The Problem with Legalized Abortion

What would you say they are deluding themselves about? What do you mean by that...that it was their intent from the outset? Looks like you are just repeating a mantra..."They don't want to save the babies, they just want to subjugate women!!!". Provide some evidence that your version is truly their main purpose.Just because the means puts legal limits on what women can do, doesn't mean that was the reason for establishing those limits. That's like saying the reason for making certain forms of killing illegal was to limit the freedoms of individuals rather than minimize killing of people.Sure, actions indicate intent within limits. However, not understanding the person removes the context wherein the action was initiated.
Have you looked at what the pro-life movement does besides protesting at abortion clinics and trying to limit legal abortions? How about providing financial assistance to women who are single and pregnant. How about finding adoption parents for the baby and prenatal nutrition and fitness counseling? Did you miss those things that they did?

Well, approximately 30% of all women who are using contraceptive methods are using them incorrectly according to surveys cited by the CDC.
Less than 10% of all sexually active women wind up with an unwanted pregnancy.
Even if 60% of those getting an abortion used contraception, I would say that most of those failures were due to using contraception incorrectly. I have come to that conclusion based on information regarding the tested effectiveness of contraceptive methods. I guess I could do research to provide more accurate statistics regarding that if you feel that you aren't well informed on the effectiveness of individual contraceptive methods. By the way I do support comprehensive sex education at my local school board and county councils...I can't help it if 2 of our board members are preachers. I explained why I thought controlling behavior was the means chosen by pro-life advocates. They do not want to support a behavior outside their belief system and that is what they perceive providing free contraception would do.Besides, what good is contraception anyway? According to you and brennakimi, it fails over 50% of the time.Edited by LinearAq, : Wanted it to look good so nator wouldn't criticize my grammar.

quote:

---

sex·ism
Dictionary.com:
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

---

Has she or you shown that the attitudes or behaviors of those establishing Medicaid's accepted drugs are based on discrimination or that they are trying to devalue women? No...not really.Besides that, she's wrong.
This site: provides a list of the reproductive services afforded by Medicaid by state. All States cover prescription birth control, many cover at least some over the counter birth control, and all provide some abortion coverage (rape, incest, life/health threatening issues).
Here is the information on copay for prescription meds. The highest is $5.00 per scrip. Most are between $1.00 and $3.00, with 10 states having no copay at all. Note that there is no distinguishing a scrip for sexual needs from those for any other problem.It also seems that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services differs with MBG on their coverage for erectile dysfunction.

quote:

---

On October 26, 2005, Section 1860D-2(e)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) was amended excluding from the definition of a Part D drug, “a drug when used for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, unless such drug were used to treat a condition, other than sexual or erectile dysfunction, for which the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)”. Subsequently, beginning CY 2007, ED drugs, when prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, will be excluded from coverage under Part D.

---

Apparently, it is necessary, since the data I provided shows she is wrong. It seems that you think any old diatribe declaring sexism in a particular instance should automatically be accepted without some support. Edited by LinearAq, : Trying not to poison the message through badly written prose.

Really? Is that how statistics works? Providing more chances increases the probability that the event in question will occur? I didn't take statistics in college and only breezed over it when studying for my Professional Engineering Certification. So, how many times would you have to have sex for that 1% to grow to 50%? I guess that's why we can just ignore the findings of science regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy. Statistics has little to do with reality and "my personal anecdotal experiences" are what we should base this country's medical decisions upon.I find it interesting that you discard the mathematics which form the basis for analysis in:
The insurance industry (That drunk driving conviction doesn't mean anything...keep the rates the same!)
Civil Engineering (Waddaya mean, that bridge design's failed 30% of the time? I know it'll work here!!)
Medical analysis (Go ahead and smoke, those stats don't matter!)Edited by LinearAq, : Grammar

"They" ridicule the idea of treating the fetus as a person with full rights of an independent person rather than as a person with modified rights commensurate with it's level of development. Just because you claim the declaration of a fetus as deserving of some rights requires it must be accorded all rights, doesn't make it feasible. There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus. That was not an admission that their main purpose was to limit the freedoms of women. It was an explanation of why limiting the perceived freedoms of women was the direction chosen to achieve their main purpose of saving unborn children.Are my communication skills so inadequate that I will always fail to provide you with an understanding of the difference between purpose and actions to achieve that purpose? What would constitute evidence in that regard to your satisfaction?
As it stands I know of some local Crisis Pregnancy Centers that provide some prenatal financial aid and counseling. Help with adoption was provided for several young women in my town that I am aware of.
Is that anecdotal...yes and I may be unjustifiably assuming that this is an across-the-board occurrence.

Yes and then you have springboarded from that to saying that we should be taking extraordinary effort to save those fetuses that die due to miscarriage or never implant. I guess it doesn't but tenuousness of existence does change the effort taken to continue that person's existence. So, you think if these Christians support sex outside of marriage, that would prove to you that controlling women is not their ultimate goal, even if they also were anti abortion.
I guess that means that you believe it's appropriate to act contrary to your beliefs to accomplish a goal that you believe in. Consequently:
1. You support the idea that it is ok for Christians who lie to get someone 'saved'.
2. Those misrepresentations of the dangers of abortion by anti-abortionists will no longer be decried as scurrilous by you since it accomplishes their ultimate goal of saving the fetus by having the pregnant woman chose to keep the child to term.

To an extent, yes. If that person poses a credible danger to your existence then your rights override its rights. Just as if that person were threatening you with a weapon regardless of its intent.

If you did those things, do you think you would deserve the death penalty to pay for it?
What if I knew you were going to do that? Would it be appropriate for me to kill you before you got the chance?BTW: There's this new thing that they've come up with in the US to help you with that 20-year issue. It's called adoption. Maybe you should check it out.Edited by LinearAq, : qs /qs error

Why is it not classified as a death penalty if the being cannot survive on its own and thus dies because you decided that it was not worth your time and effort?What characteristics of the fetus cause you to classify it as a parasite?A one-month-old baby cannot survive on its own either and is a parasite to its care giver. I guess putting it in a dumpster, away from its source of sustenance, is not enacting a death penalty for its potential to cost the care giver time and money.Christopher Reeve could not live without his respirator and he was a bit of a burden to his wife and family. Are you saying that he lived due to their great benevolence and could have been removed from that which allowed him to survive with no consequence to those who removed him?

If the baby imperils your life then it would not survive anyway so this doesn't appear to be a problem as far as making abortion necessary. You know I have already said so."Wellbeing" is an amorphous term. You could use it to describe that your health is in danger or it could mean something as innocuous as you might have less orgasms if you are pregnant.If you don't want to put yourself in peril, then don't have intercourse (since you believe chemical or mechanical contraception is risky). I'm sure there are many other ways of satisfying yourself with your partner.

What about them? How much of a risk is it? How does that risk compare with those of other things we do in life?
Does this extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk? How risky are they? How do they add to the overall risk of pregnancy?
Does this even more extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk?Smoking cigarettes is associated with lung cancer. Smokers run the risk that they will have to have major surgery.Having sex is a risk that you might get pregnant. The man runs the risk that he might be financially liable for a child. Not as much risk as the mother surely. Don't like the risk of getting pregnant, then don't engage in intercourse. Does a 2-month-old's life completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body? What makes a fetus different? The difference is that the woman can regain her rights and freedom without killing the 2-month-old.

I actually thought you might not have known of the change, but I have to be right once in a while. I would amend that to say it is hard for low income people to obtain. That would, of course, mean that Viagra is difficult to obtain for poor men. Yes, that is what is federally mandated. Very impractical, since less poor mouths to feed means less government expense.
Some states are paying for abortions for other reasons, thankfully.The real issue concerning Medicaid is the following travesty. Not just for contraception but across the board.Edited by LinearAq, : repair grammar and unclear wording.

Sure it does. It needs her body to bring it food, change diapers...etc. If she doesn't want to move her body to do those things the baby suffers.

Time within the proper environment.

The problem with legalized abortion is that there are certain individuals in the world with selfish ideas of right and wrong and they want to make sure that everyone else supports those ideas regardless of the extent to which it discards the rights of others.
Laws defining cruelty to animals restrict activities of some people who have a different moral outlook than PETA. However, those laws are still enforced and people are required to abide by them; to follow that restrictive moral code.The position of anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a human person. That person does not deserve to die because someone feels "put out" by their existence. Certainly there are times when one person's rights must be subjugated to the rights of another, but is "inconvenience" a valid reason? This is a position that is not likely to change easily.A birthed person has definite rights and a fetus does not. That is a matter of law, not an indication of what is inherent or what is not. A change in the law could change the rights of individuals.Being able to express your desires, will and needs is not a precursor to having rights, else infants and invalids would have none.We should take procreation seriously and have children when we choose to do so. However, I see this as an argument to support widespread application of contraception education and availability, not abortion.Anti-abortion activists cite two issues: The high numbers of abortions that are occurring and the fact that abortion is killing a child. In the face of the high odds against having abortion completely criminalized, they have opted for legislation that could lower the numbers of abortions. To this end they have adopted means that are manipulative and even duplicitous. If they are willing to skirt and even cross a Biblically established moral line, by lying to control women's behaviors, then why not skirt another Biblically established moral line by supporting something that MAY make sinning more likely but minimizes abortions?It is this very selective breaking of their own moral code that throws into the question the truth of the claims by their leaders that their only goal is to stop the killing of babies.Is abortion the killing of a "person"? I believe that in the gestation of a human, some point is reached where that clump of cells becomes a person. That fuzzy line is difficult to place, but it is unimportant. The key not making abortion illegal, but instead to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Whatever policies or education that can make that happen should be supported by both sides of this debate.