<p>LasMa, I’ve heard it before but not often.</p>
<p>The idea that you can be pro-safe options and not want every pregnancy terminated is lost on some people. Most people are somewhere in between.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1/2 of all abortions in the U.S. occur because of contraceptive failure. 9/10 of all abortions occur during the first 9 weeks. By week 11, the cytoblast begins to be called a fetus. It is not even yet a fetus, according to science, until week 11. Abortions occuring after week twelve overwhelmingly occur due to the life of the mother issues.</p>
<p>The main reason for abortion is birth control failure. Evidence shows that women who are prescribed and given BCP’s a year’s worth at a time have the highes effective rate in pregnancy prevention. (condoms, used for safe sex, are not as reliable in pregnancy prevention. Nothing is.) When given the bcp’s for an entire year at a time, the effectiveness rate is in the high 90%. </p>
<p>Anyone who is against abortion should be so incredibly supportive of giving out a year’s worth of prescription bcp’s at a time, they should be standing at the door of the gyne office handing them out for free, rather than picketing clinics. </p>
<p>Anyone who is against inexpensive, easy access to the BCP, AND against choice, is against something else more strongly than simply preventing abortion.</p>
<p>ETA: M2CK-- Weren’t you and I just discussing the poverty rate for single mothers, and weren’t you the one who was so strongly against single parenthood?</p>
<p>The last time I checked, there was no law to force a man to marry a woman he impregnated. So, what would be your solution to the single parenthood issue? I’m confused.</p>
<p>And Geeps-- Aren’t you incredibly opposed to welfare for unwed mothers? I’m confused. What would you have a woman and man do if they had a birth control failure, which is the reason for half of all abortions, with the second highest reason given being inability to support a child? </p>
<p>I can’t figure out your position. Do you feel that the woman should have the baby, and be supported by the state, or not?</p>
<p>I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the words “pro-abort” and “anti-life.” I’ve quite honestly never run across either term spoken seriously before. One suggests a person not only supports abortion, but encourages it for all regardless of the situation. The other is not just being against life, but actively seeking to destroy it and all of it. Kind of like how someone who is anti-social actively seeks to wreak havoc.</p>
<p>While I don’t doubt there might be a few people in the world who hold these kind of values, I would imagine such a mindset would be directed towards specific groups and not a general intent to end all life regardless of any potential factors (although there are always those crazy mad scientists who seek to make the ultimate doomsday device and bring about the End of the World). It’s a bit disconcerting to think anyone would think of these words in the same sentence as someone who is pro-choice.</p>
<p>I liked the way I read about it once. Those who are pro-life are the aggressors seeking to have their ideals forced on others (all life is sacred, life begins at X time no matter what science states, etc) whereas those who are pro-choice are the neutral party. They do not force people to get an abortion nor do they condemn anyone for making that decision.</p>
<p>Thinking of that is why it boggles my mind to read those first two terms. If that’s how someone who is pro-life sees someone who is pro-choice, no wonder there is so much animosity. It adds an element of forcing ideals, tearing away the neutral aspect of giving choice, and makes me quite sad if this is the pair of grim glasses some pro-life individuals have put on to justify why they feel pro-choice individuals are evil, baby hating beasts. I certainly would never tell anyone who was pro-life to seek abortion even in jest. Even if a mother’s life was in danger due to a pregnancy, the decision to abort is one to be made only between the mother and her doctor.</p>
<p>On a personal note, if someone called me “pro-abort” or “anti-life” simply because I’m pro-choice, I would be very insulted and hurt that someone felt it alright to twist my willingness to let a woman and her doctor decide what is best for her into me having an agenda to bring all life to an end.</p>
<p>
And yet, you hate the person who is “pro-life” and ascribe only the most evil ends to them. Consistency and all that. Tolerance only applies to views which are actually, well, my own.</p>
<p>sylvan, </p>
<p>Pro-choice says, You live by your values and I’ll live by mine. </p>
<p>Anti-choice says, You must live by my values – period. </p>
<p>If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, pro-choice would not force one on her. But if a woman does want an abortion, anti-choice would deny her the right to make that decision.</p>
<p>sylvan:
Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. It is very rude and unbecoming.</p>
<p>I never once said I hated a person who is pro-life. I never said there was anything evil about them. I just said the two terms used were odd to me, that I would be hurt and insulted if they were used to describe me, and that if that is what someone thinks of someone who is pro-choice then no wonder there is animosity.</p>
<p>I am tolerant of people who are pro-life for themselves. That is their choice and I let them have it. I do not dispute their views for themselves.</p>
<p>I am saddened you feel you need to be on such a defensive that you are reading things that have not been mentioned in my posts. Very sad indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>anti means opposed to or against…right?..If someone opts for an abortion, aren’t they against or opposed to enabling that life to exist?. They might not be anti ALL life, but certainly are anti life to what’s inside their own body.</p>
<p>Geeps, so everyone that supports war or the death penalty is anti-life too then right?</p>
<p>Thanks for the new terminology to use in immature arguments that have sunk to name calling.</p>
<p>We’ll also apply that to bring supportive of the military because while not all soldiers are going to end a life, some will and therefore any support for any of then would be anti-life.</p>
<p>geeps:
Assuming what you said was true and could be made as such a blanket statement, it must either only be applied once or it assumes a person will always seek an abortion. But wouldn’t that be silly? Flip-flopping terms all about? It would get terribly confusing. Or one could look at it from romani’s perspective that “anti-life” can be applied to more than just “aborting a pregnancy.”</p>
<p>The two terms are purposefully negative and add a new element that suggests the person of such a designation would seek to force others to their point of view.</p>
<p>Pro-choice and pro-life are spun in a much more positive light. Even pro-life that would seek to impose its ideals on others is still seen as positive. These are in stark contrast to such horrid terms like “pro-abort” and “anti-life.” The former, as I have already said, does suggest, despite your attempt to say otherwise, that a person supports abortion as a first option. The latter goes that extra mile to include the word “anti.” It has a built in negative without any need to break down the word further.</p>
<p>These two terms are meant to put a negative light on those who wish to let others make the correct decisions for themselves. They are intended as insults and to demean. I would also feel just as strongly if someone attempted to use the term “anti-choice” to describe anyone who was pro-life. Such a term would be just as bad as “pro-abort” and “anti-life.” None of those negative terms should be used and I will thank you kindly to respect that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, as noted in the article I linked in my last post about the non-necessity of pelvic exams prior to writing bcp prescriptions, another impediment to the effectiveness of bcps is that the woman must make a doctor appointment and submit to an unnecessary pelvic exam in many cases.</p>
<p>This would be alleviated by selling bcps over the counter.</p>
<p>While I do not support the pre-abortion ultrasound requirement, I want to point out that there will most likely be a man impacted in a huge way by a woman’s decision not to terminate the pregnancy. I’d like to keep the discussion away from pitting women against men. The ultrasound can impact men, too. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have thought about that.</p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>While I am extremely offended by the words slut, “c” and dumb twat, for some reason I am not at all offended by being referred to as pro-abort. I don’t like the term anti-life because it is not precise enough.</p>
<p>I also note that before I had children, I was probably more like romani in my thinking about this subject. After having a child, I am still pro-choice, but I have come to respect the feelings of those who are not. This is partly why I would much prefer to keep issues of contraception out of the hands of the government/taxpayer/and private citizen-by-mandate. I’d prefer to protect the beliefs of as many Americans as possible.</p>
<p>
Completely true, in my expreience.
But my point still stands. The ugly, hysterical rhetoric harms women. It is very, very hard to take seriously anyone who claims to be pro-women’s health who doesn’t exercise discretion.</p>
<p>And when did CC become a site on which use of the word twat is part of regular conversation? The vulgarization of the site has mirrored the same in terms of the nation as a whole. </p>
<p>Ultimately, these are all first world problems. Raise your hand if you read the New York Times article about young women in Africa selling their bodies for sanitary napkins.</p>
<p>With all the problems our country is facing, it is staggering that the sex life of a privileged, healthy 30-year old woman is garnering so much attention. Unless, of course, that is the point. Which it is.</p>
<p>Bay, I was pro-life for a very long time. I was pro-life until a very traumatic event in which I was forced to see that not all is black and white. I absolutely respect the feelings and viewpoints of those who are pro-life. However, I absolutely take offense to the term anti-life. I also do not agree with unnecessary restrictions on women. I am not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice if needed. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need abortions but we don’t live in a perfect world and I would prefer that we don’t force women to jump through hurdles for a legal procedure because someone else has an issue with it.</p>
<p>Kender…If you notice, I used the term anti-life in direct response to someone who used the term anti-choice.</p>
<p>Sorry about the twat usage. That was all my doing and I did it because Maher said it and I care that he said it.</p>
<p>I am totally pro-abortion. Totally. Love abortions. May I recommend the Abortionplex, for all your abortion needs:</p>
<p>[Abortionplex</a> - Topeka, KS](<a href=“http://www.yelp.com/biz/abortionplex-topeka?sort_by=date_desc]Abortionplex”>http://www.yelp.com/biz/abortionplex-topeka?sort_by=date_desc)</p>
<p>This discussion shows a problem that exists with a lot of controversial issues, and which, in my opinion, is especially glaring with the abortion issue: the tendency for people at each extreme on the issue to think that those at the other end are insincere and “really” know that the other side is right. Thus, those opposed to abortion believe that those who disagree “really” know that they favor murder of innocent babies, but are just selfish, while those in favor of abortion rights believe that those at the other end of the spectrum don’t “really” care about babies but just want to control women. It makes it difficult to discuss the issue in a rational manner–and leads to labelling that’s unhelpful as well. My opinion is that if you’re fully comfortable with your position on abortion, whatever it is, you haven’t thought about it carefully enough.</p>
<p>As for birth control, the vast majority of people in this country agree that it’s perfectly OK, and most of those who don’t agree use it anyway. That’s what makes this “issue” so weird to me.</p>
<p>While I am uncomfortable with the mandate and don’t support EITHER mandate, there is absolutely a medical necessity for ultrasound prior to abortion. Unquestionably.</p>
<p>
Zoosermom, sorry I misunderstood your statement to mean that it shouldn’t be between the patient and her caregiver, rather than coming from a legal perspective,
I agree that it should be on a case by case basis.</p>
<p>However, as we have seen from completely(?) unrelated threads- providers do prescribe testing for what seems to be motivated purely by the fact that they happen to have the equipment in their office & they can charge for it.</p>
<p>Pregnancy ultrasounds are not done routinely before 14 or so weeks, according to ob-gyn sites, & that would be after most abortions are performed.
[Medscape:</a> Medscape Access](<a href=“http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/703501_3]Medscape:”>Issues in Pregnancy Dating: Revisiting the Evidence - Page 3)</p>
<p>Ive also had an early abortion after a contraceptive failure- & no ultrasound was performed.</p>
<p>I have a uterine malformation & because of that, my pregnancy with my oldest was monitored closely- on bed rest- weekly visits after 16 weeks until delivery at 30.
I had periodic ultrasounds- every few months beginning at 16 weeks when I had bleeding- to monitor the health of the placenta & baby & if my Dr had made a case for an internal ultrasound, Im sure I would have acquiesced. </p>
<p>However, if the outcome of the test, is not going to change the standard of care- is it really necessary?
Especially when it is an expensive and uncomfortable test?</p>
<p>Hunt,
Re the weird contraception issue: an analogy I can come up with that isn’t perfect, is wine. Since red wine is proven to have preventive qualities, should the government mandate that insurance companies cover it at no co-pay and no deductible? I say no, because it is already widely available at various price points, people do not need to drink it to be healthy, and many people would be offendied by having to pick up the bar tab for others. So why not keep it as a private personal health decision ?</p>