Abortion?

[PhoenixFire]

Was going to post something along the same lines as Stedman, but he's said it better than I would have done.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by James90

DWTA.

I find it hard to believe that people are complacent enough that they'll have unsafe sex just to go through the traumatic and invasive experience of having a procedure that will cost several hundreds of dollars and stigmatise them for the rest of their life. And I don't think it's ever an easy decision to make. Despite my partner and I both being pro-choice, if an unwanted pregnancy were to occur there would still be part of me that would have to grapple with the definition of what a human life is. We don't want that to happen so we're not going to take any chances.

I also don't believe that the availability of abortion has an adverse affect on unwanted pregnancies. In fact the countries with the fewest teenage pregnancies (including those aborted) are the countries with most liberal abortion laws (Holland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc). This is more of result of high education standards and greater social responsibility.

The rate of unwanted pregnancies is dropping, not because women are slowly getting the right to choose what to do with their own bodies but because the information about pregnancy and the availability of contraception are increasing. So I absolutely agree with your priority to create greater awareness around safe sex.

However, at the end of the day, people have sex because they enjoy it. It's a natural human desire and can't be surpressed. Funnily enough, women have sexual desires that can and should be separated from merely providing a womb. And I think views which suggest that sexual freedom is a bad thing are quite damaging.

Also, just because a lot of people think the same thing doesn't prevent that view from being controversial.

My two cents.

Well said.

[Top_Cat]

To bring up a slightly more fuzzy angle (err, so to speak), we're already seeing a small spike (err, so to speak) in the HIV infection rate in the US amongst women. Surveys also suggest with internet porn being the beast it is, there's been a fairly significant an increase in the acceptance of anal sex with women the 'receivers'.

The exact picture is still being unpicked but one theory goes that the fairly massive increase in male-male transmission of HIV has meant an increase (not sure how much) in straight blokes who engage in gay sex (again, on the increase) having picked it up and possibly passed it onto their wives/girlfriends who, as I alluded to, are more receptive to the idea of anal sex these days. The surveillance of HIV/AIDS is a big, big picture so it's difficult to be certain about these things but that's one theory and it's interesting that it's come up at all.

If abortion was banned and people were terrified of getting pregnant, would we see a jump in HIV (or any STI, really) transmissions with those things impacting (err, so to speak) on the transmission rate? Anal sex has, historically, been quite common before reliable contraception appeared but there were far, far fewer STI's around, certainly not HIV and engaging in it increases the probability of STI transmission by heaps. No-one can predict human behaviour with any degree of certainty but, well.....

Perfect storm?

[PhoenixFire]

Haha ITSTL ^^

I've got a reasonably clear view on abortion. I'm pretty much totally pro-choice (hate the term pro-abortion, nobody is pro-abortion), I just think that a woman should be able to choose exactly what she can do to her body with regards to pregnancy, as it is such a massive deal.

Obviously I think that as much should be done as possible to try and stop women from getting pregnant in the first place, such as education about the proper use of contraceptives, but if a woman does want an abortion, I don't really see why anyone should be able to say that she has to go through with the pregnancy.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Haha ITSTL ^^

I've got a reasonably clear view on abortion. I'm pretty much totally pro-choice (hate the term pro-abortion, nobody is pro-abortion)

This is what I don't get.

You can word it however you like, but if you're "pro-choice" you're tacitly accepting millions and millions of inevitable abortions. For mine, that's "pro-abortion". You'd rather abortion than no abortion, ultimately, because you're never going to have a world without unwanted pregnancy.

I just think that a woman should be able to choose exactly what she can do to her body with regards to pregnancy, as it is such a massive deal

It's a massive deal because we're talking about life and death, the creation and development of human life, and the destruction of potential human life. If you accept that some people see a developing fetus as at least partially a form of "life", then you also need to accept that those people will see abortion as being one life form causing harm to another, and therefore very much a public issue, not just a personal one.

(I apologise if you feel I have misconstrued your views, I really just thought your post was useful in allowing me to raise a few issues, I'm not trying to make any assumptions about what you believe)

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

This is what I don't get.

You can word it however you like, but if you're "pro-choice" you're tacitly accepting millions and millions of inevitable abortions. For mine, that's "pro-abortion". You'd rather abortion than no abortion, ultimately, because you're never going to have a world without unwanted pregnancy.

Well, pro-abortion implies you like abortions. Pro-choice says what you want is the woman to control her own body, and rid herself of what is, in essence, a parasite which may develop into a human being at some stage.

It works the other way around too: this is why (even though I've used it before and still sometimes catch myself doing it), I've come around to not calling people 'anti-choice' as a label. It doesn't represent their position even if that is indeed the outcome of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

If you accept that some people see a developing fetus as at least partially a form of "life",

That's too vague. All cells and things made up of cells are a form of life, from apples to bacteria to your blood. The question isn't one of terminating life (we terminate bacteria, eat apples, vegetables, etc every day) - the question is one of terminating life that is 'human'. And that's the difference. Many people don't accept that a 6 week fetus (for example) is a human being that should be afforded the title and the rights.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by James90

Despite my partner and I both being pro-choice, if an unwanted pregnancy were to occur there would still be part of me that would have to grapple with the definition of what a human life is. We don't want that to happen so we're not going to take any chances.

I should probably stop talking about your personal life, since I've already told you your partner is cheating on you ....but, I assume an intelligent person such as yourself realises that there's no such thing as "not taking any chances". You can do your best to reduce the probability, but you can never be certain.

Funnily enough I was totally pro-choice....actually, I didn't even think about the issue much at all....until I started doing the nasty on a regular basis with my partner. Then it just smacked me in the face, all of a sudden, that we might accidentally make a baby. It just seems to me to be completely and utterly insane to take that risk (which is not to say that I stopped taking it.....which is partly why it's an issue that really gets to me. It seems to me that we live in an insane sexual culture that encourages absurd risks).

I also don't believe that the availability of abortion has an adverse affect on unwanted pregnancies. In fact the countries with the fewest teenage pregnancies (including those aborted) are the countries with most liberal abortion laws (Holland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc). This is more of result of high education standards and greater social responsibility.

The rate of unwanted pregnancies is dropping, not because women are slowly getting the right to choose what to do with their own bodies but because the information about pregnancy and the availability of contraception are increasing. So I absolutely agree with your priority to create greater awareness around safe sex.

Oh absolutely. And I totally agree that just promoting abstinence and saying "don't have sex because it's too risky and abortion is bad" hasn't really worked throughout history...people will still have sex, and people who don't want the baby will still find ways of having an abortion.

There's just a big difference imo between "what actually works, factoring in the frailties of human nature", and "the ideal that we should always, ultimately, be aiming for". I feel like the human race has kinda given up on applying a sane level of discipline and risk management regarding sex.

However, at the end of the day, people have sex because they enjoy it. It's a natural human desire and can't be surpressed.

Desire can't be suppressed, but the desire to engage in risky activity can be managed. It's all about discipline and it applies in all areas of human life. What I find weird is that I often feel like "sexual discipline" is almost discouraged.

If sexual desire can't be suppressed, what about people who for whatever reason simply can't get laid? What about the undesirable bloke who becomes the 40 year old virgin? I mean ffs, we all have a hand and an imagination. It's not like sex is this constantly available thing that we can just have whenever we want. It's not as hard as people sometimes make out to avoid sex. Quite the contrary, imo, people go way out of their way to actively seek out this risk.

Funnily enough, women have sexual desires that can and should be separated from merely providing a womb. And I think views which suggest that sexual freedom is a bad thing are quite damaging.

For mine, these are a couple of assertions which sound good (and people will agree with) but don't make a shred of sense to me. The fact that a desire exists does not mean it is fundamentally "good" to act on that desire. You can't separate sex from pregnancy, the two things are inextricably linked and indeed, isn't the creation of life the basic biological reason why sex, and sexual desire, exist at all? I also don't see how it's damaging to say that sexual freedom should be restricted in the sense that discipline should be encouraged, risks acknowledged, and the consequences of that risk accepted. It's a logic which imo is applied to all other aspects of life and somehow excluded from sex.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

.That's too vague. All cells and things made up of cells are a form of life, from apples to bacteria to your blood. The question isn't one of terminating life (we terminate bacteria, eat apples, vegetables, etc every day) - the question is one of terminating life that is 'human'. And that's the difference. Many people don't accept that a 6 week fetus (for example) is a human being that should be afforded the title and the rights.

Then change the wording in my post to "human life" or "not necessarily human life, but life of sufficient significance to afford it some level of rights". I was leaving it open ended.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

There's just a big difference imo between "what actually works, factoring in the frailties of human nature", and "the ideal that we should always, ultimately, be aiming for". I feel like the human race has kinda given up on applying a sane level of discipline and risk management regarding sex.

Interesting you say that, but I think we as a society are still way too prudish about sex. Go figure.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

Desire can't be suppressed, but the desire to engage in risky activity can be managed. It's all about discipline and it applies in all areas of human life. What I find weird is that I often feel like "sexual discipline" is almost discouraged.

Again, sex does not have to be a risky activity. What does 'sexual discipline' mean anyway?

People enjoy sex, it doesn't harm anyone - I don't see the risk? The risk of both pregnancy and STDs can be minimized, and in case of pregnancy, almost eliminated with birth control + condoms.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

If sexual desire can't be suppressed, what about people who for whatever reason simply can't get laid? What about the undesirable bloke who becomes the 40 year old virgin?

Just because I don't have the ability to play Test cricket, doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to. If you can't, you can't. Try harder. Or don't. Whatever you want to do.

It's not that it can't be suppressed in anyone, just that it can't be suppressed in everyone and I don't see why we should try. If the partners in question are enjoying it, I really don't see how society should have any business with it or that it should put some sort of pressure not to do it.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

For mine, these are a couple of assertions which sound good (and people will agree with) but don't make a shred of sense to me. The fact that a desire exists does not mean it is fundamentally "good" to act on that desire.

True.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

You can't separate sex from pregnancy

Sure you can. Well, for one, if you're gay. But I know that wasn't your point. Even for straight couples, as I said, if you're truly afraid of getting pregnant, you can pretty much nullify the risk of pregnancy.

The issue is that many people don't care enough to have that separation.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

isn't the creation of life the basic biological reason why sex, and sexual desire, exist at all?

Sure, evolutionary point of view, the purpose of sex is to have children. But just because something is designed one way evolutionarily, doesn't mean it makes for a good society to practice it that way. Evolutionarily, people who can't live long enough to procreate shouldn't pass on their genes, but generally it's frowned upon to kill people if they are genetically inferior....

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I also don't see how it's damaging to say that sexual freedom should be restricted in the sense that discipline should be encouraged, risks acknowledged, and the consequences of that risk accepted. It's a logic which imo is applied to all other aspects of life and somehow excluded from sex.

TBH, I think those risks and consequences are actually overblown rather than underestimated in the US at least.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

Then change the wording in my post to "human life" or "not necessarily human life, but life of sufficient significance to afford it some level of rights". I was leaving it open ended.

Then the issue is different and we would disagree that it ought to be afforded rights.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Again, sex does not have to be a risky activity. What does 'sexual discipline' mean anyway?

People enjoy sex, it doesn't harm anyone - I don't see the risk? The risk of both pregnancy and STDs can be minimized, and in case of pregnancy, almost eliminated with birth control + condoms.

TBH, I think those risks and consequences are actually overblown rather than underestimated in the US at least.

I don't understand how you don't understand. If you add up all of the abortions and all of the kids who weren't aborted but were unplanned, I'd hazard a guess (please don't make this argument about stats and maths btw, I'm at least in the ballpark :-P) you'd end up with at least 0.5 unplanned pregnancies for every women, probably more like 1, even now when we should be more capable of controlling these things.

I don't know how on earth you can say that pregnancy can be controlled and you can have sex without that risk, it completely flies in the face of everything that's ever happened in the entire history of mankind!

[Shri]

I have never really had a stand on abortion. Wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for abortion. A kid was aborted by my mom 3 years before my birth because of a medical complication. If that thing was born, my parents would have stopped at 2 kids and I wouldn't be here.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Then the issue is different and we would disagree that it ought to be afforded rights.

All I was saying is that if you accept that the argument can be made that a foetus at any stage has any rights (accept that it's a POV that can be legitimately held, not necessarily agree with it), then you also need to accept that someone who holds that view won't accept that abortion is "the woman's choice".

I was arguing (sort of) against the view expressed a few times in this thread that "I don't like the idea of abortion but I shouldn't be able to tell other people what to do". If you decide that a foetus has any level of rights, and is to any extent "human", then it makes perfect sense to say that its mother's rights to essentially kill it should be curtailed.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Shri

I have never really had a stand on abortion. Wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for abortion. A kid was aborted by my mom 3 years before my birth because of a medical complication. If that thing was born, my parents would have stopped at 2 kids and I wouldn't be here.

So in other words, abortion is a good thing.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

All I was saying is that if you accept that the argument can be made that a foetus at any stage has any rights (accept that it's a POV that can be legitimately held, not necessarily agree with it), then you also need to accept that someone who holds that view won't accept that abortion is "the woman's choice".

Of course - hence the pro life position in general. I don't think anyone would deny that.

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I was arguing (sort of) against the view expressed a few times in this thread that "I don't like the idea of abortion but I shouldn't be able to tell other people what to do". If you decide that a foetus has any level of rights, and is to any extent "human", then it makes perfect sense to say that its mother's rights to essentially kill it should be curtailed.

Yes, I think most people understand that. However, since they disagree with that view, they resent other people's intrusion in their lives via laws and/or other ways.