Spain goes back to 30 years ago with the new Abortion law.

[Rustycage]

I guess until we pass something the size of a watermelon out of our dickholes, we can't completely understand.

Let's not act like an Ostrich and claim to not understand why fear of death may be on the minds of some.

[Ace Nova]

I guess until we pass something the size of a watermelon out of our dickholes, we can't completely understand.

Let's not act like an Ostrich and claim to not understand why fear of death may be on the minds of some.

I think a lot of it comes from misinformation. If you're told you have two options and the risk of death for both options are similar....I wouldn't think it would be an issue.

[Rustycage]

I guess until we pass something the size of a watermelon out of our dickholes, we can't completely understand.

Let's not act like an Ostrich and claim to not understand why fear of death may be on the minds of some.

I think a lot of it comes from misinformation. If you're told you have two options and the risk of death for both options are similar....I wouldn't think it would be an issue.

That still points to choice. Way more so than bringing up HIV as a point in this topic. That's usually the step before the abstinence discussion turns into calling the women who get abortions "whores."

[Ace Nova]

That still points to choice. Way more so than bringing up HIV as a point in this topic. That's usually the step before the abstinence discussion turns into calling the women who get abortions "whores."

That's not how it was intended. It was intended to show that I felt the statement made about as much sense as that. Sometimes things don't translate well on message boards.

[Rustycage]

That's not how it was intended. It was intended to show that I felt the statement made about as much sense as that.

HIV is a factor for unprotected sex. Death is a factor in pregnancy. You really can't see the difference?

[Ace Nova]

That's not how it was intended. It was intended to show that I felt the statement made about as much sense as that.

HIV is a factor for unprotected sex. Death is a factor in pregnancy. You really can't see the difference?

More along the lines of having sex can lead to pregnancy, HIV, or other STD's. The risk of death because you have unprotected sex is just as high (or greater) as the risk of death from becoming pregnant (then dying). That's why I said, by that logic, women should practice abstinence. I'm not agreeing with any of it....I was pointing out that her logic is flawed.

[Rustycage]

Ya see. You keep wanting to step over to that extreme side but back off. You're tip toeing with the abstinence talk and denial of the death factor in pregnancies.

You cannot teach people to deny their primal nature of wanting to have sex. Unrealistic.

I find it odd that would be your leap instead of going the safe sex route. Maybe that's just me.

People naturally want pleasure and naturally fear death. Teaching abstinence isn't the "smart" option. It's just typically the religious extreme one. No sex before marriage, blah blah blah.

[ohlovelyrita]

Question :

(especially for Kasanova King and Shades)

"If abortion is made illegal, what should be the penalty for women who get illegal abortions?"

1) jailtime - specify amount of time and crime (murder?)

2) fine

3) sterilization

4) two of the above

5) none of the above

6) other

[Georgy Zhukov]

An abortion thread at 8 pages.

I think as a man I have no say in the debate. Even if I am the father of said child. Abortion sucks but you just can't force a woman to go one way or another. That is not right.

[Ace Nova]

Ya see. You keep wanting to step over to that extreme side but back off. You're tip toeing with the abstinence talk and denial of the death factor in pregnancies.

You cannot teach people to deny their primal nature of wanting to have sex. Unrealistic.

I find it odd that would be your leap instead of going the safe sex route. Maybe that's just me.

People naturally want pleasure and naturally fear death. Teaching abstinence isn't the "smart" option. It's just typically the religious extreme one. No sex before marriage, blah blah blah.

???

Not even close....I'm saying the opposite.....I'm stating that telling women that they could die from a pregnancy is the same as telling them to be abstinent.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

An abortion thread at 8 pages.

Abortion sucks but you just can't force a woman to go one way or another. That is not right.

I don't think anyone has implied that in this thread.

[Rustycage]

Ya see. You keep wanting to step over to that extreme side but back off. You're tip toeing with the abstinence talk and denial of the death factor in pregnancies.

You cannot teach people to deny their primal nature of wanting to have sex. Unrealistic.

I find it odd that would be your leap instead of going the safe sex route. Maybe that's just me.

People naturally want pleasure and naturally fear death. Teaching abstinence isn't the "smart" option. It's just typically the religious extreme one. No sex before marriage, blah blah blah.

???

Not even close....I'm saying the opposite.....I'm stating that telling women that they could die from a pregnancy is the same as telling them to be abstinent.

Your HIV point.....

[Ace Nova]

Ya see. You keep wanting to step over to that extreme side but back off. You're tip toeing with the abstinence talk and denial of the death factor in pregnancies.

You cannot teach people to deny their primal nature of wanting to have sex. Unrealistic.

I find it odd that would be your leap instead of going the safe sex route. Maybe that's just me.

People naturally want pleasure and naturally fear death. Teaching abstinence isn't the "smart" option. It's just typically the religious extreme one. No sex before marriage, blah blah blah.

???

Not even close....I'm saying the opposite.....I'm stating that telling women that they could die from a pregnancy is the same as telling them to be abstinent.

Your HIV point.....

?

You may have missed my point, not so sure what's going on. The point was that if you are going to warn women about the dangers of having a baby then you should also warn them about the dangers of having sex...both are equally dangerous....statistically. That's all. I wasn't saying to do either.....just the logic behind her statement was questionable.

[Rustycage]

No one is warning women of those dangers because they already feel the danger along with financial hardship and etc. That's what you aren't getting. Women should always have the right to choose to take that risk.

I think you totally missed her point but I'll let her clear it up for you.

[Ace Nova]

No one is warning women of those dangers because they already feel the danger along with financial hardship and etc.

And my point is the "danger" is unwarranted. Statistically, it's just as dangerous to end up with a life threatening illness from having sex and/or dying from having an abortion as it is to carry a baby to term.

I'm saying the ONE point of "danger" is unsubstantiated. As for the others , yes, they hold some validity.

[Rustycage]

No one is warning women of those dangers because they already feel the danger along with financial hardship and etc.

And my point is the "danger" is unwarranted. Statistically, it's just as dangerous to end up with a life threatening illness from having sex and/or dying from having an abortion as it is to carry a baby to term.

I'm saying the ONE point of "danger" is unsubstantiated. As for the others , yes, they hold some validity.

Wait, you think mothers dying childbirth is unsubstantiated?

What is so hard for you to grasp that people can actually be afraid of something at the proverbial precipice of pregnancy?

Yes, I'm sure women, just like a lot of men are scared of getting HIV. What is the point there? Are you suggesting that the women that get pregnant were all irresponsible sluts? You say you aren't claiming abstinence teaching but you pretty much are. Just stop riding that fence and make your point.

[ohlovelyrita]

Question :

(especially for Kasanova King and Shades)

"If abortion is made illegal, what should be the penalty for women who get illegal abortions?"

1) jailtime - specify amount of time and crime (murder?)

2) fine

3) sterilization

4) two of the above

5) none of the above

6) other

Kasanova! I was hoping you'd answer without being asked twice!

I saw Shades answered if shouldn't be illegal but don't see his response anymore,

was it a dream?

[Rustycage]

Don't let it slip your mind that the maternal death rate is now double what it was 25 years ago in our country.

Each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.

The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent.

— reaching the lowest point in 1987 at 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. The most recent figures available show the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births —

Nothing for a woman to fear, right? Nevermind the other implications.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Rustycage

[Ace Nova]

No one is warning women of those dangers because they already feel the danger along with financial hardship and etc.

And my point is the "danger" is unwarranted. Statistically, it's just as dangerous to end up with a life threatening illness from having sex and/or dying from having an abortion as it is to carry a baby to term.

I'm saying the ONE point of "danger" is unsubstantiated. As for the others , yes, they hold some validity.

Wait, you think mothers dying childbirth is unsubstantiated?

What is so hard for you to grasp that people can actually be afraid of something at the proverbial precipice of pregnancy?

Yes, I'm sure women, just like a lot of men are scared of getting HIV. What is the point there? Are you suggesting that the women that get pregnant were all irresponsible sluts? You say you aren't claiming abstinence teaching but you pretty much are. Just stop riding that fence and make your point.

You're not getting this at all.

Of course there is a natural "fear" in everything you mentioned. But the "danger" factor is EQUAL in a pro choice - pro life debate. When the risk levels are equal on both sides, then yes, the argument is unsubstantiated. It makes no sense.

If a doctor told you that the danger levels of getting chemo vs. radiation therapy are equal....would tell people that "It's dangerous to get chemo therapy".....but not mention it's equally dangerous to get radiation?

[Rustycage]

You're not getting this at all.

Of course there is a natural "fear" in everything you mentioned. But the "danger" factor is EQUAL in a pro choice - pro life debate. When the risk levels are equal on both sides, then yes, the argument is unsubstantiated. It makes no sense.

If a doctor told you that the danger levels of getting chemo vs. radiation therapy are equal....would tell people that "It's dangerous to get chemo therapy".....but not mention it's equally dangerous to get radiation?

It's kinda hard to get your point when it makes no sense and you aren't clear.

So because women had sex and risked HIV, they shouldn't get an abortion? Just what is your point here? You are trying to clump two different discussions into one. While also claiming that you aren't advocating abstinence. It makes no sense.

As for your last question, THAT is why it should be and currently IS the woman's choice.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Rustycage

[Ace Nova]

Don't let it slip your mind that the maternal death rate is now double what it was 25 years ago in our country.

Each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.

The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent.

— reaching the lowest point in 1987 at 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. The most recent figures available show the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births —

Nothing for a woman to fear, right? Nevermind the other implications.

The mortality rate of women from having abortions is as high a 1 in 8000 in later term abortions and 1 in 26,000 in early to mid term abortions. Like I said, the dangers are close enough with either decision, for it not to play a role in the decision making process.

You're not getting this at all.

Of course there is a natural "fear" in everything you mentioned. But the "danger" factor is EQUAL in a pro choice - pro life debate. When the risk levels are equal on both sides, then yes, the argument is unsubstantiated. It makes no sense.

If a doctor told you that the danger levels of getting chemo vs. radiation therapy are equal....would tell people that "It's dangerous to get chemo therapy".....but not mention it's equally dangerous to get radiation?

It's kinda hard to get your point when it makes no sense and you aren't clear.

So because women had sex and risked HIV, they shouldn't get an abortion? Just what is your point here? You are trying to clump two different discussions into one. While also claiming that you aren't advocating abstinence. It makes no sense.

As for your last question, THAT is why it should be and currently IS the woman's choice.

That's where we're off. I'm not even debating pro choice or pro life....just that the "danger" factor shouldn't be brought into the debate. That's all....absolutely nothing to do with HIV or abstinence.

Kasanova! I was hoping you'd answer without being asked twice!

[Rustycage]

Don't let it slip your mind that the maternal death rate is now double what it was 25 years ago in our country.

Each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.

The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent.

— reaching the lowest point in 1987 at 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. The most recent figures available show the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births —

Nothing for a woman to fear, right? Nevermind the other implications.

The mortality rate of women from having abortions is as high a 1 in 8000 in later term abortions and 1 in 26,000 in early to mid term abortions. Like I said, the dangers are close enough with either decision, for it not to play a role in the decision making process.

You do realize that your numbers there are in favor of abortion over the risk of childbirth, right? Mid to late term abortions aren't even the point, though.

To use your own hypothetical; If your doctor told you that removing a cyst on the base of your brain stem gave you a better chance of survival than leaving it in, are you going to sit there and claim it's a coin flip?

[Angelica]

Your moderate fig leaf is slipping.

(insert smiley face here)

I just don't think reasons like, "The rate of women dying because of child birth has doubled" has anything to do with a pro choice or pro life debate. It's fanatical statements like those, designed as scare tactics, that only the extreme sides would use. That logic is no different than a pro life advocate stating that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide after having an abortion.

The risks associated with pregnancy (and abortion) don't have a place in a pro choice/pro life debate? Are you fucking kidding me?

[Rustycage]

You're not getting this at all.

Of course there is a natural "fear" in everything you mentioned. But the "danger" factor is EQUAL in a pro choice - pro life debate. When the risk levels are equal on both sides, then yes, the argument is unsubstantiated. It makes no sense.

If a doctor told you that the danger levels of getting chemo vs. radiation therapy are equal....would tell people that "It's dangerous to get chemo therapy".....but not mention it's equally dangerous to get radiation?

It's kinda hard to get your point when it makes no sense and you aren't clear.

So because women had sex and risked HIV, they shouldn't get an abortion? Just what is your point here? You are trying to clump two different discussions into one. While also claiming that you aren't advocating abstinence. It makes no sense.

As for your last question, THAT is why it should be and currently IS the woman's choice.

That's where we're off. I'm not even debating pro choice or pro life....just that the "danger" factor shouldn't be brought into the debate. That's all....absolutely nothing to do with HIV or abstinence.

The danger factor is what motivates the decision in a lot of cases. You can't just cherry pick and omit factors that are inconvenient to your argument(whatever it currently is).

[Ace Nova]

You do realize that your numbers there are in favor of abortion over the risk of childbirth, right? Mid to late term abortions aren't even the point, though.

To use your own hypothetical; If your doctor told you that removing a cyst on the base of your brain stem gave you a better chance of survival than leaving it in, are you going to sit there and claim it's a coin flip?

If the risk is 15 out of 100,000 that I would die by leaving the coin in so that it would develop into living being one day....of course I would leave it in....especially since I still had as high a 1 in 8000 chance of dying if I took it out.

Your moderate fig leaf is slipping.

(insert smiley face here)

I just don't think reasons like, "The rate of women dying because of child birth has doubled" has anything to do with a pro choice or pro life debate. It's fanatical statements like those, designed as scare tactics, that only the extreme sides would use. That logic is no different than a pro life advocate stating that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide after having an abortion.

The risks associated with pregnancy (and abortion) don't have a place in a pro choice/pro life debate? Are you fucking kidding me?

Sure they do...if you state the risk factors of both.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Kasanova King