Jump to content

Abortion: Is it really what the public *wants*?


WoodwindWhistler

Recommended Posts

WoodwindWhistler

Since there has been a resurgence of the pro life movement, I thought I would share a short paper I wrote.

I added in some other of my threads at the end.

I will state the same disclaimer I put in the first thread: I am not stating any of my own opinions in this paper. Merely making observations.

This is an incredibly dense and convoluted issue, involving spirituality, biology, psychology, socioeconomics. PLEASE do not give me any kneejerk, simplistic retorts to this, guys. Please.

I've had that problem before in this subforum (you know who you are).

I'd really, really appreciate if you took the time to slow down and examine each of the interrelated points. Since I took the time to compile all of this, dig back through my personal files and AVEN, not to mention the care I put in writing them in the past in the first place.

Trying to recall every angle of an issue that I've ever put down before, where it was that I did so, as well as where and when I saw information about it, as you may have seen in my thread about video games and their relationship to violence, is challenging. I'm trying to gather a coherent whole, here, if I can.

EDIT: You should probably read this thread first. I have coined the term "Sex Cautionary"

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/134947-sex-n-or-sex-p-can-i-just-go-ahead-and-coin-the-term-sex-cautionary/


Here is an interesting and detailed take on the matter, that does not specifically get into whether enforcing legally is defensible or not:

http://menollysagittaria.deviantart.com/art/Against-needless-abortion-for-all-human-life-316208971

EDIT: Since it doesn't seem to be clear what the point of this essay is without a "thesis": The essence of a democracy is the majority decides. If the majority did not want legal abortion at the beginning of its implementation, that means principles of democracy have been violated in favor of social engineering. Maybe you're okay with that. Maybe on this issue, that can be a good thing. I'm simply ruminating on it, is all. Since the pro-life movement has re-surged, obviously opinion might be shifting, or else, it is reverting back to what it originally was in the first place, [which is politically significant] especially in light of new information about PTSD-like symptoms from abortion.

About democracy: So, you do accept social engineering and the rule of the elite over the rest of us? Okay. I think, in an age of information that is available, maybe we should at least rhetorically revisit the idea that our "Mommy" government knows what's best for us. Neh?

Morality and Majority

For a decade, aftershocks of the Roe vs. Wade decision rippled outwards. For better or worse, girls had increased access to contraception, and this has had radical effects on gender dynamics, familial relations, and communities. President Reagan, in his effort to check this tide, speaks to motivate evangelicals. Although the initial support for the right to choice was strong, and the resistance weak, he is quick to point out the warnings that did come before. He clearly perceives these as links in a chain, that this nascent force would inevitably grow stronger and culminate in a triumphant religious rebirth of America. Although Reagan ardently extols religious beliefs and values and disavows secularism, he inadvertently makes a decent secular case that the decisions of the administration are undemocratic.

According to Reagan, success as a country relies on following God. He quotes George Washington, “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.'' He repeats this idea later on, tying the health of freedom to “vibrant” religion. He prays fervently for those trapped in “totalitarian darkness,” implying that God’s light should shine on them. Regardless of religion, the question “can [sex] be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm?” is a highly pertinent one to ask and facilitate. The issue of parental input on abortion and birth control also begs the question, are these methods sending fractures through families by promoting and enabling secrecy and deception? The fiber of society, he believes, is not tied up in government, but in morality. “[W]e must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man.” Even if it does not justify his specific ends, in many demonstrable ways, this is true. A just law can be on the books, but that does not say whether it actually gets enforced. A people that are naturally kind and just to each other need less policing and oversight. Interestingly, though, he does believe that while government cannot improve man, it can diminish him. He points to the death of disabled infants from neglect as stemming from the allowance of pre-birth deaths. This seems to be at least one case where the “slippery slope fallacy” is not fallacy.

Reagan demonstrates that the majority opinion is against the actions of the government. Those who are making these rules have a “value system . . . radically different from that of most Americans.” He cites a survey that boasts a 95% count in those who believed personally and deeply in the ten commandments, and even a vast difference in the religiosity of Americans versus other countries. He does not give specific numbers about the stance against teenage sex and abortion, but claims it is a large majority. If this is truly the case, then why is the government taking actions that go against that majority? Reagan says that all 50 states had protections on the books for unborn children that were wiped by Roe vs. Wade. Apparently, then, this trajectory was not a robust movement that started state by state, or was gaining lots of popular political ground. Instead it was forced mainly by interest groups or from the top down. “And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from the superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation . . . The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.” Instead of Planned Parenthood undermining relationships between parents and children and potentially creating a generational gap wider than it already was, could these educators pre-emptively reach out to parents themselves, to present their case for their viewpoint? Would some parents financially step up to pay for birth control, after they had facts? Would other conservatives live up to their morals and reassure the children as a whole that they would help take care of “accidental” newborns? In the economic prosperity ushered in by Reagan’s hands-off policies, there would be more than enough money to support larger families, the only question would be whether the social fabric would be resilient enough not to reject unwed mothers. The attitudes towards multi-generational households today could have been vastly different had this experiment been carried out. One could even envision some conservatives following the footsteps of Henry David Thoreau, civilly refusing to pay their taxes to support what they saw as unjust slaughter. Another auxiliary point to support Reagan’s idea that the American people did not truly like what their government was doing involves the sheer fervor with which the beliefs were held. He cited a man in California saying he would rather his daughters die now than live under a regime that taught them not to believe in God. Thousands leapt to their feet in an outpouring of enthusiasm. Even allowing that these might be some of the more radical believers, that’s an astonishingly powerful testament. These are the passionate climates in which Reagan sees secularized reasoning attempting to “construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.” He laments the fact that adults in Congress can open their proceedings with prayer, but children do not, and that the Lubbock case was narrow-minded enough to approve unequal treatment of religions campus groups.

“What philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil” and the plain principles of democracy hold water even in a debate space that demanded non-spiritual objectivism. Ironically, Reagan was deathly afraid of standards for reasoning that excluded God, but if he had reworked his argument a bit, he could go up against those titans, who he saw as degrading the social order, on their own turf. Echoes of his ideas bounce around current discussions of education spending, in such statements as education starts at home, and education relies on strength of families. If a child is not fed intellectually and emotionally, if they do not feel safe nor loved, they will have a slimmer hope of bettering themselves. Government spending can only do so much to alleviate these ills, and in many places progress has stagnated even with more money coming in. Like President Carter before him, Reagan insisted that America’s problems were not material or external, but primarily within its people.

Reagan, Ronald. “Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.” Sheraton Twin Towers Hotel, Orlando, Florida. 8 March 1983. Address.

Additional Reading:

Previously, I started this thread on birth control: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/96706-sexuality-spectrum-and-opinions-on-birth-control/

I have made comments before in the #asexualproblems thread about birth control and sex ed, too:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/92745-asexualproblems/?p=1061059321


EDIT: Post on the "unwanted children" issue: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/133430-abortion-is-it-really-what-the-public-wants/?p=1061673824

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so this essay does not actually make any arguments - it just purports to lay out Ronald Reagan's beliefs. That makes it very difficult to respond to in any interesting way: I don't think debating the specifics of what Ronald Reagan believed has a lot of value or relevance to the subject of women's right to choose in the US today. In addition, the few substantive claims that are made lack any support. For example:

For better or worse, girls had increased access to contraception, and this has had radical effects on gender dynamics, familial relations, and communities.

What effects, specifically? Why would we assume that access to contraception was the primary contributing factor in any given societal change?

He(Reagan) points to the death of disabled infants from neglect as stemming from the allowance of pre-birth deaths. This seems to be at least one case where the “slippery slope fallacy” is not fallacy.

Did deaths of disabled infants from neglect increase in the US in the time period after Roe v. Wade? I would find that interesting, but there's actually no indication that that is the case.

He(Reagan) does not give specific numbers about the stance against teenage sex and abortion, but claims it is a large majority.

This is the quintessential example - why would we find this claim interesting or compelling in any way? Reagan was not a social worker, who might have first hand experience with average Americans, nor a sociologist. As the essay itself states, he doesn't even provide any kind of substantiation for his claim. Furthermore, you note earlier that he was attempting to rouse the evangelical vote - so he actually has political motivation to oppose Roe v. Wade regardless of any evidence or even his own beliefs about the matter.

If you're interested, I could drill down even more obnoxiously, but that's probably not helpful. I guess I'm not sure what you were looking for here - without any actual argument to respond to, there's really not that much to say other than to note that Reagan did in fact like God a whole lot. Shrug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand why gov do not just sterilise people, until they apply for a license to breed, and then its there choice, and they are wanting it(ie having a baby). You have a licence for everything else.

I am sure with the world over populated, the demographics could still be kept up with immigrants as always.

That would solve the abortion thing.

Whether your pro or anti abortion(i have no real view), surely the world is over populated, so why not do something that meets both in the middle. I still say like my earlier thread, everyone should be sterilised at 30.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was not only not a social worker or psychologist, he likely did not write any speeches that he delivered or had printed. Additionally, he was likely at the beginning of Alzheimer's during his first term in office, not simply in his second term or post-Presidency. Reagan was a mouthpiece for the beginning of the rightwing sector of the Republican Party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand why gov do not just sterilise people, until they apply for a license to breed, and then its there choice, and they are wanting it(ie having a baby). You have a licence for everything else.

I am sure with the world over populated, the demographics could still be kept up with immigrants as always.

That would solve the abortion thing.

You don't need a license for lots of things. But seriously, that wouldn't "solve" the abortion thing. People would still be having sex without a license, and end up pregnant, and abortion would be the best option for them. Also, people do get abortions in wanted pregnancies (ie health reasons).

Whether your pro or anti abortion(i have no real view), surely the world is over populated, so why not do something that meets both in the middle. I still say like my earlier thread, everyone should be sterilised at 30.

I'm pro choice because I believe people should make decisions over their body and thus not forcing them to remain pregnant - forcing people to get sterilised is directly violating their bodily autonomy. It wouldn't solve overpopulation, just take away people's rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or worse, girls had increased access to contraception, and this has had radical effects on gender dynamics, familial relations, and communities.

Could you elaborate on these effects?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

Yeah I don't really understand what you're asking...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand why gov do not just sterilise people, until they apply for a license to breed, and then its there choice, and they are wanting it(ie having a baby). You have a licence for everything else.

If anything, this would increase abortion as people without licenses get pregnant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't need a license for lots of things. But seriously, that wouldn't "solve" the abortion thing. People would still be having sex without a license, and end up pregnant, and abortion would be the best option for them. Also, people do get abortions in wanted pregnancies (ie health reasons).

You misunderstand.

I mean like at school, they could give you something that sterilises you until they give you an antidote, when you get a licence. Therefore the female or male cannot breed, until they give them authority to do so. They can have as much sex as they like, but they would not be able to breed.

I am sure something will come one day, but maybe only when there is a one world thing, if there ever is.

Ie, sterilising people at school, but then giving them the antidote when they get a licence to breed. I am sure its possible, and i am sure they have tried to come up with ways.

Its the only real way to get rid of that abortion question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't need a license for lots of things. But seriously, that wouldn't "solve" the abortion thing. People would still be having sex without a license, and end up pregnant, and abortion would be the best option for them. Also, people do get abortions in wanted pregnancies (ie health reasons).

You misunderstand.

I mean like at school, they could give you something that sterilises you until they give you an antidote, when you get a licence. Therefore the female or male cannot breed, until they give them authority to do so. They can have as much sex as they like, but they would not be able to breed.

I am sure something will come one day, but maybe only when there is a one world thing, if there ever is.

Ie, sterilising people at school, but then giving them the antidote when they get a licence to breed. I am sure its possible, and i am sure they have tried to come up with ways.

Its the only real way to get rid of that abortion question.

No way that could go wrong. :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand.

I mean like at school, they could give you something that sterilises you until they give you an antidote, when you get a licence. Therefore the female or male cannot breed, until they give them authority to do so. They can have as much sex as they like, but they would not be able to breed.

I am sure something will come one day, but maybe only when there is a one world thing, if there ever is.

Ie, sterilising people at school, but then giving them the antidote when they get a licence to breed. I am sure its possible, and i am sure they have tried to come up with ways.

Its the only real way to get rid of that abortion question.

You would think there would be antidotes on the black market.

As said in Jurassic Park, "Life, uh, finds a way"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think contraception should be tried before abortion for practical reasons. If that fails, have an abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that right now is that we (really, I want to just say Republicans) seem to picking the worse of multiple worlds. EG poor sex education and difficulty of access to contraceptives (none of which are 100% effective).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't need a license for lots of things. But seriously, that wouldn't "solve" the abortion thing. People would still be having sex without a license, and end up pregnant, and abortion would be the best option for them. Also, people do get abortions in wanted pregnancies (ie health reasons).

You misunderstand.

I mean like at school, they could give you something that sterilises you until they give you an antidote, when you get a licence. Therefore the female or male cannot breed, until they give them authority to do so. They can have as much sex as they like, but they would not be able to breed.

I am sure something will come one day, but maybe only when there is a one world thing, if there ever is.

Ie, sterilising people at school, but then giving them the antidote when they get a licence to breed. I am sure its possible, and i am sure they have tried to come up with ways.

Its the only real way to get rid of that abortion question.

There's never going to be something which can full proof prevent pregnancy/cause sterilisation with an antidote which would have no health risks. As I said before, it's a huge violation of rights to force people to do so. We don't have 100% effective birth control methods when taken regularly, let alone a take it once kind of thing.

And, again, it's not going to get rid of the abortion question - people do get abortions of wanted pregnancies.

It'd be a lot of money to sterilise everyone, and it's completely unnecessary. Getting "rid of" abortion (not that it would achieve that, anyway) isn't needed, really, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, again, it's not going to get rid of the abortion question - people do get abortions of wanted pregnancies.

Thank you for mentioning this. I know of someone who very much wanted to be a mother but had an abortion because continuing the pregnancy would have been dangerous to her physically. This is part of the reason why I'm pro-choice--ironically, it's about being pro-life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean like at school, they could give you something that sterilises you

Just who is this "they"? A dictatorship? Because that's what it would take.

Think these things through before you propose them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand why gov do not just sterilise people, until they apply for a license to breed, and then its there choice, and they are wanting it(ie having a baby). You have a licence for everything else.

I am sure with the world over populated, the demographics could still be kept up with immigrants as always.

That would solve the abortion thing.

Whether your pro or anti abortion(i have no real view), surely the world is over populated, so why not do something that meets both in the middle. I still say like my earlier thread, everyone should be sterilised at 30.

And who are you to define for a person on what they should or shouldnt be doing with theyre lives? Isnt that a personal thing? Im quite anti abortion and against forced sterilization so i disagree with that what you just said.Who says a 30 year old is way better at raising a child then a 27 or a 25 year old? There is no valid proof on that so i dont really understand where people get that from because i have yet to meet the perfect school example of those who are above 30 who are able to raise a child without making any mistakes, everyone makes mistakes when raising a child no matter what age they are, a child doesnt come along with a pre written handbook but thats just my opinion.

Your logic kinda wants to make think in the direction of nazi germany or china with theyre one child policy and thats so not ok because we should never violate basic human rights because we believe its the right thing to do so for them. Despite the fact i am against abortion and forced sterilization i strongly believe that people should be able to decide for themselves whenever they want to commit abortion or not and thats definetly not something for the goverment to handle or for us to judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no sources to back up any of the claims in the paper and it is just quoting a very religious, very ill President from speeches written by his staff. I ... don't really know what kind of debate you want to start based on that. If you are saying all his claims are true, provide sources with the essay, so the reader can examine the studies that back up the claims and provide a reply based on data. Otherwise, it's just Reagan's opinion, which a lot of politicians have them and they are no more right than any other person's opinion unless based in factual data.

Personally, I would rather an unwanted child not be born than be born to be resented by the mother that never wanted it. That's a bad environment for a child to grow up in. And adoption is not as easy as people want to think. The procedure in the state I was in was to publish it in the paper and allow a time period for the father to contest the adoption. If the father contested it, well, the mom is still stuck with parental rights to a child she never wanted. Not to mention having to devote 9 months of her life to bringing it into the world. And tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. And... the Republican majority in the state keeps passing law after law shutting down women's clinics in the state, making it harder for these pregnant women to get natal care if they lack insurance, because the "abortion clinics" offer low-cost pregnancy care as a primary service and abortions are a small portion of what they offer. There are now three clinics in the entire state.

Increased sex ed and increased access to contraception will lower abortion rates. But, nothing is ever going to stop it completely. We do not have a guaranteed method of preventing pregnancy and sexuals will never stop having sex for fun. Also, being against teen sex doesn't do much. Teens are going to have sex, you can't stop that. All you can do is teach people how to do it safely, with the least risk of pregnancy/STD and hope they put that knowledge to use. As such, we need to get abstinence education OUT of schools. We need a national standard that says you have to teach the facts. Our education system in the U.S., you don't even have to teach accurate sex ed in a lot of states. You are, by rules, allowed to basically lie and twist the facts. It's pathetic. And a lot of the same politicians against abortion are the ones wanting the bad sex ed. And decreased access to pregnancy care. "We want you to be pregnant and bring it to term. But, we're not going to help you avoid getting pregnant in the first place or get medical care once you are."

As for your replies to those threads uh. I find it amusing you think there is any way to do abstinence education "right". Bringing a fussy child into a classroom isn't going to make teens not want sex. Many of the teens that end up pregnant HAVE SIBLINGS and have seen what a baby is like. They are totally still going to have sex. They need to be taught how to do it properly. Because they have desires, urges and hormones peaking. They aren't going to stay celibate until they are prepared for a baby.

And I doubt the link between not wanting birth control more available and sex drive. Yes, people with lack of desire are more likely to say it's easy to not have sex. However, people I know who preach the sex is a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for you to have it... are not low desire. They simply don't like the idea of birth control being available. Of course, a lot of them don't like using condoms during casual sex, either. Dislike women's clinics that offer low cost birth control and free condoms. And they aren't against insurance companies offering viagra for free, while denying birth control. Which seems pretty inconsistent to me. If sex is a luxury, why be OK paying for viagra but not birth control?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I doubt the link between not wanting birth control more available and sex drive. Yes, people with lack of desire are more likely to say it's easy to not have sex. However, people I know who preach the sex is a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for you to have it... are not low desire. They simply don't like the idea of birth control being available. Of course, a lot of them don't like using condoms during casual sex, either. Dislike women's clinics that offer low cost birth control and free condoms. And they aren't against insurance companies offering viagra for free, while denying birth control. Which seems pretty inconsistent to me. If sex is a luxury, why be OK paying for viagra but not birth control?

Because God want us to have children or something? I dunno. Is that actually in the bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I doubt the link between not wanting birth control more available and sex drive. Yes, people with lack of desire are more likely to say it's easy to not have sex. However, people I know who preach the sex is a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for you to have it... are not low desire. They simply don't like the idea of birth control being available. Of course, a lot of them don't like using condoms during casual sex, either. Dislike women's clinics that offer low cost birth control and free condoms. And they aren't against insurance companies offering viagra for free, while denying birth control. Which seems pretty inconsistent to me. If sex is a luxury, why be OK paying for viagra but not birth control?


Because God want us to have children or something? I dunno. Is that actually in the bible?

Yes. If I remember correctly--and please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read the Bible in forever--it's mentioned somewhere fairly early in Genesis.

I will never understand why gov do not just sterilise people, until they apply for a license to breed, and then its there choice, and they are wanting it(ie having a baby). You have a licence for everything else.

I am sure with the world over populated, the demographics could still be kept up with immigrants as always.

That would solve the abortion thing.

Whether your pro or anti abortion(i have no real view), surely the world is over populated, so why not do something that meets both in the middle. I still say like my earlier thread, everyone should be sterilised at 30.

Many people are still trying to figure their lives out in their twenties, and a lot of people don't even know if they actually want a child or a family at that point. My older sister was thirty-one when she decided she was finally ready to have a family, and thirty-four when she actually had my niece. My mom was thirty-four when she had me, too, and it was the same exact thing; she wasn't ready until then.

Also, just because someone thinks that they might be ready to have a baby doesn't always mean that they actually are. Yes, some people are well and truly ready to have kids in their twenties and that's awesome for them. But not everyone is. However, if the age of sterilization is thirty, then some people might feel like they absolutely have to have a child early. Whether they really, truly are ready or not. Because, well, if they don't now then they can't later because they'll be sterilized! They only have so much time to decide. So they apply for their "license" to breed and then have a kid. But what if they change their minds? I don't think the idea of forced sterilization would actually solve anything. In fact, I think that you would ultimately end up with a lot of other issues; back alley abortions, some kids being abandoned because their parents weren't actually ready for kids, etc. And that's not even touching on the issue of black market antidotes that Robin talked about, or the issue Sally mentioned, or the ones Jayce brought up.

Despite the fact i am against abortion and forced sterilization i strongly believe that people should be able to decide for themselves whenever they want to commit abortion or not and thats definetly not something for the goverment to handle or for us to judge.

I agree with this completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion. It just forces people to seek less safe abortion options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I doubt the link between not wanting birth control more available and sex drive. Yes, people with lack of desire are more likely to say it's easy to not have sex. However, people I know who preach the sex is a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for you to have it... are not low desire. They simply don't like the idea of birth control being available. Of course, a lot of them don't like using condoms during casual sex, either. Dislike women's clinics that offer low cost birth control and free condoms. And they aren't against insurance companies offering viagra for free, while denying birth control. Which seems pretty inconsistent to me. If sex is a luxury, why be OK paying for viagra but not birth control?

Because God want us to have children or something? I dunno. Is that actually in the bible?

Yes. If I remember correctly--and please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read the Bible in forever--it's mentioned somewhere fairly early in Genesis.

Genesis 1. "Be fruitful and multiply." What it does NOT say is that every single person needs to have kids, or that they need to have as many kids as physically possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is a hard-core advocate for easy access to birth control and wanting woman autonomy for my own body, let me explain a few things, that may or may not be common knowledge:

1) Birth control can cost anywhere from free to possibly 1200+ US dollars. Generally speaking, the "more powerful" (i.e. less chance of becoming pregnant), the more expensive. My nexplanon cost me about 1200 US dollars out of pocket, my insurance only payed 800 US dollars. I am at a point in my life where I can't afford to get pregnant, but my boyfriend and I both enjoy sex with each other. The chances of getting pregnant are less than 1/1000 on this thing, so if I somehow get pregnant (espicially if I use plan B), I suppose god is telling me somehow to GO HAVE A BABY despite these odds xD

2) Plan B typically costs between 40-50 US dollars, for only ONE pill for ONE time use, even the generic brand is around this price. A person who has been sexually assaulted and is in desperate need of emergency contraceptive very likely is NOT carrying that kind of cash on them (and/or may/may not have access to their credit cards, if they own any). Plan B does NOTHING if fertilization has already taken place. This is NOT the "abortion pill"/

3) Planned Parenthood has done a GREAT job at making birth control more affordable, and trying to educate the public in general about contraception and other types of women's reproductive health.

I want birth control to be free and/or very affordable for the simple reason of: I don't want coat hanger abortions. I don't want women dying and/or becoming severely ill/injured, due to a "under the rug" abortion gone wrong, because abortion is no longer legal. Abortion is as old as pregnancy is, and women will ALWAYS find a way to get rid of an unwanted fetus, legal or not.

DO NOT just say "Well, just adopt". One, how many children have YOU adopted? Two, as an adoptee, there is SO much that goes into adoption (look at cost for one thing, especially if you're going across country borders), as well as complicated adoption politics (there's quite a few future-parents stuck in a limbo type law area due to the fact of foreign countries not getting their shit together on adoption laws and legal processes). Three, it is VERY emotionally taxing, especially if you adopt someone 4+ years old. Many children in the foster and/or adoption have mental health problems that not every potential parent can afford and/or properly take care of (they're either no physically and/or emotionally able to, or don't have the patience to deal with a possibly mentally ill child, and/or child whose chances of getting mental illness are higher than the average jane/joe).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I doubt the link between not wanting birth control more available and sex drive. Yes, people with lack of desire are more likely to say it's easy to not have sex. However, people I know who preach the sex is a luxury we shouldn't have to pay for you to have it... are not low desire. They simply don't like the idea of birth control being available. Of course, a lot of them don't like using condoms during casual sex, either. Dislike women's clinics that offer low cost birth control and free condoms. And they aren't against insurance companies offering viagra for free, while denying birth control. Which seems pretty inconsistent to me. If sex is a luxury, why be OK paying for viagra but not birth control?

Because God want us to have children or something? I dunno. Is that actually in the bible?

Yes. If I remember correctly--and please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read the Bible in forever--it's mentioned somewhere fairly early in Genesis.

Genesis 1. "Be fruitful and multiply." What it does NOT say is that every single person needs to have kids, or that they need to have as many kids as physically possible.

The "be fruitful" was written at a time when the Hebrew tribes wanted to increase their population, so they could be as/more powerful than other tribes in the region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP doesn't address the fundamental argument about abortion: body autonomy. A fetus, even if it's alive and human, is dependent on the uterus (the organ of another person) to survive. By law, by body autonomy, a pregnant person has the right to an abortion if they do not want to be pregnant. If my brother needs a kidney and I'm a match, and even if I am dead, my brother is not allowed to have my kidneys unless I have given my permission/consent while still living. Pregnant people deserve to have the same rights and body autonomy as a corpse does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP doesn't address the fundamental argument about abortion: body autonomy. A fetus, even if it's alive and human, is dependent on the uterus (the organ of another person) to survive. By law, by body autonomy, a pregnant person has the right to an abortion if they do not want to be pregnant. If my brother needs a kidney and I'm a match, and even if I am dead, my brother is not allowed to have my kidneys unless I have given my permission/consent while still living. Pregnant people deserve to have the same rights and body autonomy as a corpse does.

Methinks the OP has no sound argument themselves, they're just parroting a barely-there essay by a very Conservative someone with no medical or psychological authority or expertise

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP doesn't address the fundamental argument about abortion: body autonomy. A fetus, even if it's alive and human, is dependent on the uterus (the organ of another person) to survive. By law, by body autonomy, a pregnant person has the right to an abortion if they do not want to be pregnant. If my brother needs a kidney and I'm a match, and even if I am dead, my brother is not allowed to have my kidneys unless I have given my permission/consent while still living. Pregnant people deserve to have the same rights and body autonomy as a corpse does.

Methinks the OP has no sound argument themselves, they're just parroting a barely-there essay by a very Conservative someone with no medical or psychological authority or expertise

Well yeah, I mean in the opening description:

For a decade, aftershocks of the Roe vs. Wade decision rippled outwards. For better or worse, girls had increased access to contraception, and this has had radical effects on gender dynamics, familial relations, and communities. President Reagan, in his effort to check this tide, speaks to motivate evangelicals. Although the initial support for the right to choice was strong, and the resistance weak, he is quick to point out the warnings that did come before. He clearly perceives these as links in a chain, that this nascent force would inevitably grow stronger and culminate in a triumphant religious rebirth of America. Although Reagan ardently extols religious beliefs and values and disavows secularism, he inadvertently makes a decent secular case that the decisions of the administration are undemocratic.

I mean the essence of this is pretty much horseshit since 1) he's disavowing the First Amendment and 2) he bases his views on religious beliefs and values, which naturally differ between religions and non-religion. The real kicker is legalizing abortion does not force you to have an abortion, hence you still retain choice. The reverse is not true, so the whole undemocratic bit is pretty ironic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote by the OP indicates that Reagan "thinks", etc. Reagan died 12 years ago, and before that was afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease for at least 10 years. It's not terribly realistic to present his quotes as though they're recent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
WoodwindWhistler

I will go back through and read all responses later hopefully, but here's another bit of questioning from someone else:

"Why are 85%+ girls advised to get abortions?

Why are abortion clinics held to lower standard than dentist office? And rarely inspected? Why are lowest scoring Med School graduates eventually abortionists by far?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...