Stop making it sound like women have abortions on a whim. That they go and get them like they are picking up a happy meal.
Thing is, SOME women do use abortions as birth control, and they don't give them any more thought than they'd give to ordering a Happy Meal.
The first time I became aware of this attitude was in college. I can't remember her name, but I remember her face well -- a girl who lived several doors down from me for two years. She had four abortions in the time I knew her. She talked about her multiple abortions quite openly and several times various people pointed out that birth control pills were only $2/month at our health center -- she admitted that she
just didn't want to be bothered. She said it was less effort to pop into a clinic for an afternoon and have the father pay for the abortion.
Is this a typical attitude? I don't think so, but it's untruthful to say that such people don't exist. Over the years I've heard similarly callous things said about birth control or abortions -- things that indicate that the mother-in-question either couldn't be bothered or would deal with the issue later, if it were to come up. No, I can't say I've heard it often -- but I have definitely heard it.
No the doctors said the baby would be severely disabled and wouldn’t live. Not that he was the healthy child he is.
Thing is, you're presenting this as if it is something that happens all the time. Yeah, doctors can be wrong, but the situation you're describing is a weird outlier. The vast, vast majority of the time, if a doctor says the child is going to have medical problems ... the child is going to have medical problems.
If I had a friend in a situation like this, I'd suggest second (or third) opinions from different doctors in different medical practices. Different tests, different machines.
I too agree there should be a happy medium, and I don't understand why a happy medium wouldn't be working to lower the abortion rates while simultaneously preserving choice and a woman's autonomy over her own body.
The happy medium is promoting birth control so that unwanted pregnancies are small in number. Birth control is cheap, widely available, and highly effective ... when used properly and when used every single time. Have you seen statistics about "perfect use vs. actual use"? People who are TRYING to use birth control tend to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
The vast majority of today's abortions are all about the health of the mother or the child.
I'm not aware of this. Source?
Everytime a woman gets pregnant she puts her life in danger. The worst part of this, is that women without access to quality healthcare to prevent an unwanted pregnancy are the same women who are most likely to die from pregnancy.
I accept that "back in the day" -- such an exact term -- pregnancy was super dangerous, and many women died. However, I personally know no one and have never heard of anyone in real life who died as a result of pregnancy or delivery. Oh, I know people who've had horrible-bad deliveries, but I know no of no mothers who have literally died.
The worst things I personally know: My cousin went back to work too soon after delivery, hemmoraged, and put herself back in the hospital. My sister was in labor for three grueling days -- don't ask why she didn't opt for a C-section; I don't know. That's kinda it for bad tales from my "I really know them" storybook.
Does anyone here know anyone IN REAL LIFE who died in modern times -- say, the last 50 years? -- as a result of pregnancy or delivery?
... But when you say a husband should "get a voice" in a woman's decision to have a tubal (or a wife in a man's decision to have a vasectomy), you're saying that marriage makes a person something less than a fully autonomous human being.
A husband absolutely should "get a voice" in his wife's decision to have a tubal ligation ... and she should "get a voice" in whether he has a vasectomy. When you marry, you become one. You agree to share all decisions ... forever. This comes with lots of wonderful benefits, but you also voluntarily give yourself and a portion of your freedom to your chosen spouse.
Anti-choice celebrate every time ...
Throwing out emotional words is dirty pool. I don't think anyone on either side of the abortion debate "celebrates" any part of an abortion.
For every baby that is put up for adoption there are something like 20 couples that apply to adopt. And that is what we are talking about here, babies.
Yes, babies are highly coveted in the adoption system, and they are few in numbers. Birth parents have an awful lot of rights, and they get multiple chances to screw up a child before the child lands in foster care. Not very fair to the child.
People tend to have incorrect ideas about adoptions. My mom worked with adoptions through DSS for years, and I have a good friend who works with a private adoption agency. Things I know from them -- things that aren't quite what people think:
- Most adoptions are
family adoptions; for example, a daughter is on drugs, and the grandparents adopt her child ... a brother is killed, and his sister adopts his children ... teenaged girl faces an unwanted pregnancy, her aunt and uncle offer to adopt the child. These children are NEVER available for adoption to the general public.
- The typical woman who puts her child up for adoption is single, in her 20s, and she already has one (or more) children. She is no longer living in her parents' home /has fewer resources than a teen still living at home, and she knows just how expensive /time consuming children are ... but she also can't kill her unborn child, so she gives it up.
- The most coveted baby, the one adoptive parents dream of is a child born in prison. Why? His mother had access to 3 meals a day, had health care and limited access to drugs /alcohol.
- This is a weird one: If a newborn baby has any Native American blood -- I mean, back to some n
th degree -- the tribe (even if they have never had anything to do with the mother or father) must give permission for that child to be adopted. If the tribe chooses, they can claim the child for their own /place it in a home of their choosing. Two tribal elders must formally "release the child for adoption". I think this goes back to times when Native American children were "adopted" into wealthy families ... but were actually made into servants.
She isn't taking away his choices about children. He can still procreate should he want to. And really, if one goes behind their spouse's back to sterilize themselves they probably don't have a healthy relationship. I think a couple should certainly discuss it before going ahead, but doctors should not require the other's permission to do the procedure.
Disagree. When you marry, you agree to share your lives together ... while he could technically go procreate with someone else, that wouldn't really work in practice.
I'm not sure where the "behind someone's back" thing is coming from.
Gotta be for homeless rehabilitation as well. If you are worried about people living their best life, you best be in favor of getting the homeless off the streets and into a shelter and working (or into a institution, or what have you). We just lost another member of our homeless community ten days ago.
No, just because a person believes Idea A, he or she doesn't have to also believe Idea B. These are complex ideas, and they don't necessarily connect.
Tampons are taxed in 38 states because they are deemed not medically necessary.
Perhaps I'm being argumentative, but around age 30 I started using non-disposables, and they are SO MUCH BETTER than disposable tampons or pads. Not to mention cheaper. Surgery has taken away my need for such items, but if that were suddenly and miraculously "undone", I'd never buy disposables again.
The system is broken, and children are always the ones who lose. This administration cares nothing about human rights, not to mention the rights of children, and they need to stop pretending that they do.
True. The system should focus on the best home for the child -- not the rights of people who've already proven themselves inferior parents.