Does Contraception Cut Unintended Pregancies & Therefore Abortions?

I am saying that should all types of contraception be free then it would have an impact on the number of unintended pregnancies, the problem is that the cheapest forms of contraception rely on the person using them to do so correctly ie birth control pills require one to be taken daily, condoms need to be used correctly. Contraception such as IUD's and implants are the most expensive, but the least likely to fail due to human error, and tend to be out of reach of the poorest people, same goes for abortion, the poorest cannot afford the cost of an abortion.

It is normal

Re-read the OP and look at what comprehensive sex ed incorporates now, not from the 70's as can be plainly seen their is an emphasis on abstinence and on religious value.

Then you should have no problem providing the evidence.

 

I understand your opinion, it is not one I agree with but I respect your decision to have it.

 

No - what is "obvious" to one person is a personal opinion to another. The wise person learns how to identify manipulated studies

It only decreases where there is education and availability

Oh! Teens will talk sex no matter what - it is what teens do. You have more problems with the horny teenage male trying to talk everyone else into indiscriminate sex - and the only way of stymying that is education and open discussion with older persons who can discuss ways of dealing with teen peer pressure

See comments above. If you make it sound like sex is "dirty" do you think you will get any further with those who ARE active? The very kids who need to listen?

Got any research correlating this or is it simply "obvious"

 

I think contraceptives should be widely available in high schools and subsidized for the poor who can not afford protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies. and early sex education as early as 3rd grade. I was talking to another member about this and I mentioned a 4 tier process that started in 3rd grade, then 5th grade, 6th grade and 9th grade. Only part I'm stumped on in this would be how to break it down into 4 parts so a 3rd grader can understand it and progress to where a 9th grader will understand what sex is and the importance of practicing safe sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don't advocate promoting sex, just educating on what sex is and how to protect yourself from pregnancies and diseases.

 

Uncle Ferd can hardly wait...

Birth control: Male contraceptive injection 'shows promise'
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 - A hormone injection has been shown to be a safe and effective method of contraception - for men.

 

Yet another money making scheme for the big pharmaceutical companies, the same companies that refused to fund research into an already proven male contraceptive that is 100% safe, 100% effective, and 100% reversible... However because it is a cheap procedure that can last up to ten years it wouldn't make the same money as a pill that had to be taken regularly.

 

The study on the male contraception injection has been halted due to side effects. (same side effects women can experience with the BCP)

http://globalnews.ca/news/3035707/m...dy-halted-due-to-mood-swings-in-participants/

 

Yes, I heard it had been held up because , GASP there were side effects!!! Fine for women but NOT for "The Royal Male".....

 

I am not certain I understand the basis for your objection. Is it because the woman generally has the power to make the decision regardless of what the man wants? or is it because you think the reasons for abortion do not meet with your approval?

With respect to male/female fairness... How would you feel about legislation that said a woman can only have a baby if she and the father both agree that they want the baby? If they cannot agree on having a baby then she must get an abortion? (I personally do not like that approach but I am wondering if it would satisfy your sense of fairness regarding abortion)

With respect to the woman's reason for getting an abortion... I would say you have not addressed the reason this might (or might not) matter. If a woman took a risk (visiting a region where she ingested eggs from the Guinea worm) and wanted to remove the parasite, would you insist on having her justify that decision? I would guess not, because the Guinea worm might be a living organism with great potential, but it is not a person. If a woman decided to shoot and kill an intruder in her house, we would probably insist that she justify her decision (because that intruder was a person). You have not established that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person during the period when an abortion would most likely take place. If it is just another organism, acting as a parasite, and it does not currently have her consent to do so... why would we (as society) insist that she sustain this organism? What is our moral justification for forcing her to sustain this human organism long enough for it to become a person?

 

Oh wow, an abortion convo. When's the last time I had one of these? Well, in my view Abortion(especially as the pro-choice views it), is a legal immorality that smacks in the face of all reason. But unfortunately, since reason and philosophy does not apply to the abortion case we will continue to have this argument for quite some time. So basically, If abortion is to be legalized I would like to grant it the moral justification necessary.

ALL laws are based on morals, let's not get it twisted. What are we enforcing, if not our ideals? Ideals clash and thus differing laws and contradicting ones have appeared throughout history. But this idea that we can't "legislate" morality. People: That's all we've done. The so-called phrase "right side of history" is one such statement about enforcing morality.

So what's my morality? If it's to be, it's to be equal. 50/50 meant 50/50, not 60/40, not 54/46. It meant 50/50. 50/50 means that both partners share in the responsibility of making the decision(if it's consensual). If it's not consensual(rape, incest, etc) then I could hold that the female should take priority. But in most general cases(Seriously, when you look at the reasons FOR abortion, the vast majority are for economic or relationship-oriented reasons. Not so much sexual violations or health concerns.)

I think a consensus agreement on how to move forward is not only the best, but it fulfills the obligation the contract the married couple signed(and hell even for those not married, intercourse is a 'contract' of itself between the two people who decided to do it.) Selfishness either way isn't going to resolve this issue.

Interesting, it'd be fair but in a very twisted way. IE: If the female wants an abortion, but the male doesn't, she gets the abortion. And the other way around: If a male wants an abortion, and the female doesn't, she has to get an abortion. Both sides get screwed by the choices the other makes, and by virtue of that the whole argument disappears because the only way a fetus is carried to term, is if they agree.

Harsh, but fair. Both will cry foul over the ailmony, but if they don't agree neither side has ailmony. That's quite the wicked proposal you thought up there. Like you said, you wouldn't necessarily go for it(And it'd be a hard pass, because of the whole "government in our bedrooms" thing even though it acts as a very harsh, impartial judge in this proposal).

In case my words aren't betraying my opinions, I'm impressed. Really. That's well thought out. My solution was to create sort of a collective bargaining, between the male and female partners, in conjunction with the doctor based on what was best for the female, and what was best for the family. If they could come to an agreement along these lines, then we would have a much fairer process. And I decided that in the event they couldn't agree, it would be the doctor with the final decision.

I thought it was fair and impartial, but the last time I participated here, the proposal was rejected.

It is not a person Here is the key word, we'd go further and say that it isn't even biologically human.. Just because a parasite can invade a living organism, does not necessarily mean that parasite earned the same distinctions as a human fetus. A human fetus(or Zygote, or whatever you want to phrase it as) is only created through a male's sperm, only created through sexual intercourse.

It is not, a parasite by definition since it's not an invader. Furthermore, we know that only a human can impregnate another human. Philosophically speaking, I don't think any person(male or female) have the right to take a life. People bring up the DP, but the difference is that some serial murderer or rapist, has become a TRUE parasite on the human race. That fetus is simply sharing a part(the womb) of the woman's body. Apples and oranges, real apples and oranges.

I imagine science will progress in lessening the side effects even more. We should promote a strong birth rate, with even stronger families. A nuclear family unit strengthens children, who will become the future adults and progress our human existence even further. This is not and should not be the century where the human race collapses on itself.

Recognizing that abortion is a 'choice' but a morally obtrusive one, I decided the middle ground is to minimize the rate to as minuscule as humanly possible. The nations with the highest abortion rates are equally amongst the world's poorest nations. Where we can reduce the rate even further, is to our interests. Same with teen pregnancy.

 

Would the collective bargaining take place before the sex, or after learning of the pregnancy? If you are talking about negotiations and agreements before the sex, that actually seems like a logical way to handle it. Everybody has to be honest at the beginning about what they want (or don't want) and put it into a contract. But... even if a couple signed a contract that said they would abort any pregnancy, would we really hold a woman to that contract if she changed her mind and wanted to have the baby? I suspect the most we could accomplish is to protect the man from paying child support in that case (based on the contract).

A Guinea worm is a living organism but not a person and (as you said) not even biologically human. We make a distinction for biological organisms with human DNA, but is it the DNA that is significant or is it the mind? There are other species (with different DNA) that we might eventually accept as persons when we learn to communicate with them (e.g. Koko the gorilla). Would we discriminate against an individual because their DNA did not match the proper "homo sapiens" pattern? If we found a lost tribe of Denisovans would we say they cannot be persons because their DNA does not match? or would we accept them as persons because they have minds that are capable of person-hood? The point is that it does not matter so much whether the living organism is a Guinea worm, or a Denisovan, or a gorilla, or a homo sapiens. A new person (in my opinion) is created when the organism has a mind that is capable of incorporating experience. Before that point there is no person inhabiting the organism. Morally it is no different from removing the feeding tube after the cerebrum has lost the ability to function. A person only inhabits the organism from the time that the mind begins functioning to the time the mind ceases to function.

You pointed out some differences between a typical parasite and a human embryo (one species invades another species). I ask why is that significant? If it acts like a parasite is should be treated as a parasite. The host should have a choice. If you are fascinated by the bot fly and want to allow one to hatch from the back of your neck, you should have the freedom to do so... but if you find that unpleasant or inconvenient don't you think you should be free to remove that bot fly larva as soon as possible?

Every sperm is a potential person. It just needs another set of unpaired DNA strands and a place to grow for 9 months. Why is it morally acceptable to "kill" hundreds of potential persons who could have been created if a man had unprotected sex at every opportunity, but not morally acceptable to "kill" a sperm cell that has combined with an egg cell and grown for 4 months? The sperm (with or without egg) is only a potential person in either case.

I agree it would be nice to reduce the number of abortions, but I think that should be done with comprehensive sex education and by making birth control and/or contraceptives available... not by legislating anti-sex and anti-abortion rules.

 

You: ""In case my words aren't betraying my opinions, I'm impressed. Really. That's well thought out. My solution was to create sort of a collective bargaining, between the male and female partners, in conjunction with the doctor based on what was best for the female, and what was best for the family. If they could come to an agreement along these lines, then we would have a much fairer process. And I decided that in the event they couldn't agree, it would be the doctor with the final decision.

I thought it was fair and impartial, but the last time I participated here, the proposal was rejected""""


As well it should be.

How asinine to think anyone but the woman who is pregnant should make the choice on what to do with her own body..


.What the heck has a doctor got to do with it??

 

See, here's the hypocrisy: You say it should be a conversation between you and your doctor.. But now you cry out when I give that doctor partial power in the decision making process. Why? Isn't it better that it's your doctor, rather than the dude you're having a contentious argument over the would-be child's future? And I don't believe in the whole "It's her own body" thing, it was her body up until the point when she had intercourse and got pregnant.

Whether she likes it or not, when she got pregnant not only was there a whole another life in the womb, but the decision of that life impacts you AND your partner. The "my body" argument, is one that was never logically sound.

 

.
And there's your first "misrepresentation" ....I NEVER EVER said "it should be a conversation between you and your doctor.. "

The decision should be only the pregnant person's decision ...... NO one else's


.

So whose body is it? The state's? The doctor's? YOURS?

Show the law that says women must give up their bodies if they become pregnant?

WHOSE body is it? WHERE is the law that says women must give up their rights if they become pregnant?

 

-You and every other woman says your "health care choices" should be between you and your doctor, but now you want to rescind that. Alright, let that be on the record for all of the other female posters here.

-You already got the answer to your question, in the post you were quoting. Abortion impacts more than just you, it impacts the would-be child and it impacts the father. ALL factors, not just your own should be considered when coming to a decision.

You don't have an arbitrary right to decide to abort on a whim, only to tell the sucker later. Or to keep the child, while saying you were going to abort. No, you need to make your intentions loud and clear, and all parties need to find as equitable as a solution as possible.

 

Yet another "misrepresentation".....you obviously have no facts to back up anything you post so have to "misrepresent" what other posters say.

And you are MOVING THE GOAL POSTS from abortion to "health care choices"....squirming and twisting

.


Neither you nor I speak for all of the other female posters here....it's dishonest, deceitful, sexist and misogynistic to do so.

.

No, the person who is impacted most is the pregnant person. And NO you did not answer: whose body is it?

.


Well, YES, women do have that right

.


So , show the law that says so.....and try really hard to answer the question you are sooooooooo desperately avoiding: If a woman's body is no longer her own because she became pregnant WHOSE BODY IS IT?

 

I forgot we were in a thread about the effect of comprehensive sex education and contraceptives on unwanted pregnancies and abortions. There are a couple of open threads specifically discussing person-hood:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=479190 (No moment of personhood)
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=479055 (What is a person?)

 

Truth be told, I really didn't want to open up this can of worms called abortion. It's not a discussion I even like anymore, because it's a linear conversation that A: Will never improve and B: People will never be happy with it. In Light of these two facts, the discussion(or even issue) is better left for dead. If there are people who like talking themselves to death, hurray for them but I've got better things to do lol.

 

Then why do you come to an abortion debate forum?

 

Because someone quoted me some what, 3 or 4 months after I made my very last post on it? I'm someone who can roughly consider himself pro-life but I realize the impossibility of creating a middle ground for pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Given my absolutely miserable efforts on this "issue", I choose to defer to Roe V Wade which legalized it and let humanity grapple with whether or not it's doing the right thing.

 

Fair enough. I think there is room for science to enlighten us (perhaps in providing more evidence about the moment the mind is first functional, or evidence that every living human cell has the potential to become a new human being). When I was much younger, I remember people (This was in the Bible Belt) who thought heart transplants were blasphemy because it is clear in hundreds of Biblical citations that the heart is the center of our spirit/soul/being. They really thought a heart transplant would be moving one person's soul/spirit/person-hood into the body of the living person. They were only convinced of the truth after several successful heart transplants demonstrated that the donor's spirit did not take control of the living body.

 

All laws are similar to traffic laws. Surely you can see that traffic laws are not based on morals, but simply on the basis of keeping traffic moving smoothly without chaos. Other laws are supposed to also be based on keeping society progressing smoothly without chaos. No laws are supposed to be based on someone's morality which will inevitably conflict with someone else's morality.

The effect of a pregnancy upon the prospective parents is not 50/50. So why should the decision making be divided 50/50? It's only because you want to protect your own decision making power and you are failing to recognize or acknowledge the effects of pregnancy on the woman.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy doesn't need anyone else's "consensus."

You don't understand "fair" concerning unwanted pregnancy because you've never even experienced it. Doctors are for making recommendations, not decisions, regarding health, not for making decisions which involve a great deal more than just health.

Nations have the highest abortion rates because they are the poorest, not the other way round of becoming the poorest because they have high abortion rates. No the abortion rate is really not the government's business until or unless the birth rate plummets so low that the survival of the species is threatened. Even then, the approach should be one of offering incentives rather than an attempt to force women to bear children.

 

It's your MORALITY that says things should move without chaos. Seriously, I can't make it more simple than that: Your morality impels your judgment, your judgment impels your decisions. We're that simplistic of a species. All laws are based off of our morality, the group with the stronger voices ends up being triumphant. That's the way it works. And in such a society, not all can be pleased.

But in a society with a pluralistic head of an organization(as seen in most corporations), that society can more easily be ran since society(humans) must be geared towards society, instead of being geared towards humans. That however will perhaps be in the distant future, and perhaps it's something for the human race to either discover or fail trying.

**Sigh**. This argument again. Let's not underlook the benefits shall we?/

Including the main equalizer for the male: His income, which has now become indispensable thanks to the child. You reap the benefits of his income, his title, his lease. And the guy? He gets screwed majorly. Including his desire for the child in the first place. I'd more than say it's 50/50, in fact it's tilting 60/40 on your side.. The only thing is he lacks the health complications.

Big whoop. Big freaking whoop. Male bodies are just as suspect to health deformities as a female's, just not through pregnancy.

Births are getting more and more safer.

I remember last time around, I gave a more powerful chart on safe births, but for the life of me I can't find it. The point is, if we simply focused on safe births alone then the abortion rate would drop to a miniscule. The reasoning for abortion, powerful in its emotions is devoid of the basic mathematical facts.

Of course, you then cry out "some people may be hiding in the shadows"(Ala Trump supporters). Yeah, you keep hanging onto that. I'll hang onto the scientific data given to us that says there isn't a better time to be a pregnant woman in the US, and in fact it gets better the earlier that you do it.(Not suggesting that you should, each woman's situation is different.)

But overall, your decision making faculty is not superior to mine and it shouldn't be given rights I cannot be afforded. If you can play life and death, so can I. Or at least, the ledger can be balanced.

Then a man doesn't need a woman's consensus to leave the relationship, should she decide to terminate the pregnancy. See how that works? You may not like it, but the equivalent exchange is a philosophical concept.

 

The majority of those items on that page have no been proven, and do not outweigh the detrimental effects of pregnancy.

 

The laws are based on maintaining order with long years of experience to tell us what does work. What does not work is basing laws on one particular groups idea of "right and wrong" since other groups always will arise with different ideas of right and wrong, and alas, human experience has shown us that people will make their own decisions. That is why anti-abortion laws have never been enforced anytime or anywhere on this earth, women just continue to do as they think best. Now you could possibly be successful in implementing laws stating that prospective fathers must be consulted and a doctor's permission is necessary, but you will never be able to enforce them. For thousands of years, women have been making those decisions without much interference.

Actually the mortality rate for childbirth is rising in the USA, unlike the rate worldwide. The USA is not a good place for women giving birth, a number of other countries have far better statistics.

Sorry but my decision making faculty is informed by actual experience, something you can never acquire, so on the subject of childbirth, I know more than you. In addition, women own their own bodies, and they're not going to share decision making with you. Possibly, if they choose, they will share with someone, hopefully, but it will be their choices. Men have never needed a woman's permission to leave a relationship, they've been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years and presumably will continue.