Alternatives to Abortion

[Katganistan]

I respect organizations who put their money where their mouth is. It's easy to point the finger of blame at an expectant woman, but I'll take your pronouncements more seriously when you start sacrificing to provide realistic alternatives. Some do; many do not.

As for me, I provided free legal care for parties to adoption, where there was private placement, and a local doctor provided free medical care.

Maybe we could do better with adoptions if we diverted resources that way from Planned Parenthood.

I'd like to see a reasonable limit both in numbers and in time span placed upon the abortions a woman can get. One every year is too many, and yes it happens more than you'd think. Five may be too many; six certainly should be. When does a right stop being a right? Maybe when you disrespect it by making a mockery of it.

Are you for limiting a person's right to self determination? Or just things you think are bad for them? Care to prohibit cigarettes? How about alcohol, that worked so well the first time.

A right remains a right no matter how many times you avail yourself of it. All people have a right for legal representation, no matter how many times they have been accused of a crime, amirite?

[Katganistan]

Our alternative to abortion is a carefully considered high-standard seminars, tight processes in family planning, policies that prevents intervention of the Quirine Church, and codes that will thrive for a better alternative for abortion and a better population growth.

Pending legislations are being made to be amended upon this issue.

International Incidents, Nationstates, and Forum 7 are the roleplaying forums.

[Person012345]

I'm sure this has already been said but (and note, I'm not taking a side in this post, just take it for what it is):
Many of the pro-life crowd see abortion akin to killing a born person. Therefore if you're trying to argue that abortion is ok or should be allowed because there would be too many children in care otherwise, then you also argue that it's ok to kill children in care because there are too many (or that it would be if there were more).

Not saying I agree with it, just sayin'.

Then those particular folks who think that are idiots. No one is suggesting killing children who were actually born and are in care.

Except they are, from the point of view of many pro-lifers. Unfortunately you can't just take your own point of view as an axiom when the other person thinks differently. To many pro-lifers abortion is killing a child, therefore suggesting it's ok to abort to keep children out of care is suggesting that it's ok to kill children to keep them out of care. Yes I know, abortion isn't killing a child blah blah, but you can't just pretend that the other view doesn't exist. If it's wrong, you have to (every single refreshed thread on the subject) prove it wrong if someone claims that it is correct. Either that or simply link back to where you or someone else has previously proven it.

[Bottle]

Why is it "making a mockery" of abortion to get abortions? As I learned from a clinic patient, getting medical (pill) abortions is actually less medically risky for some woman than using hormonal birth control..

Note: Trimmed for space

Please source this. The only thing that comes to mind is women with migranes (can't take estrongen due to stroke risk), and has a breast cancer risk (can't take progestrone because of increased risk). Then you could do an IUD (yes I know doctors who will do them without a prior birth) that is without either hormone (being made of Copper). There is a risk of PID with an IUD however this risk is low.

A primary source would be the package of your birth control pills, or any commercial for hormonal birth control. You'll notice that one of the biggest risks they cite is the risk of blood clots; medical (pill) abortions do not carry this risk. You'll probably see/hear them also recommend that women who use hormonal birth control should not smoke, as the smoking + birth control pill = much higher possibility of clotting problems. Again, this is not a risk with pill abortions.

So, for women with a history of blood clots, or women who smoke regularly, having pill abortions may be medically safer than using hormonal birth control.

Some women experience other side effects from hormonal birth control which simply are not present with abortion. Weight gain, the migranes you mention, depression and mental health symptoms, etc.

Another consideration is that, for some women in some circumstances, it's simply cheaper to get an abortion once in a while than to be on the Pill or other forms of birth control. Anybody who doesn't support universal health care is welcome to go straight to hell if they try to blow this off as an irrelevant consideration.

PLEASE NOTE:

1) I am not a medical doctor, I do not claim to be one, and NOBODY should take anything I post as equivalent to qualified medical advice, in any way. PLEASE DO question, do your own research, and talk to your own doctor!

2) The above does not apply to all women, obviously. I want to emphasize that. For me, for example, taking hormonal birth control is medically safer than obtaining abortions of any kind.

3) I happen to prefer taking the Pill over getting an abortion because, at least in my opinion, abortion is way more fucking uncomfortable. However, your mileage may vary. Some women find that pill abortion is no more uncomfortable for them than their normal menstrual periods (which may say more about their periods than anything else), while others find pill abortions extremely painful. This is why I tend to think that the individual woman should be the one to judge what option is best for her.

[Katganistan]

Then those particular folks who think that are idiots. No one is suggesting killing children who were actually born and are in care.

Except they are, from the point of view of many pro-lifers. Unfortunately you can't just take your own point of view as an axiom when the other person thinks differently. To many pro-lifers abortion is killing a child, therefore suggesting it's ok to abort to keep children out of care is suggesting that it's ok to kill children to keep them out of care. Yes I know, abortion isn't killing a child blah blah, but you can't just pretend that the other view doesn't exist. If it's wrong, you have to (every single refreshed thread on the subject) prove it wrong if someone claims that it is correct. Either that or simply link back to where you or someone else has previously proven it.

If they are unable to discern the difference between a collection of cells and something that wants to watch Thomas the Tank Engine, there's a lot more wrong with them than anything I can say.

[Bottle]

Except they are, from the point of view of many pro-lifers. Unfortunately you can't just take your own point of view as an axiom when the other person thinks differently. To many pro-lifers abortion is killing a child, therefore suggesting it's ok to abort to keep children out of care is suggesting that it's ok to kill children to keep them out of care. Yes I know, abortion isn't killing a child blah blah, but you can't just pretend that the other view doesn't exist. If it's wrong, you have to (every single refreshed thread on the subject) prove it wrong if someone claims that it is correct. Either that or simply link back to where you or someone else has previously proven it.

If they are unable to discern the difference between a collection of cells and something that wants to watch Thomas the Tank Engine, there's a lot more wrong with them than anything I can say.

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

[Muravyets]

Then those particular folks who think that are idiots. No one is suggesting killing children who were actually born and are in care.

Except they are, from the point of view of many pro-lifers. Unfortunately you can't just take your own point of view as an axiom when the other person thinks differently. To many pro-lifers abortion is killing a child, therefore suggesting it's ok to abort to keep children out of care is suggesting that it's ok to kill children to keep them out of care. Yes I know, abortion isn't killing a child blah blah, but you can't just pretend that the other view doesn't exist. If it's wrong, you have to (every single refreshed thread on the subject) prove it wrong if someone claims that it is correct. Either that or simply link back to where you or someone else has previously proven it.

Merely holding an opinion does not make that opinion valid or worthy of consideration. To some people, one race may be inferior to another, but we don't make room in public policy for that opinion, do we? Some people may truly and sincerely see tomatoes as poisonous or believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but we don't base science or nutrition policy on those views, do we?

The fact of the matter is that an early stage embryo/fetus is NOT the same as a born child. Any observation of the two side-by-side will make this overwhelmingly obvious. Any argument that they are the same and have the same functions and needs and should receive the same treatment under the law is patent nonsense, and does not deserve to be received as anything else.

Anti-choicers may attempt to make people care that they believe that life begins at conception and that, for some reason, that should bar abortion, if they want to spend their time doing that. But they cannot argue that a conceptus, embryo or early stage fetus is equivalent to a born child and expect to get any response but derision. It's one thing to argue on the foundation of one's own subjective opinions. It's quite another and infinitely more invalid to argue on a foundation of fantasies.

[Neo Art]

If they are unable to discern the difference between a collection of cells and something that wants to watch Thomas the Tank Engine, there's a lot more wrong with them than anything I can say.

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

I don't think pro life people really argue that an embry is IDENTICAL to a toddler, and claiming they do is just tilting at windmills. I think they accept that an embryo is different than a child.

Just as I'm sure they accept that a child is different from a teenager, a teenager is different from a 20something, a 20 something is different from a 65 year old retiree

I think the crux of the pro-life argument is that the differences are not morally relevant. The toddler, the teen, the gen-xer and the greatest generation are all different, but the differences are irrelevant in the proposition of "is it ok to kill them?" The pro-life argument is that while an embryo is certainly not THE SAME, the factors that make it "not ok" to kill any of the above, also apply to the embryo.

Which is still a bad argument, but let's at least be honest about WHAT the argument is.

[Muravyets]

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

I don't think pro life people really argue that an embry is IDENTICAL to a toddler, and claiming they do is just tilting at windmills. I think they accept that an embryo is different than a child.

Just as I'm sure they accept that a child is different from a teenager, a teenager is different from a 20something, a 20 something is different from a 65 year old retiree

I think the crux of the pro-life argument is that the differences are not morally relevant. The toddler, the teen, the gen-xer and the greatest generation are all different, but the differences are irrelevant in the proposition of "is it ok to kill them?" The pro-life argument is that while an embryo is certainly not THE SAME, the factors that make it "not ok" to kill any of the above, also apply to the embryo.

Which is still a bad argument, but let's at least be honest about WHAT the argument is.

Then their argument is still dishonest, because it is cited as if the equivalency is literal. Thus it is an appeal to emotion and an attempt to demonize the opposition with extreme and pejorative language and imagery. You're not aborting a pregnancy, which they believe is morally bad. You're KILLING! a BABY! which is MURDER! and so forth.

If it is true that they do not actually believe an embryo is literally the same as a toddler, then the standard form of that argument can have no purpose but to deflect from the real issue by forcing the opponents to defend their own character rather than address the issues of medical necessity, rights of self-determination, facts about pregnancy, etc.

Since it is a deflection from the real issue, it is not a valid argument. Thus it should not be treated as one.

[Grave_n_idle]

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

I don't think pro life people really argue that an embry is IDENTICAL to a toddler, and claiming they do is just tilting at windmills. I think they accept that an embryo is different than a child.

Just as I'm sure they accept that a child is different from a teenager, a teenager is different from a 20something, a 20 something is different from a 65 year old retiree

I think the crux of the pro-life argument is that the differences are not morally relevant. The toddler, the teen, the gen-xer and the greatest generation are all different, but the differences are irrelevant in the proposition of "is it ok to kill them?" The pro-life argument is that while an embryo is certainly not THE SAME, the factors that make it "not ok" to kill any of the above, also apply to the embryo.

Which is still a bad argument, but let's at least be honest about WHAT the argument is.

I wish I thought you were right, but I've so often heard the thing phrased in terms of 'life begins at conception'... or 'a new soul is created at conception'... or other phrasing that attributes the mystical perfect passenger concept... the wrapping (embryo or toddler) is irrelevant. You're 'killing' a 'baby' because it has a soul. You really want to put cats among pigeons, ask fundamentalist Southern Baptists what they think aborted 'babies' are going to look like in Heaven.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

I don't think pro life people really argue that an embry is IDENTICAL to a toddler, and claiming they do is just tilting at windmills. I think they accept that an embryo is different than a child.

Just as I'm sure they accept that a child is different from a teenager, a teenager is different from a 20something, a 20 something is different from a 65 year old retiree

I think the crux of the pro-life argument is that the differences are not morally relevant. The toddler, the teen, the gen-xer and the greatest generation are all different, but the differences are irrelevant in the proposition of "is it ok to kill them?" The pro-life argument is that while an embryo is certainly not THE SAME, the factors that make it "not ok" to kill any of the above, also apply to the embryo.

Which is still a bad argument, but let's at least be honest about WHAT the argument is.

The problem is, and I'm not saying you do not have a point, that many (not all) pro-life people DO think an embryo is identical to a child. All you have to do is go to an abortion clinic and listen to what they say to women and couples going into the building.

I remit you to this website (and mind you, it is a Christian pro-life web site): http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... cto_1.html. Adoption of embryos. If that is not likening embryos to toddlers, I don't know what is.

[Ashmoria]

I wish I thought you were right, but I've so often heard the thing phrased in terms of 'life begins at conception'... or 'a new soul is created at conception'... or other phrasing that attributes the mystical perfect passenger concept... the wrapping (embryo or toddler) is irrelevant. You're 'killing' a 'baby' because it has a soul. You really want to put cats among pigeons, ask fundamentalist Southern Baptists what they think aborted 'babies' are going to look like in Heaven.

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I wish I thought you were right, but I've so often heard the thing phrased in terms of 'life begins at conception'... or 'a new soul is created at conception'... or other phrasing that attributes the mystical perfect passenger concept... the wrapping (embryo or toddler) is irrelevant. You're 'killing' a 'baby' because it has a soul. You really want to put cats among pigeons, ask fundamentalist Southern Baptists what they think aborted 'babies' are going to look like in Heaven.

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I'm pretty sure they believe it's embryonic chunks in heaven for all eternity.

[Ashmoria]

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I'm pretty sure they believe it's embryonic chunks in heaven for all eternity.

its kinda sad to be that ......theologically naive.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Considering these details, how exactly do you expect adoption to be a viable alternative to a woman having an abortion?

It is not an alternative. The adoption system is severely underfunded and filled to capacity. Trying (I know you're not) to say that giving the chil up for adoption is a horrible appeal to emotion. And this is all pr-life people do.

On a recent trip to FL, I encountered these: 1, 2, 3 (among others) all through the highway. I was disgusted because once again you encounter people who feel they have a right in telling a woman what is best for her. No one has that right.

[Bottle]

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

I don't think pro life people really argue that an embry is IDENTICAL to a toddler, and claiming they do is just tilting at windmills. I think they accept that an embryo is different than a child.

Just as I'm sure they accept that a child is different from a teenager, a teenager is different from a 20something, a 20 something is different from a 65 year old retiree

I think the crux of the pro-life argument is that the differences are not morally relevant. The toddler, the teen, the gen-xer and the greatest generation are all different, but the differences are irrelevant in the proposition of "is it ok to kill them?" The pro-life argument is that while an embryo is certainly not THE SAME, the factors that make it "not ok" to kill any of the above, also apply to the embryo.

Which is still a bad argument, but let's at least be honest about WHAT the argument is.

Like others who already posted, I have trouble accepting that because of the number of anti-choicers who specifically state that they see no difference between the two. Not to mention their endless visual aids...ever seen the teeny weeny baby dolls they hand out as examples of what a "baby" looks like at different stages? All the baby dolls are identical, they just get smaller and smaller the earlier in the pregnancy you go! AMAZING! And also complete horseshit.

[Grave_n_idle]

I wish I thought you were right, but I've so often heard the thing phrased in terms of 'life begins at conception'... or 'a new soul is created at conception'... or other phrasing that attributes the mystical perfect passenger concept... the wrapping (embryo or toddler) is irrelevant. You're 'killing' a 'baby' because it has a soul. You really want to put cats among pigeons, ask fundamentalist Southern Baptists what they think aborted 'babies' are going to look like in Heaven.

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I tend to get two different answers, each as scripturally valid as the other (so...not very) - one being that aborted foetuses will be babies in heaven (forever, I guess?) the other being that they will somehow become the people they would be at the 'perfect' point in their life (which seems to be in the 30's, for some reason).

The joy available in life, is (of course) to ask a group of Southern Baptists this question, and leave them fighting over which group is right.

[Bottle]

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I tend to get two different answers, each as scripturally valid as the other (so...not very) - one being that aborted foetuses will be babies in heaven (forever, I guess?) the other being that they will somehow become the people they would be at the 'perfect' point in their life (which seems to be in the 30's, for some reason).

The joy available in life, is (of course) to ask a group of Southern Baptists this question, and leave them fighting over which group is right.

Given that those same Southern Baptists believe that I will burn in hell based on my beliefs and values, one is forced to wonder why they don't wish that my mother had gotten an abortion rather than have me...then I'd get to be in heaven forever, instead of in Hell. Isn't that the goal?

[Rambhutan]

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I'm pretty sure they believe it's embryonic chunks in heaven for all eternity.

Must be the heavenly equivalent of stepping on a banana skin.

[Ashmoria]

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I tend to get two different answers, each as scripturally valid as the other (so...not very) - one being that aborted foetuses will be babies in heaven (forever, I guess?) the other being that they will somehow become the people they would be at the 'perfect' point in their life (which seems to be in the 30's, for some reason).

The joy available in life, is (of course) to ask a group of Southern Baptists this question, and leave them fighting over which group is right.

does each neverbaby get its own mansion?

[United Dependencies]

Seriously?

ANYWHERE. Find any reputable source (i.e. not an anti-choice organization) that you like on the subject. It's such an old stat that even the mainstream media acknowledges it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/ns ... ns_health/

I don't doubt the statistic, I just wanted the source for use in future debate.

[Person012345]

Except they are, from the point of view of many pro-lifers. Unfortunately you can't just take your own point of view as an axiom when the other person thinks differently. To many pro-lifers abortion is killing a child, therefore suggesting it's ok to abort to keep children out of care is suggesting that it's ok to kill children to keep them out of care. Yes I know, abortion isn't killing a child blah blah, but you can't just pretend that the other view doesn't exist. If it's wrong, you have to (every single refreshed thread on the subject) prove it wrong if someone claims that it is correct. Either that or simply link back to where you or someone else has previously proven it.

If they are unable to discern the difference between a collection of cells and something that wants to watch Thomas the Tank Engine, there's a lot more wrong with them than anything I can say.

If they are unable to discern the difference between a collection of cells and something that wants to watch Thomas the Tank Engine, there's a lot more wrong with them than anything I can say.

Right on, Kat.

I realize there are people who believe there is no difference between an embryo and a 2 year old. Those people are wrong. Plain and simple. Their beliefs conflict with reality. They are on the same level as people who believe the Earth is flat.

The question of whether an embryo is the same as a born baby is NOT one of opinion. Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality, so why should I bother arguing with them?

Quite possibly. However, just stating "I'm right and they're wrong" ("Factually, measurably, demonstrably, an embryo is not a born infant. Period. Anybody who argues otherwise is arguing with reality") doesn't cut it as an argument. The OP did not show that they are not the same, and some people believe them to be. Which was the basis for my statement that to those people suggesting that keeping children out of care is a justification for abortion is the same as saying killing children in care is justified because it keeps children out of care. And that clearly is not a good way to change people's mind on a subject. I'm not asking you to argue with them, but the OP did start the "argument" so I think it's reasonable for him to be asked to argue with them. If he wants to it to be accepted that an embryo =/= a child, he should link to evidence. Of course, some people will never accept it, which is why I would never dream of making an abortion related thread at all. If you do, be prepared to defend your standpoint with facts.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

do you know the answer to that question and if so ....

they dont think its going to be an embryo in heaven for eternity do they?

I tend to get two different answers, each as scripturally valid as the other (so...not very) - one being that aborted foetuses will be babies in heaven (forever, I guess?) the other being that they will somehow become the people they would be at the 'perfect' point in their life (which seems to be in the 30's, for some reason).

The joy available in life, is (of course) to ask a group of Southern Baptists this question, and leave them fighting over which group is right.

If you're Catholic then you'd believe that aborted fetuses are damned to Hell for eternity.

[Ashmoria]

I tend to get two different answers, each as scripturally valid as the other (so...not very) - one being that aborted foetuses will be babies in heaven (forever, I guess?) the other being that they will somehow become the people they would be at the 'perfect' point in their life (which seems to be in the 30's, for some reason).

The joy available in life, is (of course) to ask a group of Southern Baptists this question, and leave them fighting over which group is right.

If you're Catholic then you'd believe that aborted fetuses are damned to Hell for eternity.

thats not true.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

If you're Catholic then you'd believe that aborted fetuses are damned to Hell for eternity.

thats not true.

Well if you follow the dogma, it is. I suppose you don't actually have to, but that's not the point.