NationStates

Espenia wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:There is literally not a single time where a pregnant person should "suck it up" and give birth when they don't want to.

You can read, what I wrote to Wallenberg. I know a pregnant woman doesn't have to "suck it up" but I'm referring to women, who use abortion as if it's some sort of birth control.

Lordy this again? Abortion is not a comfortable procedure. These women you think are an argument against are rather small in the numbers.

Saiwania wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:There is literally not a single time where a pregnant person should "suck it up" and give birth when they don't want to.

They do more or less, if they're in a situation where they can't manage to get an abortion before the child is born. Real life can be pretty harsh.

I'm not talking about what life is right now. I'm talking about how life should be.

New haven america wrote:

Espenia wrote:If a woman has a miscarriage, stillborn or if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, then a woman has the right to choose to terminate. Or if it has nothing to do, with the causes I mentioned and she's simply not ready or doesn't want the child, then she has the right to terminate.

I'm simply saying; that if a women were kind of like Pennsatucky from Orange Is The New Black; a character whose had 5 abortions, then I feel that's a bit ridiculous.

Abortion is a very serious thing and shouldn't be used as a form of birth control by some indiviuals.

A person who chooses to treat abortion as their go to form of birth control probably shouldn't be allowed to keep any kids they decide to keep around... Or they're in an abusive situation and need help.

Having abortions does not make you an unfit parent. This is a disgusting opinion very much bordering on eugenics.

The Black Forrest wrote:Lordy this again? Abortion is not a comfortable procedure. These women you think are an argument against are rather small in the numbers.

It is certainly more comfortable than giving birth, so of course a lot of more selfish women are going to choose an abortion over having a baby.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Espenia wrote:You can read, what I wrote to Wallenberg. I know a pregnant woman doesn't have to "suck it up" but I'm referring to women, who use abortion as if it's some sort of birth control.

Lordy this again? Abortion is not a comfortable procedure. These women you think are an argument against are rather small in the numbers.

Also, the only example of someone doing this I've ever heard of is the show they mentioned, a fictional character in a web dramaty.

So that doesn't help their point.

Espenia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I mean, if that includes the option to abort the pregnancy, cool.

If a woman has a miscarriage, stillborn or if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, then a woman has the right to choose to terminate. Or if it has nothing to do, with the causes I mentioned and she's simply not ready or doesn't want the child, then she has the right to terminate.

I'm simply saying; that if a women were kind of like Pennsatucky from Orange Is The New Black; a character whose had 5 abortions, then I feel that's a bit ridiculous.

Abortion is a very serious thing and shouldn't be used as a form of birth control by some indiviuals.

Abortion as birth control is a myth. 51% of women were using contraception of some kind when they became pregnant.

Of women who have had a repeat abortion, it gets more likely with age: 44% of women who have had repeat abortions are over 35 (which makes sense; the longer you are alive, the more chances there are of getting pregnant), compared with 8% under 18.Multiple repeat abortions -- as commonly reported in newspapers, contributing to the myth, "up to seven or eight" -- account for 85 out of the 189,574 abortions in the UK.

Women who have a repeat abortion are more likely to be suffering financial deprivation, already have children, and/orbe in controlling relationships. They are also more likely to be using contraception.

Saiwania wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Lordy this again? Abortion is not a comfortable procedure. These women you think are an argument against are rather small in the numbers.

It is certainly more comfortable than giving birth, so of course a lot of more selfish women are going to choose an abortion over having a baby.

Having an abortion does not make someone selfish.

Saiwania wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:There is literally not a single time where a pregnant person should "suck it up" and give birth when they don't want to.

They do more or less, if they're in a situation where they can't manage to get an abortion before the child is born. Real life can be pretty harsh.

I agree life can be harsh.

And contraception, should be accessible for all.

However I feel the woman shouldn't have to raise the child, if she doesn't want too. Even if she couldn't manage to get an abortion. She's obligated to give up her rights. I also feel bad for the kid too. They didn't ask for any of this. But the woman is free to do, as she wishes.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Having an abortion does not make someone selfish.

Not inherently no, but that is often the primary motivation. How I used the term is supposed to encapsulate a double meaning in the context I used it here. Selfish as most people think of it, as well as selfish as in, a woman opting to pursue whatever is most in her self interests regardless of anyone else or any outside factors which might inconvience that person. Of course paying $3,000 or so for an abortion, is the far easier path than being saddled with an up to 18 year childcare commitment.

Luminesa wrote:All else said, I do like that OP opened the floor to discussion on ways to lower abortion numbers. I felt that was quite thoughtful and interesting.

It's more productive than the usual debate. Banning abortion is a violation of women's rights, but if you look for ways to reduce the necessity of abortion, you may find some that don't violate anyone's rights.

Saiwania wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Having an abortion does not make someone selfish.

Not inherently no, but that is often the primary motivation. How I used the term is supposed to encapsulate a double meaning in the context I used it here. Selfish as most people think of it, as well as selfish as in, a woman opting to pursue whatever is most in her self interests regardless of anyone else or any outside factors which might inconvience that person. Of course paying $3,000 or so for an abortion, is the far easier path than being saddled with an up to 18 year childcare commitment.

To be selfish, you have to inconvenience someone or "lack consideration for" someone else. Abortion does not inconvenience anyone except the person having the abortion. And honestly, you should have no consideration for anyone who tells you to do something with your body that you don't want to. Something being "easier" doesn't make it selfish, not to mention that abortion isn't easy, ever.

Also abortion for $3000??? Where is it that expensive?

USS Monitor wrote:

Luminesa wrote:All else said, I do like that OP opened the floor to discussion on ways to lower abortion numbers. I felt that was quite thoughtful and interesting.

It's more productive than the usual debate. Banning abortion is a violation of women's rights, but if you look for ways to reduce the necessity of abortion, you may find some that don't violate anyone's rights.

Because you can only go so far with certain topics.

In this case, one side believes it should be banned outright based on moral or religious beliefs, while the other side believes it should be the possible parent's choice based on morals and rights. Yeah, no, there's no real end to this.

New haven america wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
It's more productive than the usual debate. Banning abortion is a violation of women's rights, but if you look for ways to reduce the necessity of abortion, you may find some that don't violate anyone's rights.

Because you can only go so far with certain topics.

In this case, one side believes it should be banned outright based on moral or religious beliefs, while the other side believes it should be the possible parent's choice based on morals and rights. Yeah, no, there's no real end to this.

If someone has moral reservations about abortion, then reducing the number of abortions is still productive, even if you don't get everyone to agree with you.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
Not inherently no, but that is often the primary motivation. How I used the term is supposed to encapsulate a double meaning in the context I used it here. Selfish as most people think of it, as well as selfish as in, a woman opting to pursue whatever is most in her self interests regardless of anyone else or any outside factors which might inconvience that person. Of course paying $3,000 or so for an abortion, is the far easier path than being saddled with an up to 18 year childcare commitment.

To be selfish, you have to inconvenience someone or "lack consideration for" someone else. Abortion does not inconvenience anyone except the person having the abortion. And honestly, you should have no consideration for anyone who tells you to do something with your body that you don't want to. Something being "easier" doesn't make it selfish, not to mention that abortion isn't easy, ever.

Also abortion for $3000??? Where is it that expensive?

Maybe he lives in Missouri?

That is rather high. Tends to run 350-950 through planned parenthood. More when it’s in the second trimester.

USS Monitor wrote:

New haven america wrote:Because you can only go so far with certain topics.

In this case, one side believes it should be banned outright based on moral or religious beliefs, while the other side believes it should be the possible parent's choice based on morals and rights. Yeah, no, there's no real end to this.

If someone has moral reservations about abortion, then reducing the number of abortions is still productive, even if you don't get everyone to agree with you.

That’s largely my position as well.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:To be selfish, you have to inconvenience someone or "lack consideration for" someone else. Abortion does not inconvenience anyone except the person having the abortion. And honestly, you should have no consideration for anyone who tells you to do something with your body that you don't want to. Something being "easier" doesn't make it selfish, not to mention that abortion isn't easy, ever.

Also abortion for $3000??? Where is it that expensive?

It is lacking consideration for the person to be born, if the child in the womb is developed enough. At the beginning, no question it is not sentient. But the longer a pregnancy progresses, the more its "too late" to do an abortion without terminating a person that is alive technically speaking.

I reject the notion that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct because it is just isn't in my experience. There are many examples of people having things done to them without permission such as getting required immunizations whilst they're too young to object. A lot of people with dementia refuse to shower as one example. Of course they should be forced to take a shower if they're not living on their own and it is in their best interests. The Hippocratic Oath is largely a load of nonsense that interferes with doing what needs to be done in a lot of cases.

Of course abortion is far easier than giving birth, that is sort of the entire point of it. Many women are too unprepared or don't have it in them to carry a pregnancy to the end so they use Abortion as some sort of lifeline that can "bail them out" of an unpleasant situation or experience.

So far as how much Abortions cost in the US, it can range from $0 to $3,275 depending on how a person goes about acquiring such a service. Then again, this is 2014 prices. But I don't expect inflation to have moved it much higher, so it is within that range.

https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/ ... -theresas/

Saiwania wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Having an abortion does not make someone selfish.

Not inherently no, but that is often the primary motivation. How I used the term is supposed to encapsulate a double meaning in the context I used it here. Selfish as most people think of it, as well as selfish as in, a woman opting to pursue whatever is most in her self interests regardless of anyone else or any outside factors which might inconvience that person. Of course paying $3,000 or so for an abortion, is the far easier path than being saddled with an up to 18 year childcare commitment.

If you want to give the best possible upbringing for your child, then having a child at a time where you are not financially prepared is detrimental to them.

Having an abortion, and bringing a child into the world at a time of greater financial security would be in their best interest.

USS Monitor wrote:

New haven america wrote:Because you can only go so far with certain topics.

In this case, one side believes it should be banned outright based on moral or religious beliefs, while the other side believes it should be the possible parent's choice based on morals and rights. Yeah, no, there's no real end to this.

If someone has moral reservations about abortion, then reducing the number of abortions is still productive, even if you don't get everyone to agree with you.

But then the question becomes how? One side generally thinks that in order to reduce them, they need to be banned and sluts need to keep their legs closed, while the other generally believes in comprehensive sex ed and easy access to protection, which the former hates, while the latter finds the formers ideas abhorrent.

And then we go around and around and around and around and around and around...

I was simply using the character as an example. Because everyone is different. We don't know, what a woman's thought process is; when she is considering to terminate. She could be happy, sad, angry or she could be feeling everything and anything! You don't know, I don't know.

Also I know, there are women out there, who have no choice or simply do not want the child; they are allowed to terminate. If they choose too. Women terminate for many reasons. Again, it's no one's business.

Whatever someone's situation is, they need to make a choice, do they want the child or not? Abortion shouldn't be taken so lightly. It's a very, very serious issue. Because once that fetus gets begins to grow, there is a limit, doctors won't allow the woman to abort. Unless it's a dire situation.

That's what I really mean by "suck it up."

Also @The Free Joy State you're correct! I was wrong. I did my research on that just now. I apologize.

USS Monitor wrote:Banning abortion is a violation of women's rights

Since when was access to abortion ever properly considered a right that women are entitled to? Society certainly wasn't in agreement on that back in say, 1900. The discussion was more along the lines of whether women should be getting the vote.

I wanna repeat myself too, contraception's should be easily accessible for everyone. So we can avoid unwanted pregnancies But sadly it's not always that easy for everyone...

Saiwania wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:Banning abortion is a violation of women's rights

Since when was access to abortion ever properly considered a right that women are entitled to? Society certainly wasn't in agreement on that back in say, 1900. The discussion was more along the lines of whether women should be getting the vote.

When Roe vs. Wade (1973) happened.

Neanderthaland wrote:If you want to give the best possible upbringing for your child, then having a child at a time where you are not financially prepared is detrimental to them. Having an abortion, and bringing a child into the world at a time of greater financial security would be in their best interest.

The rub is that sometimes, you'll never truly be "financially prepared" to raise a child. Because you'll always be poor or a low earner because you're incompetent or don't have it in you to raise your income or earning potential by much, and being poor has a way of keeping someone poor- unless they're cutthroat or ruthless enough to economically climb via saving and investing and etc. despite every obstacle in their path towards success in life.

Saiwania wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:If you want to give the best possible upbringing for your child, then having a child at a time where you are not financially prepared is detrimental to them. Having an abortion, and bringing a child into the world at a time of greater financial security would be in their best interest.

The rub is that sometimes, you'll never truly be "financially prepared" to raise a child. Because you'll always be poor or a low earner because you're incompetent or don't have it in you to raise your income or earning potential by much, and being poor has a way of keeping someone poor- unless they're cutthroat or ruthless enough to economically climb via saving and investing and etc. despite every obstacle in their path towards success in life.

Am I correct in assuming your pro life? What right do you have to interfere in a private medical decision? Who are you to force someone to have a children they dont want

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
It is certainly more comfortable than giving birth, so of course a lot of more selfish women are going to choose an abortion over having a baby.

Having an abortion does not make someone selfish.

It does, more often than not.