Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote:

---

Are you seriously suggesting that rapes make up all abortions, or that women should be given a free ride on sexual responsibility when it is not rape?

---

Uh, no, and no. I have no idea why you would think this.I do notice, however, that most anti-choice groups focus on controling women's bodies and not men's.

quote:

---

With the extreme witchhunt mentality regarding underage sex sweeping the globe, are you seriously telling me no one is one men's cases?

---

Most anti-choice groups I have read about do not focus their efforts on the male half of the equation.

quote:

---

Frankly, I find the over "victimizing" by our culture of young girls who get pregnant, (viewing each instance as violator-victim) more harmful than helpful. More harmful in general, than the pregnancy itself.

---

Are you saying that a 13 year old girl with no sexual experience who agrees to have sex with a sexually experienced 21 year old hasn't likely been manipulated and coerced? The same goes with a young boy and an adult woman. Was it OK for that female teacher to have an affair with her 13 year old student? I don't think so.Yes, humans do human things. Some of those "human things" that we do involve the sexual manipulation of and power trips over young children and need to be discouraged.

quote:

---

They care about women's rights, they just also believe in an embryo's rights too (as equals)

---

I disagree that they care about women's rights.

quote:

---

Yeah, let's work on castrating all men now! That way we don't have to blame MEN later.

---

You certainly have made a habit out of reponding to your twisted version of my position instead of my actual position, holmes.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-15-2004]

Does anyone have statistics comparing the occurance of teenage pregnancy (or underage sex) between those with significant age differences and those without? Otherwise I would expect most underage sex to occur with both parties underage. Did the boy mind? I read an interesting article written by a a guy who had sex with his parents child minder when he was 12 to 13 (she was twentyish, IIRC). He thought it was great. She was prosecuted.

quote:

---

Does anyone have statistics comparing the occurance of teenage pregnancy (or underage sex) between those with significant age differences and those without?

---

Viasat Internet Service Providers Near MeThe fathers of babies born to teenage mothers are likely to be older than the women: About 1 in 5 infants born to unmarried minors are fathered by men 5 or more years older than the mother."While 93% of teenage women report that their first intercourse was voluntary, one-quarter of these young women report that it was unwanted. The younger women are when they first have intercourse, the more likely they are to have had unwanted or nonvoluntary first sex--7 in 10 of those who had sex before age 13, for example. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of sexually active 15-17-year-old women have partners who are within two years of their age; 29% have sexual partners who are 3-5 years older, and 7% have partners who are six or more years older. Most sexually active young men have female partners close to their age: 76% of the partners of 19-year-old men are either 17 (33%) or 18 (43%); 13% are 16, and 11% are aged 13-15."

quote:

---

I do notice, however, that most anti-choice groups focus on controling women's bodies and not men's.

---

This is ridiculous given serious thought. What else is an antiABORTION group supposed to focus on? They have to focus on women because only women are having abortions. Give science time and the first man carrying a child I'm sure antiAbortion groups will fight their choice to abort.I pointed out that members of antiAbortion groups are pretty solidly behind the EXACT THING you said... men need to learn to keep it in their pants.Like you, they DO believe that unwanted pregnancies should be stopped at their source, which is to say SEX. I'm trying to figure out how you haven't heard them coming out against premarital sex, and for abstinence education.Clearly they won't do that at the doors of abortion clinics, but that kind of makes sense doesn't it?Look, I am on your side with regard to women's rights. I'm just saying you are not doing US a service by painting them out to be inhuman monsters, or sexist oppressors.They hold a different (and in my view errant) metaphysical position with regard to life, as well as an incorrect ideological position with regard to how the government can impose that metaphysical position on others.Their metaphysical position however is not against women, it really is proLife (up until it is born, and then they go hypocritical).

quote:

---

Most anti-choice groups I have read about do not focus their efforts on the male half of the equation.

---

Really? Do you really mean to say that MOST antiAbortion groups are not allied with abstinence only education groups? I think some research might be in order.Like you they think people should prevent the pregnancies beforehand. Toward this end they are for abstinence education, greater punishments for rapists, as well as ending pornography which encourages premarital sex.

quote:

---

Are you saying that a 13 year old girl with no sexual experience who agrees to have sex with a sexually experienced 21 year old hasn't likely been manipulated and coerced? The same goes with a young boy and an adult woman. Was it OK for that female teacher to have an affair with her 13 year old student? I don't think so.

---

Well you certainly stack a loaded deck for me to choose from.If your real question is whether a 13 year old can consent to sex with an older person, without manipulation and coercion, then the answer is unquestionably YES.Will they be on the same playing field of sexual knowledge? Probably (and I would add hopefully) not.I always find it funny when prudes cart this argument out. Just because a young person has less knowledge, and an older person has more knowledge, does not make imparting the greater knowledge to that younger person involves deceit and coercion.Otherwise all cases of teaching itself are manipulation and coercion.Why do you believe that a 13 year old would have 0 sexual knowledge (they can't read and never masturbated to fantasies?), and would be uninterested in learning more about sex from older people that might be more experienced.I love your later post where you give stats on the age difference between women and men for pregnancies... I hate to say it but don't most girls PREFER older men? That has been a pretty consistent theme in every girl I have ever met, stretching back to junior high. High school girls wanted at least college age boys. College girls wanted professors and professionals. College graduates wanted men well into their career.Again I think you have confused demographics with some sort of moral calculation.But lets ACTUALLY discuss coercion and manipulation. I do believe older people are able to manipulate younger people better do to experience, or position of authority. This is an important issue to keep an eye on and to prevent. However, it is ludicrous (IMO) to move from that and say all cases of old-young sexual contact is coercive, or that cases of young-young or old-old contact are less likely to be coercive.I am not sure which teacher you are talking about, since there are actually two cases of this in the news. But from what I understand NEITHER were cases of coercion at all. In both the kids actually wanted to have sex with the teacher and enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't think it was a power trip, at least not over the kid.That said, I am against it for other reasons. I believe that parents should have very strong rights with respect to their children. In both cases the parents were against what happened and that showed a pretty large disregard of the teachers toward the student's home life. So they CERTAINLY had a right to complain. This is compounded by the fact that she was a teacher. People in positions where families send their kids to be in a nonsexual environment, have a right to expect those people in charge do not take advantage of THEIR trust... even if the kid decides to play around.I think European models, at least before the US got involved were some of the best models for handling sexual rights. In the Netherlands (as one example) children were allowed to have sex from 12 on. From this age to 16, both the child and the parents had the right to press charges against anyone having sex with the child. Thus THEY had control of sexual freedom and not the state. In any case, persons with positions of authority over the child were barred from sexual contact.I will note that your own scenario of a 13yo having sex with someone older, is LEGAL in some US states. So at least in some states age difference is not that huge or immediate an indicator of coercion.

quote:

---

Some of those "human things" that we do involve the sexual manipulation of and power trips over young children and need to be discouraged.

---

Agreed, that includes people who go on power trips to stop "children" from having sex (even with older people) because of a false presumption it must be coerced and manipulated, because they personally feel sex is negative and all kids must feel the same by default.It IS time to end the witchhunt mentality regarding sex. Kids do it too. Kids want it too. Were you not a kid? Did you not want it? I dunno, maybe you were molested or something and so made to feel like a victim. Okay, in that case I feel bad for you. But most kids do just fine with their own sexual growth, and we cannot limit them all, just for the MINORITY of cases.At least, that will not do anything to STOP molestation. ALL it does is give children insecurities and negative attitudes towards something that should be joyful.

quote:

---

I disagree that they care about women's rights.

---

You may be right that in addition to their antiAbortion stance, they tend to hold the Xian stance of women being lesser than men, and not exactly equal rights activists.But this is not true for all of them, and it is a false connection to make between abortion and other sex issues, and gender issues. Why is it so hard for you to believe they actually feel like life begins at conception and so not taking caring of your fetus is like not taking care of your toddler?Painting them as insincere, rather than mistaken, is not helping.

quote:

---

You certainly have made a habit out of reponding to your twisted version of my position instead of my actual position, holmes.

---

You clipped the heheheh off my quote!I am trying to tell you that your stated positions on sexual issues definitely put the onus on men for everything bad, especially older men. I realize you are not for castration, but you do come off as a manhating (and sexually victorian) feminist.On this issue in particular, saying things like those in antiAbortion groups don't pick on men, especially with regard to underage pregnancies, comes off as irrationally defensive. They certainly DO attack men. Its just no use to do so at an abortion clinic.And with regard to the antiAbortion crowd, you are pushing the feminist line too hard. This is not a woman-man issue, it is really an equal life-life issue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all I would like to point out that the question was regarding occurence of underage pregnancy with relation to age difference. It was not regarding the possibility of coercion in underage sex, though you managed to sneak that in as the majority of your points...Second I will note that the link in question quotes studies with known problems. Especially with regard to simple age difference issues (beyond pregnancy rates).The prime study is not just a bit biased (coming as it does from a group trying to stop teen pregnancy), and as it is used some of the worst techniques possible.Schraf, this makes the third time I have found a source of yours to have serious flaws. I realize the EvC forum shouldn't take up all your time, but you ought to do some research on the studies you cite, as well as understand more about sociological research methods. Here is an interesting link analyzing different studies, including the one where your stats were derived, and showing some SERIOUS flaws in methodology. For example (in case you decide not to go) did that study include oral, anal, or heavy petting in their definition of "intercourse"? Hmmmmm.As it is I am left scratching my head at a stat like 93% said something was voluntary, and at the same time 25% said it was unwanted. That still means a majority were voluntary and wanted (even with age difference). But apparently 18% volunteered to do something they did not want? This should have been examined by the study more closely.Strictly speaking on pregnancy issues, 1 in 5 is not a huge percentage, so I am wondering what your point is with your stats. Even assuming they are correct, please explain how when the analyses of age with relation to sex are compared with age related to pregnancy, you come up with some criticism of age different sex?More intriguing is what stats you do NOT show from your link. The very cultures which allow for younger sex, including old-young, defy the underage pregnancy "problem" seen in the prudish US. You yourself pointed out that Japan has allowed childporn and childsex for ages and continues to do so, and I have mentioned Netherlands as a sex tolerant society along those same lines.Perhaps blaming teen pregnancy in the US on coercion of minors into sex is like blaming violence in the US on video games and movies? It appears where sex is not treated with prudishness, and the sexual experience of children is not stifled... pregnancy goes down, drastically.This appears to be supported by the following point within your own link. Once again, I want to encourage you to analyze studies before you accept them and/or cite them. Especially sociological studies are prone to error, and biases of the researcher.I might also encourage you to stop viewing them as making moral conclusions, or allowing us to make moral conclusions. That's usually the same mistake researchers who create biased studies have made when setting their study up.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-15-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Is it "right" to force a woman to incubate a child?

​

Why does the fetus' rights trump those of the woman's?

---

I'm wondering if you have ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird".
Atticus says one way or another "I'm all for women's rights but not at the cost of another man's life."The woman is Mayella and the fetus is Tom Robinson.Think about that one for a little while.That pretty much takes care of your entire argument. I think you should cool down now.Oh, and are you by any chance part of the feminist movement?cya around

---

-chris

sorry I don't see the connection .... The Book is about racial discrimination...I have mixed emotions on abortion

Messenjah, have you ever laid or sat there and listened to your wifes and daughters (or sons) heartbeats and realized that you might have to pick one over the other. Until you have do not presume to preach to me or anyone else about the morality of that third reason. If the lifers had their way even that medical choice would not be an option. Just to underscore my point, I spent a night listening to those heartbeats, both of them skipping beats and in distress, and had to face that choice. I am fortunate and did not have to make it at the end due to the skill of the attending physician, but I know others who were not that fortunate.Abortion can be a medically neccessary procedure and should be treated as such.And for the record, I dislike abortion just to relieve someone of having a child. It is sloppy (one of my worst curses for people and their ignorance). Course I dislike religion as well as it relieves people of the responsability for their own actions and often leads to sloppy thinking.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

You mean, is she committed to putting into practice the idea that women deserve all the same rights and privleges men enjoy?Who's not a part of that?I think there ought to be a rule - if you have a penis, you're disqualified from the abortion debate. Your experience with abortion will never be closer than second-hand.

I think you're being unfair to messenjaH.His comment regarding schraf's being in the feminist movement is obviously a ref to her rather feminist fundie lingo. She clearly has a bias as to who is "guilty" in pregnancy, despite the actual findings in the studies she presented.Weren't you at least slightly taken back by the "men have to keep it their pants" approach to unwanted pregnancies?

quote:

---

if you have a penis, you're disqualified from the abortion debate. Your experience with abortion will never be closer than second-hand.

---

While I agree with men not having a say in a particular woman's abortion, I am not so sure that men cannot be part of the debate. In fact, I find this statement slightly odd in that it seems to presuppose that there are no women against abortion. I believe the split is just as high on this issue as it is in men. Maybe someone has some stats?The thing is if embryos or fetuses are thought of as truly living human beings of EQUAL value to the mother, then messenjaH has a valid point and is not trying to deprive women of their rights.Here is hopefully an adequate analogy.A mother is spelunking with her son. They get to a hairy cliff edge and repel down further into the cavern. During the repel a pinion breaks free and a large rock falls to knock the son unconscious.Being tied to the mother he is saved from his certain fall to death, but this has now put his mother in jeapordy as well. While it is likely that she can make it back to the cliff edge and pull her son up afterward, there is a chance that her pinion or line will break, plunging them both to their demise.Do you believe that just because she is the mother, she has a right to cut her son's line? Do you believe that only spelunkers and cliff climbers have the right to say whether she can or not? Is it impossible for others to come to an intelligent conclusion regarding the situation she is in? And if so, why?I get that women are in the (so far by nature) unique position of bearing the burden of carrying a life. That can suck or be beneficial depending how one views it. While I think it gives insight to a particular woman on when she feels her fetus has become a child, I do not believe that alters people from coming to a rational conclusion based on objective definitions or measurements... though I am of the opinion we don't have sets of these yet.Let's take a hypthetical. Let's say research someday allows scientists to accurately measure consciousness (awareness of surroundings and selfbeing) and determine at some point fetuses have true consciousness, even if not so much educated, as any grown up.At that point would men still be disqualified in making a statement regarding abortion? Why would a mother have some extra-privileged position? Just because by nature she is stuck with the biological burden? I am unsure if moral conclusions can be exclusively limited (as shown by the analogy above) to those within unique physical positions.While I wholly disagree with messenjaH's opinion, I kind of wish people would stop making him out to be a sexist. I have yet to see him say anything inherently sexist as a reason for his being against abortion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This opinion on the matter is irrelevant. A woman has a right to prevent her body from being invaded by the fetus, injected with hormones and drained of it's resources. You would have the same right to use whatever means necessary to protect your own bodily integrity. If an attacker advanced upon you, and injected you with unwanted hormones, you would have a right to end his life in order to make him stop if that was the only way to protect the integrity of your body. Obviously that's not often the case, but the analogy is applicable to the relationship between a woman and the fetus in her womb.

Sorry I thought I'd just jump in here, I know you're hammered with other replys.

quote:

---

This is where it is your choice to have the baby or not. This reason is the crutch of pro-choice enthusiasts.

---

Even if this is the only situation in which you would accept an abortion, this statement you've made makes YOU pro-choice.To be anti-abortion and support anti-abortion movements is to eliminate this. Even if it's "rare" would you want this choice to be taken away? Would you like to say to an expectant mother, your baby is killing you and will most likely be still born but the law prevents me from saving your life?

Oh, hell... why not... A few things...An abortion doesn't kill a baby, it removes an embryo or a fetus.Second, a woman's right to her own body integrity trumps the rights of the fetus to invade her body against her will. Unprotected sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. That's like saying an open door is consent to burglary. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person. Abortion is 1.) not unlawful and 2.) does not kill a person. It is therefore not murder.

I am sorry But if you have sex of your free will you Know darn well there is a chance of getting pregnant! I mean if you don't want a child practice safe sex! It lowers the chances ALOT! How hard is that? If you allow the penis and the sperm to come in and you know they are then its not an invader... For rape victims I will agree with you on the invader thing[This message has been edited by DC85, 03-17-2004]

And if you leave your front door unlocked of your own free will, you know darn well that there is a chance of being burgled. That doesn't establish consent to a burglary.Sex -- protected or not -- does not establish consent to pregnancy.