Abortion

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I am still hoping that someone will address the conclusion of my last post:

 

I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy. 

Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff?  What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons.  You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn.

Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn.

And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone.

 

I'm not sure how access to porn somehow drives the problem.  That's a separate debate and I think very loosely tied to abortion.  I think there's a common sense idea of an internet red light district, that unfortunately I think the government may have to force simply because some are determined to make it easy for children to stumble into it, but I don't see this dropping pregnancy rates.  Sex is infused into our culture, and while porn is easier to access today than it was 20 years ago, I don't think that simply reducing access to porn is going to lower pregnancy rates. 

 

Personally, the idea of a policy on non-marital sex bothers me as well.  It's a free country.  You want to have sex outside of marriage, go right ahead.  You know the risks and choose to accept them when you partake.  If I choose not to, that's my business as well.  I may be in a bit more of a minority here among my more conservative friends, but I think the real solution is non-agenda driven, honest education, reasonable compromises on abortion surrounding medical needs and rape, and a much bigger focus on personal responsibility (and that's not just with this conversation).  That includes, I might add, the father of said unwanted child who decided to take off.  What's often lost in this debate is that a lot of abortions happen because the father won't stick around and the mother is forced to raise a child alone. 

 

But tell me why it is that in this entire debate, no one wants to tackle one of the most obvious portions of it?  There's a very real issue with the fact that people want all of the benefits of sex, both in marriage and outside of it, without having to pay the costs needed to obtain it.  We can argue all day whether absolute morality exists or does not, but somewhere along the line responsibility needs to be considered as well... responsibility to you, your partner, and the life you may or may not create.   

[twinsnorth49]

 

Although I agree with this, I don't think that it breaks the deadlock.  I believe that somehow we need to find a compromise that would involve the conservatives and religious people agreeing that education and increased access to birth control are a good idea.

 

I am still hoping that someone will address the conclusion of my last post:

 

I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy. 

Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff?  What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons.  You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn.

Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn.

And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone.

Education and increased, affordable access to  birth control are good ideas. Enacting laws that protect  children from harmful online pornography is a good idea. Allowing women the freedom to control what they do with their own bodies and determine their own futures is a good idea.

 

They are separate issues, each with their own merit, I don't understand the need for a trade off ,other than simple pandering. 

 

In Canada, there are no federal or provincial laws restricting abortion (thankfully). Education and prevention initiatives exist but they have nothing to do with the legalities of abortion.

 

 

 

 

[twinsnorth49]

 

I'm going to take issue with two things here, though I very much agree with your first sentence.

 

1)  People who deliberately shame and guilt trip women are absolutely in the wrong, but if you believe that those feelings don't manifest in women independently you're fooling yourself.  I've been close to two women who were 100% supported by everyone around them, had a safe experience, and had nothing but love and assistance from those close to them.  And yet still they mark every year with that decision and feel pain and some regret about it.  We presume that the relationship a pregnant woman has with the fetus is driven by social pressures but women I know that had their pregnancy end (be it miscarriage or abortion) VERY much struggled with it because of feelings that were completely internal.  It's something I've learned I can't understand completely, but also that it exists independently of anyone shaming them into feeling it.

 

2)  The personhood of any of us is "imagined" - it is a definition we have created and applied to help make sense of our laws.  I really dislike it when personhood is talked about as if it is some sort of factual, black and white issue.  The definition has changed many times depending upon who we want to exempt from the protection of our laws.

Nothing is absolute and the same for everyone, I didn't say that. I'm quite sure your friends felt the way they did, as well as others, many other women do not, I'm not kidding myself in saying society has framed the debate over abortion to be one of shame and guilt, it has become a moral issue regardless of whether it's a moral issue for the  mother.

 

The personhood of the mother is factual Levi and even if I were to believe that of a fetus is also factual I believe the woman's takes precedence over that. Her right to determine what happens within in her own body make it so. 

[Craig Arko]

I don't really see this as a trade-off kind of thing; and even if It were, I don't think the patriarchy is where to look for solutions. I'd empower the women to be able to decide this, and then I'd accept it. I do not believe it would be a half-measure, either way.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I

 

But tell me why it is that in this entire debate, no one wants to tackle one of the most obvious portions of it?  There's a very real issue with the fact that people want all of the benefits of sex, both in marriage and outside of it, without having to pay the costs needed to obtain it.  We can argue all day whether absolute morality exists or does not, but somewhere along the line responsibility needs to be considered as well... responsibility to you, your partner, and the life you may or may not create.   

Isn't that what education programs are intended to accomplish? Responsibility can't be taught through the fear of consequence.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nothing is absolute and the same for everyone, I didn't say that. I'm quite sure your friends felt the way they did, as well as others, many other women do not, I'm not kidding myself in saying society has framed the debate over abortion to be one of shame and guilt, it has become a moral issue regardless of whether it's a moral issue for the  mother.

 

The personhood of the mother is factual Levi and even if I were to believe that of a fetus is also factual I believe the woman's takes precedence over that. Her right to determine what happens within in her own body make it so. 

 

No, but you implied that we can somehow eliminate the way women feel post-abortion by shaming those that feel a certain way about abortions.  Moral issues involve a lot of emotions and the basic heart of abortion is one of the most difficult moral issues.  If not the most difficult.

 

Personhood is only factual insofar as we can ask "what do we currently understand it to be?"  A few hundred years ago the color of your skin was enough to make you a person or a non-person.  I take great issue with anyone that pretends the notion is anything other than arbitrary.

 

The real key to making this process easier for women and for all people is to make this a campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  That should be the easy "compromise" but for some really bizarre beliefs about contraception and sex eduction on one side and a truly manipulative narrative about "rights" on the other.

[scottz]

The are many facets to this discussion, and it is pretty impressive to me that obvious disagreements on this topic are being handled with logic and reason. Way to go, baseball fans.

 

One item that I find fascinating is the discussion regarding viewpoints on whether abortion is or is not murder. I feel like there must be a spectrum of situations where nearly all (say 99%+) people would agree that something is not murder and a point at the other end of the spectrum where nearly all (say 99%+) where something is murder.

 

Let's say at one end of the spectrum, you have a young couple in the back seat of a 1974 Caprice Classic (for the legroom). They finish their act, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen is random), their act (unbeknownst to them) is working on the animation of a human lifeform. But if someone (she, he, or someone else) would intentionally disrupt that magic right then and there, would that be murder, yes or no? Not some word other than murder; would it be murder? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "no, not murder".

 

On the other end of the spectrum and in an alternate universe, the same young woman from the young couple described above is giving birth. The baby emerges from the birth canal, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen for consistency), the baby's animated action is disrupted by someone (she, he, or someone else). Would that be murder, yes or no? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "yes, that's murder."

 

On one end, go one hour later (young couple saying goodnight, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). On the other end, go one hour earlier (young woman in hospital bed with labor pains, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). Keep doing that until you get to the middle point. I don't think that exercise would solve anything, but I'd be fascinated by the data. I don't think we'd get a real smooth bell curve. I think there would be sharp jagged data points where people on both sides would abandon their logic and reason and rely instead of emotion and belief. And that's ok because that's how we humans are. I'd just be interested in how it played out.

 

Anyway, good discussion.

[twinsnorth49]

 

No, but you implied that we can somehow eliminate the way women feel post-abortion by shaming those that feel a certain way about abortions.  Moral issues involve a lot of emotions and the basic heart of abortion is one of the most difficult moral issues.  If not the most difficult.

 

Personhood is only factual insofar as we can ask "what do we currently understand it to be?"  A few hundred years ago the color of your skin was enough to make you a person or a non-person.  I take great issue with anyone that pretends the notion is anything other than arbitrary.

 

The real key to making this process easier for women and for all people is to make this a campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  That should be the easy "compromise" but for some really bizarre beliefs about contraception and sex eduction on one side and a truly manipulative narrative about "rights" on the other.

i do believe a lot of the shame and moral issues women feel about abortion can be eliminated based on how society views it, not all, that's an absolute.

 

We're talking about whether the personhood of a fetus overides the personhood of the woman who's existence it depends on and her  right to determine either to protect her equality , not what you or I decide to take issue with. This isn't about whether a person is a person or not based on skin colour or race, that suggests it's a "we" decision, which I don't believe it is.

 

Reducing unwanted pregnancies should be the goal regardless of one's beliefs, but it has nothing to do with legalities, it doesn't have to be a "compromise", they need to co-exist.

 

Manipulative narrative about "rights"? Not me, I 'm not trying to manipulate anything, why would I?

 

 

[mikecgrimes]

 

The are many facets to this discussion, and it is pretty impressive to me that obvious disagreements on this topic are being handled with logic and reason. Way to go, baseball fans.

 

One item that I find fascinating is the discussion regarding viewpoints on whether abortion is or is not murder. I feel like there must be a spectrum of situations where nearly all (say 99%+) people would agree that something is not murder and a point at the other end of the spectrum where nearly all (say 99%+) where something is murder.

 

Let's say at one end of the spectrum, you have a young couple in the back seat of a 1974 Caprice Classic (for the legroom). They finish their act, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen is random), their act (unbeknownst to them) is working on the animation of a human lifeform. But if someone (she, he, or someone else) would intentionally disrupt that magic right then and there, would that be murder, yes or no? Not some word other than murder; would it be murder? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "no, not murder".

 

On the other end of the spectrum and in an alternate universe, the same young woman from the young couple described above is giving birth. The baby emerges from the birth canal, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen for consistency), the baby's animated action is disrupted by someone (she, he, or someone else). Would that be murder, yes or no? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "yes, that's murder."

 

On one end, go one hour later (young couple saying goodnight, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). On the other end, go one hour earlier (young woman in hospital bed with labor pains, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). Keep doing that until you get to the middle point. I don't think that exercise would solve anything, but I'd be fascinated by the data. I don't think we'd get a real smooth bell curve. I think there would be sharp jagged data points where people on both sides would abandon their logic and reason and rely instead of emotion and belief. And that's ok because that's how we humans are. I'd just be interested in how it played out.

 

Anyway, good discussion.

 

Heres how I would define it.  Once dad knows assuming he's not for the abortion it's word that I've been encouraged not to use, assuming he's fine with the abortion once any grandparent or any aunt uncle that the parent has a real family relationship with it's word I've been encouraged not to use assuming they don't all support the decision to abort.  Come third trimester none of that matters, if you then have an abortion it's just wrong.  By the way just in case people are confused I respect the views of those that disagree with me, which is why for the most part I try to stay away from the discussion of abortion.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Reducing unwanted pregnancies should be the goal regardless of one's beliefs, but it has nothing to do with legalities, it doesn't have to be a "compromise", they need to co-exist.

 

Manipulative narrative about "rights"? Not me, I 'm not trying to manipulate anything, why would I?

 

I agree about the overriding issue, but that's out of necessity.  And yes, the ability to have an abortion should co-exist with a reduction in unwanted pregnancies.

 

But the narrative by pro-choice groups is too "ra ra rights!" for my liking.

[Craig Arko]

The are many facets to this discussion, and it is pretty impressive to me that obvious disagreements on this topic are being handled with logic and reason. Way to go, baseball fans.

 

One item that I find fascinating is the discussion regarding viewpoints on whether abortion is or is not murder. I feel like there must be a spectrum of situations where nearly all (say 99%+) people would agree that something is not murder and a point at the other end of the spectrum where nearly all (say 99%+) where something is murder.

 

Let's say at one end of the spectrum, you have a young couple in the back seat of a 1974 Caprice Classic (for the legroom). They finish their act, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen is random), their act (unbeknownst to them) is working on the animation of a human lifeform. But if someone (she, he, or someone else) would intentionally disrupt that magic right then and there, would that be murder, yes or no? Not some word other than murder; would it be murder? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "no, not murder".

 

On the other end of the spectrum and in an alternate universe, the same young woman from the young couple described above is giving birth. The baby emerges from the birth canal, and 9 seconds later (author note: time chosen for consistency), the baby's animated action is disrupted by someone (she, he, or someone else). Would that be murder, yes or no? To me, I'd think that is a 99%+ point to "yes, that's murder."

 

On one end, go one hour later (young couple saying goodnight, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). On the other end, go one hour earlier (young woman in hospital bed with labor pains, disrupt the animated life then - is it murder?). Keep doing that until you get to the middle point. I don't think that exercise would solve anything, but I'd be fascinated by the data. I don't think we'd get a real smooth bell curve. I think there would be sharp jagged data points where people on both sides would abandon their logic and reason and rely instead of emotion and belief. And that's ok because that's how we humans are. I'd just be interested in how it played out.

 

Anyway, good discussion.

We don't need alternate universes. Just look at other cultures, other times. The practices may shock us, but were facts of life to others.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

[USAFChief]

I'm a pretty practical guy.

 

So IMO, this issue isn't that complicated.

 

I don't approve of abortions.  But since I'm a man, my opinion ain't all that pertinant.  If my wife, or my daughter, chooses to have an abortion, or not have an abortion, that's their choice to make, not mine.  

 

And since abortions will happen whether they're legal or illegal, I'd prefer them to be legal.  That way, an already awful choice for a woman isn't made worse by the increased likelihood of serious injury or death.

 

If anyone, anywhere, tries to force a woman to have an abortion against her will, I'll be there to help take up arms and prevent that from happening.  In the meantime, I won't try to force a woman NOT to have one, either.

[scottz]

We don't need alternate universes. Just look at other cultures, other times. The practices may shock us, but were facts of life to others.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

While interesting from a perspective of what people thought and did in other times, what people did and thought in other times and places is hardly how I believe decisions should be made. The easiest example of why that approach doesn't work for me is past views of slavery in many cultures throughout history.

 

Again, not that my "spectrum" approach would solve anything, but it might provide an understanding of where the disagreements and agreements exist. Then again, it might just end with people yelling at each other.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

the narrative by pro-choice groups is too "ra ra rights!" for my liking.

I respect your opinions, but couldn't disagree more with this. you are setting up a false equivalence where anyone pro-choice becomes labeled extreme or manipulative, simply because you presumably consider pro-lifers to be extreme or manipulative..

 

In life or death matters, I am in favor of letting the people with the most intimate understanding of the matter make the final decision. Period. This can go for the mother-unborn child relationship, the spousal relationship where one spouse must suddenly act as a health care agent for the other, or for the adult children making the final, slow decisions for their terminally sick parents.

 

That is the pro choice position as I understand it. What is manipulative about that?

 

I know this could be more articulate but I wanted to dash off this reply right now while it's on my mind. I think you get my point. I've enjoyed the thread but wanted to respond. In that spirit I would ask: should not the people closest to the situation be making these decisions?

[Turd Furgeson]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so you'll have to excuse me but I've thought about this issue a lot over the years and had many worthwhile discussions on the topic which have formed my current view. 

 

First and foremost, I do not think morality is an objective thing. I think it is something that developed through our evolution, which helped us survive and it continues to be altered or evolve in its own way as we gain better understanding of what is fair and promotes equality as we see those things as moral.  

 

The scientific evidence strongly suggests that life begins at conception, in fact I might be so bold to say that it's silly to think otherwise. The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, the genes and sex are set. http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception 

 

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-science-of-abortion-when-does-life-begin/

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

 

2. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

3. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”
4. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

 

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology

 

Life begins at conception. 

 

So, in a Utopian society following the morality of the western world I would prefer that no abortion ever occur. We don't live in a Utopian society though. Contraception can fail, rapes do occur, women's lives can be endangered during pregnancy. Given that these things do happen, I believe that all first trimester abortions should be allowed and the only abortions that would be allowed after the first trimester would be ones where the woman's life is at risk. 

 

I also think contraception should be widely available to all men and women so that unwanted pregnancies can be more easily avoided. I am strongly against the idea of a woman needing to prove that she was raped in order to get an abortion, that's a very traumatic experience and I will not fault a woman for not immediately getting a rape kit after she's been raped. It's just much more reasonable to allow all first trimester abortions. It's particularly in the second and third trimesters anyway where the fetus/child/baby can really feel pain and the process becomes quite grotesque. 

[glunn]

 

I'm not sure how access to porn somehow drives the problem.  That's a separate debate and I think very loosely tied to abortion.  I think there's a common sense idea of an internet red light district, that unfortunately I think the government may have to force simply because some are determined to make it easy for children to stumble into it, but I don't see this dropping pregnancy rates.  Sex is infused into our culture, and while porn is easier to access today than it was 20 years ago, I don't think that simply reducing access to porn is going to lower pregnancy rates. 

 

Personally, the idea of a policy on non-marital sex bothers me as well.  It's a free country.  You want to have sex outside of marriage, go right ahead.  You know the risks and choose to accept them when you partake.  If I choose not to, that's my business as well.  I may be in a bit more of a minority here among my more conservative friends, but I think the real solution is non-agenda driven, honest education, reasonable compromises on abortion surrounding medical needs and rape, and a much bigger focus on personal responsibility (and that's not just with this conversation).  That includes, I might add, the father of said unwanted child who decided to take off.  What's often lost in this debate is that a lot of abortions happen because the father won't stick around and the mother is forced to raise a child alone. 

 

But tell me why it is that in this entire debate, no one wants to tackle one of the most obvious portions of it?  There's a very real issue with the fact that people want all of the benefits of sex, both in marriage and outside of it, without having to pay the costs needed to obtain it.  We can argue all day whether absolute morality exists or does not, but somewhere along the line responsibility needs to be considered as well... responsibility to you, your partner, and the life you may or may not create.   

 

I agree with you that internet porn is not related to abortion.  I proposed it in order to put more on the table in order to make the deal more appealing to conservatives.  Also, I think that internet porn can be harmful to some young people.

 

I am also trying to entice you by giving you more than you you could get any other way.  Your position seems to be that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest.  Maybe a conservative Supreme Court will overturn Roe, but this will not mean anything in liberal states like California and New York, because they will still allow millions of abortions.  On the other hand, if we can somehow find a compromise that conservatives and liberals can all embrace, and assuming that the St. Louis study can be replicated, then we can reduce abortions everywhere by 50% or more.  My eye is on that prize and this is not about arguing -- it is an aggressive attempt to find common ground.

 

My biggest question at this point is whether there is some way that everyone could agree on sex education starting at age 12 or 13, before the girls can get pregnant, and making contraception available to 13 year olds who are going to have sex no matter what programs we adopt.  Is there some way to do this without religious people objecting?  I have already proposed that sex ed emphasize all of the hazards of premarital sex.  What else could be added to get past the objections to sex ed?  And what do we do about 13 year olds who are having sex despite all the reasons to abstain?

 

 

[glunn]

 

Education and increased, affordable access to  birth control are good ideas. Enacting laws that protect  children from harmful online pornography is a good idea. Allowing women the freedom to control what they do with their own bodies and determine their own futures is a good idea.

 

They are separate issues, each with their own merit, I don't understand the need for a trade off ,other than simple pandering. 

 

In Canada, there are no federal or provincial laws restricting abortion (thankfully). Education and prevention initiatives exist but they have nothing to do with the legalities of abortion.

 

I agree 100% that these are separate issues, each with their own merit.  I also believe that Canadian law is better.  However, I am looking for a compromise, because if I can find one that seems to work then I will pursue it in the real world.

 

It seems to me that this thread illustrates what we already knew -- there is zero chance of compromise on issues like whether abortion is murder.  My goal is to dance past those roadblocks and reduce the abortion rate by more than 50%.  To get there I am more than willing to pander to both sides.  

[glunn]

 

Isn't that what education programs are intended to accomplish? Responsibility can't be taught through the fear of consequence.

 

Did they make you watch bloody crash movies when you took drivers education?  I wonder if they still show those and whether they work?

 

I would LOVE to show young people educational documentaries that honestly deal with all the potential consequences of premarital sex.  There could be interviews with real teens who have experienced those consequences, and teens could learn about the serious risks of STDs and the downsides of teen pregnancy from peers who have learned the hard way.

[glunn]

 

I'm a pretty practical guy.

 

So IMO, this issue isn't that complicated.

 

I don't approve of abortions.  But since I'm a man, my opinion ain't all that pertinant.  If my wife, or my daughter, chooses to have an abortion, or not have an abortion, that's their choice to make, not mine.  

 

And since abortions will happen whether they're legal or illegal, I'd prefer them to be legal.  That way, an already awful choice for a woman isn't made worse by the increased likelihood of serious injury or death.

 

If anyone, anywhere, tries to force a woman to have an abortion against her will, I'll be there to help take up arms and prevent that from happening.  In the meantime, I won't try to force a woman NOT to have one, either.

 

Please keep in mind that if Roe is overturned then abortion will be illegal in most or all red states.  If that happens, the St. Louis approach would still be good from your perspective because it would reduce the number of women forced to have unwanted children by 50% or more.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I respect your opinions, but couldn't disagree more with this. you are setting up a false equivalence where anyone pro-choice becomes labeled extreme or manipulative, simply because you presumably consider pro-lifers to be extreme or manipulative..

In life or death matters, I am in favor of letting the people with the most intimate understanding of the matter make the final decision. Period. This can go for the mother-unborn child relationship, the spousal relationship where one spouse must suddenly act as a health care agent for the other, or for the adult children making the final, slow decisions for their terminally sick parents.

That is the pro choice position as I understand it. What is manipulative about that?

I know this could be more articulate but I wanted to dash off this reply right now while it's on my mind. I think you get my point. I've enjoyed the thread but wanted to respond. In that spirit I would ask: should not the people closest to the situation be making these decisions?

 

I never said anything about anyone other than women making their own choices.  I'm on the record in several of these threads supporting legal, safe abortions because I don't see any other way of handling the current (key word there) situation.

 

But your post is sprinkled with references that show you have been influenced by the manipulative effort.  In my opinion, most pro-choice people have become so immersed in some of the talking points that they have lost perspective on what they're saying.  Take Psuedo's comment earlier (a common one among pro-choice people) which effectively argues unwanted children are better off dead.  Just take a moment to grasp at the profound arrogance of such a position to declare which lives are worth living.  But because that argument is common, people throw it around with no thought as to the extent of the meaning.  The manipulation is in the narrative and the degree to which it blinds people from forming a thoughtful position in favor of just joining a movement.

 

My point, in context, was about why we can't more actively engage the real problem of unwanted pregnancies.  One side won't do it because of stupid beliefs about sex education and contraception. (And their own false narrative)  But why aren't pro-choice people working twice as hard to eliminate the difficult choice in the first place?  Why is their focus only on the legality of abortion and not on promoting more measures to reduce unwanted pregnancy?  Not only is it better for women, but it's the kind of good faith effort that wins over thoughtful people!

 

For me, and maybe I'm wrong on this, the answer is that they don't want to shift the focus.  When you are busy going "ra ra" about a "right" it's easier to drum up support and passion.  Talking about practical ways to make the whole situation better just doesn't add up to passionate supporters.  (This is why those awful pro-life billboards look and sound the way they do - manipulation of public perception)  The manipulation is in the presentation of the "fight".  The fight should be about unwanted pregnancy, not about how great it is that abortion is legal.

 

That is a huge tonal shift in the argument that would do a world of good at reducing the true issue, but I have zero hope of achieving that when both sides are so hell bent on a manipulative narrative to drive public discourse. 

[twinsnorth49]

 

I never said anything about anyone other than women making their own choices.  I'm on the record in several of these threads supporting legal, safe abortions because I don't see any other way of handling the current (key word there) situation.

 

But your post is sprinkled with references that show you have been influenced by the manipulative effort.  In my opinion, most pro-choice people have become so immersed in some of the talking points that they have lost perspective on what they're saying.  Take Psuedo's comment earlier (a common one among pro-choice people) which effectively argues unwanted children are better off dead.  Just take a moment to grasp at the profound arrogance of such a position to declare which lives are worth living.  But because that argument is common, people throw it around with no thought as to the extent of the meaning.  The manipulation is in the narrative and the degree to which it blinds people from forming a thoughtful position in favor of just joining a movement.

 

My point, in context, was about why we can't more actively engage the real problem of unwanted pregnancies.  One side won't do it because of stupid beliefs about sex education and contraception. (And their own false narrative)  But why aren't pro-choice people working twice as hard to eliminate the difficult choice in the first place?  Why is their focus only on the legality of abortion and not on promoting more measures to reduce unwanted pregnancy?  Not only is it better for women, but it's the kind of good faith effort that wins over thoughtful people!

 

For me, and maybe I'm wrong on this, the answer is that they don't want to shift the focus.  When you are busy going "ra ra" about a "right" it's easier to drum up support and passion.  Talking about practical ways to make the whole situation better just doesn't add up to passionate supporters.  (This is why those awful pro-life billboards look and sound the way they do - manipulation of public perception)  The manipulation is in the presentation of the "fight".  The fight should be about unwanted pregnancy, not about how great it is that abortion is legal.

 

That is a huge tonal shift in the argument that would do a world of good at reducing the true issue, but I have zero hope of achieving that when both sides are so hell bent on a manipulative narrative to drive public discourse. 

This post certainly unfairly labels a whole lot of people, which is another big part of the problem. Focus on promoting ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and those ways being a better alternative are a big part of the message for most pro choice people I know.  Their focus isn't merely on the legality of abortion, in fact in the absence of any laws prohibiting it, it's really secondary at this point. 

 

As someone who is pro choice I take exception to being labeled as blinded by my beliefs and incapable of a thoughtful position, mine is not a purely ideological one. Sure, at the core is the belief that it's a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't imply me standing on a soapbox and shouting it to the masses about how great it is, I'd prefer to move the discussion forward with anyone who is interested.

[TheLeviathan]

ntAs someone who is pro choice I take exception to being labeled as blinded by my beliefs and incapable of a thoughtful position, mine is not a purely ideological one. Sure, at the core is the belief that it's a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't imply me standing on a soapbox and shouting it to the masses about how great it is, I'd prefer to move the discussion forward with anyone who is interested.

Many on both sides fit this and yet the national narrative/discussion isn't talking solutions. The problem is the spin of the vocal movements and the huge numbers that fall in lock step.

 

If you're not among them, great! It's people like you and Jim and Glunn that need to drive the discussion. But that ain't happening.

[glunn]

I suspect that when you really boil it down there are a lot of us who are BOTH pro-choice and pro-life.  

 

I am seeking solutions that are both practical (the St. Louis approach seems to have been proven to greatly reduce abortions) and politically viable (that's where I need help from both "sides").

[Willihammer]

I agree the focus should be on solutions. Hard to do, I imagine, when the Republican base wants to defund Planned Parenthood. An entity we can probably credit for preventing thousands of abortions.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree the focus should be on solutions. Hard to do, I imagine, when the Republican base wants to defund Planned Parenthood. An entity we can probably credit for preventing thousands of abortions.

 

Absolutely, that's a huge part of the problem.  Planned Parenthood is a stupid scapegoat.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I would note that most Catholics I've interacted with don't agree with the church's position, as do their priests (or so they say at least)
 

 

hopeful that the common ground might be early and continuous education combined with free and abundant contraception.

 

True, I believe the Catholic church has a fairly consistent position on life, even if a majority of its members don't hold that position. The problem is, the Catholic church is not a trusted institution right now.

 

However, the armed service branches (Army, Navy, etc.) are now addressing social problems like STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Condoms are now freely distributed and easily obtained. Service members undergo regular training on sexual harassment and consent. So, there is a dialog. 

 

These are trusted institutions, especially more so among conservatives than liberals. Would it help pro-life conservatives to know that these institutions care about this problem too? Would data reported from these bodies carry more weight than data from academia? I'm wondering if there are some public figures who are persuasive and can use the example of the service branches as leaders in addressing social problems. 

[DaveW]

The battle against online porn access is coming for sure, many sites are pushing themselves too far and deliberately circumventing safe search programs.

 

But I like the compromises, they put the focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. Exactly where it should be.

That is such a losing battle though. The Internet and porn exist and anyone at least a bit tech savy can find it (even if they make it harder)

 

It comes down to parenting at that point IMO to be more frank with kids these days regarding sex and what they may or may not stumble to online.

 

My biggest worry isn't a child of mine viewing porn, but a child of mine taking some very stupid pictures of themselves and those getting sent out. Of course that is all easy to say not being a current parent etc

[DaveW]

Did they make you watch bloody crash movies when you took drivers education? I wonder if they still show those and whether they work?

 

I would LOVE to show young people educational documentaries that honestly deal with all the potential consequences of premarital sex. There could be interviews with real teens who have experienced those consequences, and teens could learn about the serious risks of STDs and the downsides of teen pregnancy from peers who have learned the hard way.

I think the following movies should be shown to high school freshman for educational purposes:

Kids

requiem for a dream

trainspotting (a bit lighter)

[TheLeviathan]

 

That is such a losing battle though. The Internet and porn exist and anyone at least a bit tech savy can find it (even if they make it harder)

It comes down to parenting at that point IMO to be more frank with kids these days regarding sex and what they may or may not stumble to online.

My biggest worry isn't a child of mine viewing porn, but a child of mine taking some very stupid pictures of themselves and those getting sent out. Of course that is all easy to say not being a current parent etc

 

They're finding ways to tag their content so that basic searches, even with filters, aren't able to stop them.  We're not just talking about 14 year olds here, we're talking about kids half that age being exposed to sexual content.  Kids are a simple search and a few curious clicks away from full blown porn.  We've had a number of issues the last two years with kids finding content incredibly easily around safe search filters.

 

All the frank conversations in the world about internet safety aren't going to fix that problem.

[DaveW]

Don't let 7 year olds use the Internet? Don't let them do web searches?