[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Late term abortions are the exception. About 1% of abortions are late term.

Ectopic abortions on the other hand make up 2% and without abortion are almost guaranteed to result in death of the mother - these too are/will be banned in some states.

By proponents I assume you mean right to abort side. I don't understand your statement, my experience is the opposite. Choice proponents want to give women the choice, but are and have been fine historically with some restrictions on when, why and how. And they often discuss it. On the other hand "pro-life" side has a history of blowing up clinics, killing doctors, and harassing women exercising their legal rights, and standing on corners with large gory examples of what they claim every abortion is about, while showing photos that are photoshopped and at best very late term abortions. When asked to discuss their reaction is no abortions period, and they often consider contraception abortions, so there are discussions of banning contraceptives.

Yes, we need a national discussion.

Treatment of ectopic pregnancies are NOT considered abortions...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."

Really? Then why are there so many of them bragging about having them?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I have for a long time advocated the government investing heavily into reversible sterilization for both sexes which would be applied at birth (don't go crazy, we already mutilate men without their permission and do sexual assignment surgery when there is ambiguity in genitalia without the child's permission!).

Then when they become "of age" (18? 21?) they can take a parenting course and if they pass they can opt to have the procedure reversed when they want to have children. That would probably remove about 3/4's of the abortions.

PLEASE tell me you're just being argumentative and that you don't actually believe in this...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

Life is what the pregnant woman experiences, being already born. I don't care what you, or anyone else considers "life" to be. The government has no business in this discussion. Your determination of what constitutes life is between you and your deity, if you have one. "The definition of life" is a stupid, stupid argument to base a law on someone's right to determine what they will host within their own body.


A fungal infection is alive, cancers are living entities, and so is a cockroach. And you'd better believe I'll happily murder all of them if they annoy me, whether you consider them "alive and therefore sacred" or not.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Life is what the pregnant woman experiences, being already born. I don't care what you, or anyone else considers "life" to be. The government has no business in this discussion. Your determination of what constitutes life is between you and your deity, if you have one. "The definition of life" is a stupid, stupid argument to base a law on someone's right to determine what they will host within their own body.


A fungal infection is alive, cancers are living entities, and so is a cockroach. And you'd better believe I'll happily murder all of them if they annoy me, whether you consider them "alive and therefore sacred" or not.

RIDICULOUS statement! The definition of life should be taken entirely away from religion and given to science. Government should follow science. The LAST thing we want is someone making a decision about what is life when they have something to gain by deciding it is not; history shows humans are TERRIBLE at making that decision.

[billethkid]

I do believe the increased speed of this merry go round is showing it's effect(s)!!

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

RIDICULOUS statement! The definition of life should be taken entirely away from religion and given to science. Government should follow science. The LAST thing we want is someone making a decision about what is life when they have something to gain by deciding it is not; history shows humans are TERRIBLE at making that decision.

Very true, thank you. The government could commission a group to figure out what is an acceptable definition of life.

However, I will suggest that even if we scientifically define life as at conception, we should not forget that not killing is one of the leakiest morals known. There are countless conditions under which a life can be legally ended against the live beings will.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

I confess I find your much of your arguments, well somewhat specious, the alternative to setting limits on abortions ends up with "late term abortions" you would have it that the "privacy of your body" should allow something as barbaric as that for no other reason than your preference, that is the question

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

Margaret Sanger would be proud of you...