There is no shortage of that in the US as well.

Except that, unless it's changed, it preaches abstinence only.

...that's not going so well.

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

And I started receiving sex education in the 4th grade. There is no shortage of that in the US as well.

Except that, unless it's changed, it preaches abstinence only.

...that's not going so well.

bs it did.

A lot of those "convenience" reasons are more about the woman postponing the child until such time where there exists the stability in their life to give the child a proper upbringing.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

And I started receiving sex education in the 4th grade. There is no shortage of that in the US as well.

Except that, unless it's changed, it preaches abstinence only.

...that's not going so well.

bs it did.

bs that It changed, or that abstinence only is working well?

Cause, like, the former looks like it has in places, but for the latter, I have this: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications450

Pro-Life.

More humans means more potential hot chicks. How can you say no to that?

Very easily, I mean, it's only one syllable.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pro-Life.

More humans means more potential hot chicks. How can you say no to that?

It also means more potential Hitlers!

Edit: Hot Hitlers?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pro-Life.

More humans means more potential hot chicks. How can you say no to that?

It also means more potential Hitlers!

Edit: Hot Hitlers?

We have our Hitler post!


But it also means more potential Einsteins, if you wanna go down that road.

Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.