Really Kinda Sick Of This Whole Abortion Thing...

[badstar]

But hey, there's an empty soapbox and hey, I got a thing or two to say that doesn't seem to get addressed very much otherwise.

edit: I wrote this on a lunch break. It is imperfect, it is flawed. It in no way constitutes my entire body of thought on the matter. There may be some less than perfectly coherent spots. Some specific aspects of the issue I haven't addressed. If anyhting I say doesn't make sense to you or seems incomplete, please feel free to ask me to clarify or give more complete thought.

With all this talk about abortions being banned....why does not one even bother to discuss the prevention of getting pregnant in the first place? It seems like no one wants to even discuss what causes and prevents pregnancy to begin with

(Please note: the following does not in any way have anyhting to do with cases of rape, incest, life in danger, baby going to be born massively incapacitated, etc...I am talking about girls/women getting pregant and just...not wanting a baby. But please, do read everything before you bitch me out for not being 100% gung-ho abortions for all on demand all the time all the way.)

Birth control folks! No it's not 100% but damned if it doesn't decrease your chances of getting pregnant significantly. And you know what? If you use multiple methods...it cuts those remaining chances! The pill and a condom. Topical spermicide. Diaphragm. Whatever. There are options. If something happens...you forgot the pill, the condom breaks...whatever...go to your doctor. Get the fricken morning after pill. (Yes, I know about issues with its availability in certain areas, not everyon has the money for it, etc. That's another rant for another time. My lunch break is only so long.) but do something. don't have sex without at LEAST one form of birth control. guys, wear a condom. Every time. Girls, pick your method.

Oh yeah and there's the other one, the one that always works. Don't have sex. People seem to lose sight of the fact that one of the primary functions of sex is...drumroll please...TO MAKE BABIES. So yeah, There's always that risk that the mission will be accomplished. If you can't or are not willing to take the risks...give it some serious thought before you go home with that hot guy from the club and drop trou. Girls, you HAVE the final say, you HAVE control over your bodies. If someone forces you to have sex...it's a crime.

Abstinence-only sex ed has got to be one of the most irresponsible ideas I've ever heard of. No matter what you tell them, threaten them with facts, statistics, risks etc...it's gonna happen. If people are going to do what people are going to do, lets make sure the right information on how to effectively minimize pregnancy and disease gets out. Preach abstinence all you want in schools- I have no problem with that as long as it's fact based (i.e. "Abstinence WILL keep you from getting pregnant." not "Having sex before marriage is evil so don't have sex.") Emphasize it all you want, but give the correct information on risk reduction. It's not safe sex. It is safer but nothing is absolutely foolproof. ('Cept abstinence, y'know?)

And abortion is not a means of birth control. Well, okay if you want to argue literalisms it is. But it should not be used along the lines of condoms and the pill.

I have mixed thoughts on abortion in general. Yes, it is killing a living being. I'm not arguing that it can survive independently, or does life begin at conception or birth...but you cannot refute that the baby is *alive* What I think needs to be done though...is as some people put it, make it safe and RARE. Reduce the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies before they happen...take some "control over your body" already.

Comments

[fuego.livejournal.com]

what I'm saying though, is that using proper use of contraception cuts down drastically on the possibility of unwanted pregnancy to begin with. I haven't really begun to address the issue of abortion itself other than saying that it isn't something to be likened to condoms or the pill.

no...abstinence-only sex ed will never work. like i said...most irresponsible thing I've ever heard of. but it can't be said enough times that you won't get pregnant if you don't have sex.

I just can't give a civil response to comparing a baby to a tumor.

[sumbitch.livejournal.com]

Hey, you should know that the use of spermicides

1) damages the lining of the vagina, and thus
2) increases women's chances of contracting STIs.

this has been known for a while. why are spermicides still available? because there's nothing else available that can serve exactly that function.

so I'd advise against using spermicide as a back-up.

i know this 'coz my GF is a grad student in one of the labs that's trying get nonoxynol-9 taken off the market for exactly this reason. references available upon request.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

mrf...i can see that. hell, it is used for the purpose of killing human cells...it's probably likely that if other substances were developed, similar things would happen.

i don't know...

but there are other options.

get over yourself

[dandyfunker.livejournal.com]

Your miserably waffling pseudo-liberal whining is the reason that government has any leverage in mandating what happens in a woman's uterus.

Fact - The "miracle of life" occurs 100,000 times a day, and over 1 trillion times through history. Human life is a combination of zygotes and an incubation period, nothing more. Abortion is no less morally troublesome than any other form of birth control, and anyone who thinks otherwise might as well join those Kansas wackjobs and start offing abortion doctors.

Re: get over yourself

[fuego.livejournal.com]

Hi! isn't it great to meet you?

Who are you, how did you get to my journal?

Not that it matters, but hey, you have no identifying information and It's my journal. I didn't ask for your opinion but you gave it. Now if you want to discuss things intelligently without slinging insults, let's start over. if not, please go troll on smeone else's journal.

Re: get over yourself

[pagandenma.livejournal.com]

I'll second that. Who the hells is that idiot eating their knees up there? Get some bleeding manners, for Goddess' sake . . .

I prefer my discussions intelligent and reasonable, even if I might disagree with the other person's points (you can tell I'm used to rationally arguing down fundamentalists.)

Re: get over yourself

[fuego.livejournal.com]

arguing down fundies? well, I never would have guessed! :-P

[aphiorogue.livejournal.com]

Both of my son's were concieved with myself on birth control pills. Accidents do happen, even with protection. I love both my sons dearly and with all my heart. Neither was planed and upon finding out that shortly after I had gotton married, had a 7 month old that I was about 4 months pregnat, I was in a deep state of shock.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that protection is going to prevent every unwanted pregnancy...I'm saying that if more people used it properly, it would cut down on a lot of them.

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

Life comes with rights, risks and responsibilities. All things come into play here.

Everyone has the right to create life, but not everyone has the responsibility and many people have no clue of the risks.

I'm a firm believer in that the government has no dog in the abortion fight - the 10th amendment protects our individual freedoms where it is not explicitly a state right or federal right to restrict.

Parasitism is a biological definition - it requires that the being inside do harm to its carrier with no benefit. However, studies show that pregnancy can be healthy for the mother, some kind of hormonal item pregnancy induces can aid long term. (I am not female for those unfamilar, and I am no doctor, so I don't understand the biomechanics - I just went to enough OB/GYN and Natal care offices to know what's in the article)

I'd be curious to see the nonoxynol-9 studies that says its harmful. I am not disputing your claim, just find it surprising since I've not heard it elsewhere. You can privately email it to me at richq@nycap.rr.com.

To return to the abortion argument, form one perspective, I don't believe in it. But my overriding principle is that the government cannot impinge on freedoms, even in the name of protecting the defenseless, unless there is a clear societal need. Here, I feel society is fairly evenly divided, and as such, there's no clear societal need. Ergo, the best course of action is to let all of the morality types (both pro- and con-) argue it out, and let people decide for themselves what's moral.

-- Rich

[fuego.livejournal.com]

I've heard of the nonoxyl-9 issue before, but what I had heard was of a study conducted on prostitutes that used large amounts of it on a constant basis...so it seemed to be somewhat...out of proportion ofr the general population? Though, like I commented, it kinda makes sense that it could be harmful, seeing as though it's purpose IS to kil sperm cells..it's made to kill one type of human cell, it's probably going to be harmful to other types

though, if you want further info as offered, you might want to comment under sumbitch's comment...she's the one with the info.

But my arguments here are more for prevention of unwanted pregnancies, cutting down on the number of abortions that need to even be considered in the first place.

[sumbitch.livejournal.com]

Hey, I happened to check back. Yes, it's absolutely maddening that this information isn't more widely available -- like ON THE FREAKIN' PACKET.

here's a pretty good summary:

One highly publicized randomized, four-year study involving nearly 1,000 sex workers found that the use of a gel with 52.5 mg of nonoxynol-9 increased risk of HIV infection by 50 percent. (http://www.planned.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HS_nonoxynol9)

If you want more technical references, let me know.

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

The worst thing about abstinence only education, beyond its ridiculous concept (which has been all but proven to be ineffective, though its proponents continue to delibrately ignore that), is that is always ends up distorting facts if not outright lying. The effectiveness of condoms, which while not perfect is still pretty high, is completely downplayed, so that when these kids go out and have sex as kids will do whether you like it or not, they don't even bother with birth control because they've been taught its all but useless. Not to mention the unspoken assumption that all women do want to be mothers eventually and its enough to just encourage us to wait until marriage and our lives are stable enough to support a child. For those of us who don't ever want kids at any point in our lives and yet don't want to live in a convent either, I guess we're just in trouble; no keeping the abortion rates down there.

For myself, I'm unapologetically prochoice and don't believe the government has any business telling me what do to with my own body. I do see your point about women that run around having sex completely irresponsibily and just think to themselves, "Well, if anything happens I'll just have an abortion." Those women should be smacked upside the head. If you don't want a kid then you should take every precaution to be sure you don't have one, there's no excuse not to. However no birth control (or combination of birth control) is 100% effective, accidents happen (which is why I'll have a newphew is a month :-)). In that case, if you did everything you could and it still didn't work, then I see no problem with having an abortion.

But that is just me, you're welcome to disagree.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i'm just trying to say that if people used birth control properly, it would cut down on the need to even consider abortion...

and yeah...abstinence only education...most irresponsible thing i've ever heard of...but it just can't be said too many times that you will not get pregnant if you don't have sex. that's all i'm trying to say there. but it should be said like that "you can't get pregnant if you don't have sex" or...that idea..there shouldn't be any "don't have sex til you get married cause god doesn't like it" in pubic schools.

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

I agree, but I feel I must speak for all the women out there who don't want children. What is the option for us, to remain virgins all our lives? Is that really feasible? Abstinence only education doesn't even take us into consideration, it just assumes everyone wants to get married and have kids. So those of us who want the former without the latter don't have the knowledge to prevent these pregnancies we don't want to have, and thus abortion becomes our only option and the vicious cycle continues.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i hear that...I mean..I don't want kids, definitely not at this point, no idea if i'll change my mind...

...i didn't really make it very clearn, but when im talking about telling kids that they wont get pregnant if they dont have sex...i realy am referring more to sex ed classes for junior high and high school students...and again, i'm not talking about *abstinence-only* as the way to go in schools, just trying to say that they should know without any question that if they don't have sex, they won't get pregnant, contract certain diseases...blah bah blah...

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

I know, I was just venting on some of the gigantic holes in abstinence only thinking. Needless to say, its a subject that pisses me off a great deal.

I don't want kids, never did and never will. And I am, thank the gods, a lesbian so pregnancy isn't even an issue for me. But there are still plenty of straight women that don't want children and I remain concerned for them, since I know how I would feel (and what I would do) were I in their position.

[sumbitch.livejournal.com]

BTW, "abstinence" does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases. From the abstract of a 2005 study:

Pledgers are consistently less likely to be exposed to risk factors across a wide range of indicators, but their STD infection rate does not differ from nonpledgers. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15780782&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)

[fuego.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that it should be very clear that the only way to absolutey guarantee that you won't get pregnant is if you don't have sex- not to mention prevent trasmission of certain diseases, but to give the appropriate, correct information so that if kids do choose to have sex, they can protect themselves the best. i apologize if i specific enough on that. and as i said before in the post...writing a rant on my lunch break does not afford me the time to say everythign i would say if i had 3 hours to sit down and address every single point i coud think of.

[sumbitch.livejournal.com]

I think the logical problem with your position is that it's a position that can only be held in a world where self-esteem/socioeconomic pressures/etc aren't issues. I have never heard anyone say that they'd like to make abortions MORE common. Everyone -- including every woman who's ever had to have an abortion, I'm sure -- would like them to be rarer.

Now, what might help them to be rarer? Better birth control access and education, it's true. But also eliminating the circumstances that make women feel like nothing they do matters; like they can't speak up and ask him to use a condom; like they don't want to escape from their problems with drug or alcohol abuse; like it's not even worth thinking about tomorrow.

In short, improving women's circumstances overall so they can take better care of their bodies. There's an idea I can get behind. It's just not as simple as "use birth controls, you stupid bints."

Re: A couple of thoughts...

[fuego.livejournal.com]

it isn't my entire position and everyhting i could say but as i did say...my lunch break is only so long. there is far more I could have said. and yes, there are about a bazillion other factors to the issue.

[pagandenma.livejournal.com]

As a soon-to-be Mom of three, I can sympathize with both sides of the issue, considering I started off as a single mother.

Sex education is APPALLING in this country. It needs to be taught as a medical and biological issue, NOT a religious one. "Here's what happens when A and B happens . . ."

Abortion, unfortunately, will need to be available and legal until our sex-hating, woman-degrading society changes. And that is going to take a LONG time, given the current state of affairs.

I was fortunate enough to have a family that supported me when I was a single mother, so I was able to have and keep my gorgeous, hilarious and intelligent daughter (who, by the by was conceived with BOTH parents using birth control!).

I also now have a wonderful hubby who not only loves my daughter completely, but also has given me the gift of two more children - my incredibly cute and smart 4-year-old son and my baby that will be born the end of August. And both of those children were also conceived on birth control, both when I was on the end of Depo-Provera shots.

Abortion should be a last result. But our patriarchial, narrow, "here and now" society leaves kids and their mothers in the dust, and makes abortion sometimes the only option available.

As for the "parasite" argument: Kinda sorta, but not really. Admittedly, yes, the baby does pull vitamins and energy from the mother, but an adequate diet and prenatal viatmins usually relieves this. And there are benefits to birthing and subsequent breastfeeding: lower uterine, cervical and brest cancer rates, and a longer life span. (I was lucky, I've breastfed all my kids so far, and plan to do so with #3.)

As for the medical risks, that's a whole different ballgame, but medicine has made some realy strides in that arena.

(The Mom of three and nurse-to-be will now step off the soapbox. *grin*)

A couple of thoughts...

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

I checked out a nuber of the sources for the Nonoxynol-9 study, notable Cates & Raymond, who have a buttload of Google hits. There's a few isues that I have with it:

1. It invovled sex trades workers. Obviously, they make money primarily involving the ... plying of their wares. What I didn't see mentioned was the control - i.e. a normally, sexual active couple. It's a little bit like the 'blueberries can cause cancer' scare of the 1970s... You eat like 50,000 blueberries a year, you might get some kind of cancer.

2. Well, if you're a sex trades workers, you are probably just as likely to get vaginal irritation simply from going at it alot with multiple different partners with different, shall we say, shapes and sizes and abilities... That wasn't tested, so we can't know wiehter way.

2. My objection to the term parasitism is that modern biology defines the term otherwise. While pregnancy can and is a burden on women, and can be dangerous, it falls far short of the definition of parasitism. That's too broad a brush for most people, I would gather. I think you are best off leaving the two in entirely spearate realms, not comparing pregnancy to parasitism. Instead recognize that there are benefits and risks to said condition. Benefits and risks, of course, are common to just about everything in life - such as driving a car. Let's leave the term "parasite" to cockroaches, various virii, and harmful bacteria...

-- Rich

If you're human and you know it, clap your hands

[dcnblus.livejournal.com]

Gotta love the advocates for abstinence. Find out how long they've gone without and how it's improved their life. After 5 years, I can say that i'm a big fan of going without.

Education should be of paramount important -- the earlier, the better. I'm actually proud of my sister and how's she's raising her daughter, including making sure the proper words for the parts are understood and can spoken of comfortably. Point - education begins at home. Don't rely on public school systems for impartial, knowledge based curricula - they are political institutions designed to teach a certain mindset.

After that comes responsibility through knowledge. Ignorance, at least in matters so close to a person, should not be an excuse, and denial should not be tolerated. You want to leave your body in Jesus' care -- be a nun or get buried. There have been too many stories in the media where "high school girl didn't know" she was pregnant, and thought the stomach pains were just from the school lunch.

Then again, the politics of population growth rates is becoming interesting. The forecast seems to indicate that some racial group populations are growing at a faster rate than others. This will likely have some *interesting* political ramifications in the coming century.

On the converse side of this, however, are studies demonstrating that there is a growing trend of American women (particular racial and socio-economic groups in particular) that do not want children. This desire doesn't keep them from fulfilling basic human desires for companionship and sex. They know what they want, and use whatever means necessary to get what they want while avoiding what they don't want. It's not that difficult to accomplish, and not that expensive, if you have knowledge and the intelligence to use it.

ok... i'm done with my male perspective on this *whew*

Nice soapbox Fuego! :)

*clap clap*

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

i agree with you that this country has dismal sex education and i agree that the language used when discussing abstinence isn't appropriate for a school.
and i definitely agree that if there were more education about birth control and more birth control availability to everyone in all walks of life, the need for "un-wanted pregnancy" abortions would drop dramatically.

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

With all this talk about abortions being banned....why does not one even bother to discuss the prevention of getting pregnant in the first place?

Because it is simply irrelevant to the issue of the availability of legal, safe, abortions. Period.

but you cannot refute that the baby is *alive*

Don't be so sure about that. Scientists can't even come up with a universally accepted definition of what life is. And even if I accept that what is growing in the womb is alive, I can still refute the idea that it's a baby.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

it would seem to me that if somethign is growing and continuing to form, it is alive. I don't know of many non-live things that continue to grow and develop. i do not mean that it is independnently-functioning, or in a state of any sort of consciousness- i believe that that is another question altogether.

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

I don't know of many non-live things that continue to grow and develop.

Crystals leap to mind. Viruses, but whether those are life depend on to whom your talking. Should tumors be protected? They grow and develop.

Really, to make my point more clearly, the decision to have an abortion is an intensely personal one, that's going to be based on a lot of different factors. One person's viable life is another person's tumor with potential. While birth control is certainly an important, major part of taking responsibility for sexuality, it simply doesn't enter into the debate over whether the government should be legislating the availability of abortions.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

ok, i'm getting a little frustrated with this, you're getting the brunt of it. please don't take it personally but i'm ready to scream.

never ever ever ever ever ever did i say ban abortion. why people can't see that is beyond me. it's nowhere in what i wrote. or anywhere in anyhting i have said or written, here or ever. would it make it any differnt if i were to remove the line "with all this talk about banning abortion..."

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

Well, I haven't read all the comments, so I'm sorry if I seem to be jumping on a "trash Fuego" bandwagon. I don't intend it that way at all.

would it make it any differnt if i were to remove the line "with all this talk about banning abortion..."

Definitely. Because with that line, you're connecting abortion rights and birth control education. These two things, are to my mind, largely seperate. The message that is coming across, at least to me, is something along the lines of "you don't need abortion rights because you have birth control and personal responsibility." Apparently, not the message you intend to send, but it sounds like I'm not the only one getting that message.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

honestly, i do connect the two somewhat...not in the sense of what rights there are, but the birth control connection, because whether you agree with abortion or not, it's not a physically healthy proceedure- maybe not once or even twice would always cause irreparable damage, and there are women out there that treat it as another form of birth control along the lines of condoms or the pill.

It's a somewhat extreme example, but a friend of my family's had 4 or 5 abortions- she refused to use birth control of any sort, she knew about it and had the means to purchase anything necessary but refused to use any form of contraceptive, she said she didn't want to be inconvenienced, she just said "if i get pregnant I'll have an abortion."...the first 3 were all by the same doctor, who tried to talk to her about using contraception, and then explainning about how damaging multiple abortions could be but she kept refusing. When she came to him for the 3rd, he did that one, but said that he would not do another one for her if she got pregnant again, explaining that she was developing too much scar tissue and it could leave her infertile...and tried to talk to her yet again about contraception. She still refused...Mind you she was 22 at the time of her 3rd abortion and said she wanted to have kids later. She got pregnant, it was either one or two more times, and she found another doctor who was willing to perform the proceedure. The last abortion was about 3 years ago and she decided not long after that that she was ready to have kids...she's not able to have kids...and she was at one point talking about suing the FIRST doctor for malpractice. that never happened.

ok so no. there is no connection between contracepion and whatever rights are connected to abortion, but i definitely see a connevtion between contraception and abortion in and of itself.