Does Contraception Cut Unintended Pregancies & Therefore Abortions?

Of course you minimize the effects of pregnancy. YOU won't be pregnant.


Pregnancy, despite what you seem to be claiming , isn't just about childbirth.
How ridiculous to claim that the only adverse affect women suffer in having a kid is the actual birth...get a book ...pregnancy has many adverse effects on women , some temporary and some permanent, and EVERY pregnancy carries the risk of death and not just at birth...whether YOU think so or not.

Oh, and men don't get pregnant so no , you don't get a whiny "Male bodies are just as "suspect" (WTF ??? does THAT mean?) to health deformities ". Deformities? What? What "deformities to men get...what the heck are you babbling about??

 

So let me repeat: Conversation goes nowhere. This is literally the dumbest conversation in the history of humanity. No matter how flimsy the concept of essentially dictating life or death is, that concept will be defended by equally flimsy measures such as "woman's right to choose"(she also had the right to choose not to engage in intercourse, but no female is ever going to bring that up. After all, she's a poor hapless sap that's abused by THE MAN). And/or the proposition that the benefits don't outweigh the negatives, so therefore it isn't worth considering on a scale.

And even when it comes to considering what the MALE stands to lose from what the woman may or may not do(god forbid), this too is also not taken into consideration. All of this factors equaling into the dumbest conversation on the planet, where a female wants to take an absolute right with no consequences, and the male must suffer these consequences without regard for their own well-being. Indeed, to the so-called pro-choicer the male's only choice was to have intercourse(The female doesn't have this choice apparently) and when this choice is made, they're subservient to the female's whim.

How absolute is it? To the point where any compromise whatsoever is simply unacceptable and untenable due to the absolutist position of females/pro-choicers.

In short, do not quote me again. Including THIS message. This is the most worthless topic in America, with no viable answers in the short or long-term. And there won't be any viable answers until either 1 of two things happen. A: Males accept that they are considered the inferior lesser of the two parents, or B: Females finally get their head out of their ass.

A is never going to happen. A male isn't going to just sit there and be relegated as "the guy who gave me a sperm egg". B is also CLEARLY never going to happen, as this forum states outright. So let me say it clearly: Most worthless discussion in the history of human civilization.

You will never resolve it, ever. Because resolving it either takes capitulation on the male side or a willingness to broach the discussion from a different angle on the female/pro-choice side. So have fun staring at paint dry, because that's intellectually what you're doing.

 

...as YOU have been doing.


..that whole post ? I wish there was an icon of a tiny violin playing...

The discussion isn't worthless if it helps preserve women's right to do as they damn please

 

Colorado tried the ultimate test of birth control reducing abortions by providing free IUD's. Unfortunately, ideology won out in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was more successful than even its most ardent supporters expectations.

Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success

 

If human life had been decimated by an asteroid or plague, I might buy into the premise that we (society) should override individual freedom and (1) demand that people propagate more often and (2) demand that women must gestate every possible pregnancy. Since we are, instead, straining the resources in some regions society has no justification for such a mandate. I see no reason to deviate from a fundamental principle of our society (at least those of us in the United States) to promote individual freedom.

The Today's Parents article on possible health benefits discussed a theoretical link between male microchimerism (male DNA and/or cells that infiltrate into the body of the woman who has been pregnant with a male fetus) and longer lifespan. The article did not express great confidence so I checked another source:
Reference: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120926213103.htm
In some conditions, such as breast cancer, cells of fetal origin are thought to confer protection; in others, such as colon cancer, they have been associated with increased risk. Hutchinson Center studies also have linked lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis to women who previously had given birth at least once as compared to nulliparous women.

The CDC article did not address the risks for women. Instead it discussed the fact that birth is safer now for the fetus than it used to be. From the same source (the CDC website) we learn that there is greater risk for the pregnant woman:
Reference: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pmss.html
Since the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System was implemented, the number of reported pregnancy-related deaths in the United States steadily increased from 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to a high of 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2009 and 2011. The graph below shows trends in pregnancy-related mortality ratios defined as the number of pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States between 1987 and 2012 (the latest available year of data).

No matter how safe the birth becomes, it has more impact on the host (the woman) than any other person in the world, so she has a primary interest in self-preservation and self-defense not shared by the male or by any pro-lifer.

I'm not sure how you equate terminating a potential person with killing an actual person. Since every sperm is a potential person, you are terminating a potential person every time you pass up an opportunity to fertilize an egg.

If he wants to leave her, he has that freedom, but then maybe he did not want a relationship anyway. Maybe he just wanted somebody to have his babies and cook his dinner. If they were not in agreement on the baby versus abortion issue, they should not have been together in the first place. There are only a couple of problematic combinations:
(1) If he does not want to risk paying child support, he should not engage in sexual activity until he knows the girl well enough to be confident that she will get an abortion in the event of an unintended pregnancy. These guys (by the way) should vote pro-choice.
(2) If he wants a family, he should not engage in sexual activity until he knows the girl well enough to be confident that she wants the same thing. Otherwise, this guy will need to lock the girl in his basement to make sure he gets what he wants (or vote pro-life).
(To be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting he should lock her up - just that someone so determined to get his way on the issue might feel the need resort to that extreme - and that would be WRONG).

 

I said I wouldn't respond. And philosophically, I'm not going to respond. I called this the most worthless, meaningless debate in the history of the human race. Where the right thing to do is so glaringly obvious, but no one wants to do it because it'd overturn previous viewpoints on their head. So F it. Seriously, F it. If you can find a more meaningless topic than this one, I'd pay to see it. Literally, I will pay you to give me a more worthless conversation.

So let me just leave one final point: A Female is often picky when it comes to her partner, often with varying characteristics(including financial) that she chooses before ultimately ending up with that person. However, a male doing the same thing is frowned upon. There's a hypocritical double standard here, but don't worry that'll likely pass you by as well..

So don't reply, including you Fox. It's over. This is the most worthless discussion, over the most worthless topic where NOTHING is going to change. When Roe V Wade made Abortion a "natural right"(Stupidity is as stupidity does), the argument died. Our morality is irrelevant before the Court's opinion. There's no middle ground, there's no changing anything. All there will be, is an eventual stubborn acceptance of this utter farce. And then, it'll become our new normal.

Have fun, it's paint drying. I got better things to do as an intellectual.

 

It's "worthless, meaningless"" but you as "an intellectual"" keep responding ...

RvW did not make abortion a natural right, it always was a right. It needed protecting from extremist misogynists who wanted to control women.

 

It was a right presumed, not conferred and therefore, not a natural right. Now, not to detract from the whole Natural Rights argument(I'm a believer in Locke's principle more than not.) but to me, a natural right is something that can automatically be recognized, that does not need government's endorsement(and/or protection). The fact that you state it needed protection, already guarantees it's not a natural right.

Now, if we want to grant ourselves this 'right', that's fine on its own. But no right can supercede another's. Basically, if a female uses her 'reproductive' choices to essentially control the relationship then we couldn't call that equal. If a right cannot be exercised by both parties, that is not equal. Equal means just that. There wasn't a caveat that gave FoxHastings some special privileges. It's here most of all where I diverge from the Court.

As for why I 'keep responding', I'm foolishly asking you people not to respond. After all, the only reason I came back here was BECAUSE of Random quoting me. But apparently, this isn't working well enough so let me bold it.

I have, for all intents and purposes considered this 'conversation' or 'issue' politically irrelevant. Insofar as it can improve, I see no room for improvement. I see no hearts changing, no resolutions and in spite of my very best efforts, there can be no middle ground attained. Given that, I have no more interest in this discussion.

Maybe some of you like bickering for the sake of bickering's purpose. But I've been in this to change people's lives for the better. That's why I'm doing this. Not to entertain a hypothetical debate for no substantial purpose.

 

Contraception has cut down drastically on pregnancies. It has also reduced abortions for responsible human beings. The problem is, given the fact of modern birth control, is that most abortions are done by totally irresponsible human beings, for they would rather take an innocent life than take the pill. Given modern BC, you should be able to count the number of abortion on 10 fingers and 10 toes. So abortions exist because of human beings who are scum bags because of their total lack of being responsible human beings. Their mothers should have aborted them, which would have been an act of responsible behavior.

 

I don't see the word 'moderator' under your name, so you don't get to dictate whether people respond or not. If you truly do not want to debate it further, then stop replying every time someone quotes you.

- - - Updated - - -

Not everyone can use hormonal contraception. There's a whole list of contraindications. I'm not risking MY life taking something that is dangerous for me just because YOU might have a problem with my choice should I get pregnant.

 

No, it's the height of pure ignorance. You may feel free to continue on this thread as long as you'd like. Just stop quoting me. And if by god you somehow feel the need to quote the message, quote the message without quoting the name. There's ways you can participate without dragging me in it.

That's all I'm asking.

 

I agree with this content, while at the same time calling it irrelevant. The reason we teach sex education and contraceptive education is because kids have an absolute irrefutable RIGHT TO KNOW about their bodies, their health and their options.


Its not a moral option for a school system to teach Algebra and World Geography and French, and Modern American Literature and leave kids ignorant about their bodies, organs, senses, brain, and health needs. You do not get to insist that they know about the differences between a stock and a bond, and refuse to tell them the difference between hormonal and barrier contraceptives.

We should not have to justify teaching what is morally required using any statistics. Its just not right to leave them ignorant because we adults can't figure out how to do this without pissing people off. That is all the argument we should ever need.

 

For the most I agree.

 

I can do this , too.

And nothing's changed here
It's "worthless, meaningless"" but you as "an intellectual"" keep responding ...and responding and responding and responding

RvW did not make abortion a natural right, it always was a right. It needed protecting from extremist misogynists who wanted to control women.

 

So you're saying abortion is done by irresponsible people and responsible people. Well ya..., OK.


BTW, women are under NO obligation whatsoever to use birth control.

 

Whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better Fox. Humans did not wake up thinking 'we have a necessity to abort a fetus from the womb'. It's not a natural, ordained right. It's a form of "birth control", for that sole purpose that happens to also abdicate the responsibilities towards the male partner.

There isn't any philosophy in which the morals of abortion were certified as in humanity's best interests.

 

Gosh, I thought you were so "intellectual" that you weren't going to respond....how many responses ago was that???

""There isn't any philosophy in which the morals of abortion were certified as in humanity's best interests.""

So? Is that what "intellectuals" say when faced with the fact that abortion is legal and women have a right to have an abortion and even if it was illegal they'd have them anyway...???

Or is it just something to make you feel better?

 

No, I'm just pointing out a fact. You can't point to any legal document, any treaty or ANYTHING that sanctifies Abortion. Which is largely the reason it's still a raging debate. A right ordained is much more authoritative than a right conferred(AKA: A privilege). Good day now. I'm too happy with this election to be bothered.

 

I'm sure you are happy with the election of a vulgar misogynistic President who will fight to take away all women's rights and make them nothing more than broodstock to make small "men" feel superior(it's the only way they can )...

But you can't be too happy since, despite your "intellectualism", you keep responding...

 

From AmericanNationalist (who has asked not to be notified of responses):

Some of my ancestors were originally from Ireland and they would have blindly followed whatever rules the church dictated. Some of my ancestors were Native American and when the tribe had to travel, or faced some hardship, it was common practice for a pregnant woman to induce an abortion (using herbs, or in some cases a bone needle). They considered it a perfectly natural action to delay the arrival of the next newborn to a time that is more convenient for the needs of the tribe. Of course that was before Europeans arrived to teach them that "natural" rules are wrong and we must be enslaved by the rules dictated by religious authorities.

 

Oh no, you can't do that. Some parents even oppose their children getting the papilloma virus vaccine, which is proven to prevent cancer, because it guards against a disease of the genitalia, which, apparently, some parents believe their children will not realize exist unless they have it pointed out to them

 

(1) Some women cannot take hormonal birth control because of the side effects.
(2) Birth control and abortion do not take "an innocent life" any more than hunting or taking cattle to the market take "innocent lives."
(3) Your claim that the mother (let's call her Ann to avoid confusion) of a woman (let's call her Mary) who would get an abortion... should have aborted Mary (before Mary ever considered getting an abortion) so obviously you believe it is OK to abort an "innocent life" before they have ever done anybody any harm. I would agree that Ann should have had the freedom to abort Mary (because the abortion takes place before Mary could become a person) but your position here seems to contradict your position about "innocent life."

 

You don't get to tell me what to do.

 

It is in humanity's best interest to not force women to give birth against their will. Unwanted children are more likely to grow up less well adjusted and that costs society.

BTW, abortion has been around ever since women have been getting pregnant, and it will always be around.

 

Well, you know Anti-Choicers...control women, control women, control women, please let me control women is some way, please........