?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Join the Care Bears @ Abortion Debate! [entries|friends|calendar]
Join the Care Bears @ Abortion Debate!

rules&info archives [calendar] memories debate!
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Causes of dropping abortion rates? [25 Jan 2008|04:05pm]

choclytgremlins
[ mood | curious ]

As we all may have heard by now, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute that is covered in this article, abortion rates in the US are the lowest they have been in 30 years.  The story in question, covered by NPR, attributes this to a shrinking number of abortion providers.

However, this column by former Moral Majority official Cal Thomas attributes the drop in abortions solely to the efforts of right-to-life groups.  Planned Parenthood's spokespeople cite the growing availability of birth control, particularly the morning-after pill, which is much easier to obtain now that it is over-the-counter (rather than prescription) for consumers 18 and over.

So, what do we in the community think is causing the drop?  One of the above?  All of the above?  Something else entirely?  Me, I've been saying for a long time that Plan B is close to a godsend, but I'm not going to attribute everything to one factor - so what do we think?

43 in flight. deliver me?

Morbo is displeased! [13 Jan 2008|11:41pm]

muliebrity


Puny humans! Morbo demands posts.
14 in flight. deliver me?

On Cross-Cultural factors.. [29 Nov 2007|09:08pm]

archangel__7
Sex-selective abortions seem to be a common practice in India, a country that usually disfavors giving birth to females. My question, basically is if the unborn is not a human person, then whether or not someone destroys the fetus because of their sex should not raise any protests, right?

In one sense, it may be seen not too dissimilar from aborting a pregnancy due to the discovery of a potential deformity in a child. If you think the Indian practice to be unjust, why?
18 in flight. deliver me?

Constitutional Rights [16 Nov 2007|09:35am]

prophet_maid
You may or may not know, but pro-life organizations in 5 states, including Colorado, are trying to define a fertilized egg as a person with full constitutional rights. Link

Specifically, they want to give fertilized eggs the right to due process.

I ask you generally what you think of this, and more specifically, just how do you think a non-sentient being could ever petition a court, fill out paper work, or seek representation, presumably in opposition to its mother.

More generally, I wonder if this changes the rights of children. It was my understanding that a child's access to due process and freedom of speech are severely curtailed due to their minority. If a non-sentient single celled organism has these rights, why not a child of 3?
27 in flight. deliver me?

Anti-Abortion Demonstration at Georgia State University [13 Nov 2007|10:25am]

shamanwest
Another Blogger's view of this demonstration

That this demonstration was allowed on campus boggles the mind.

I wanted to know what you all, on both sides of the abortion debate, thought.
13 in flight. deliver me?

40 days for life? [07 Nov 2007|02:39pm]

fallenintograce
This isn't a debate topic per se, but I felt like this comm would yield a greater variety of responses.
The nationwide "40 Days for Life" protest ended on Sunday, November 4. What were your thoughts on these protests? Were you involved in them, either protesting or escorting/counter-protesting? Do you think they were successful?
21 in flight. deliver me?

definitions [23 Oct 2007|03:07pm]

eyelid
Why is surgical abortion even called "surgical"? It doesn't require any cutting of the woman, or stitching her up, or anything.
53 in flight. deliver me?

pro-life? [13 Oct 2007|08:15pm]

nothingmuch
A new study says that outlawing abortion doesn't reduce abortion rates, but it does kill women.

Birth control, however, does reduce abortion rates.

So what is the real point of making abortion illegal? What's pro-life about trying to institute a policy that is only proven to cause more deaths?
56 in flight. deliver me?

Controversial Underwriting [12 Oct 2007|11:47am]

lightfromlight
WDUQ, the NPR affiliate in Pittsburgh, has its home at Duquesne University, a Catholic university. The university has instructed the station to stop accepting underwriting funds from Planned Parenthood.

What do you think?
54 in flight. deliver me?

Mod post, please read [12 Oct 2007|11:17am]

muliebrity
This is just a friendly reminder that all posts must contain a subject for debate. Linking to and quoting from news articles is fine and certainly a good jumping off point for discussion, but it's not enough.
Ask yourself, what questions does the article raise? What do I think about it? Are there any particular points I want to focus on?
Going that extra step helps to clarify the parameters of the debate and often generates more responses. If you have any questions about this policy, please review the community rules and contact the moderators with any questions. Thanks!
deliver me?

Religious aspects [08 Oct 2007|07:10pm]

sana
I figured this would be a good topic of discussion, but there's not much debate in this one.

How does your beliefs affect your position on abortion? Pro-life or pro-choice.

I think this would be interesting for both sides to read and discuss.
47 in flight. deliver me?

All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo! [23 Sep 2007|09:56pm]

muliebrity


Morbo demands an answer to the following question. If you saw a delicious candy in the hands of a small child, would you seize and consume it?

In other news, Morbo demands posts or he cannot be responsible for his actions.
4 in flight. deliver me?

"God's Will", Fertility Drugs, and "Life" [17 Jun 2007|03:59pm]

nemo_wistar
I did some reading up on the Minnesota couple, Ryan and Brianna Morrison, and their recent delivery of sextuplets at 4 1/2 months.  There is an article entitled "Couple Chooses Life and Sextuplets", which states, among other things,

"... the couple’s and their childrens’ story would have been far different if doctors had their way."

Another site pointed out:  The doctors wanted to perform “selective reduction” but Ryan and Brianna Morrison rejected that option to play God.  They stated, "We understand that the risk is high, but we also understand that these little ones are much more than six fetuses.  Each one of them is a miracle given to us by God."

“Truly God would sustain us in this just as He has sustained us in everything we’ve ever experienced. He will bring the lives of these babies to full health and fruition and everyone will say, ‘Look, God has done something amazing!’”

Just to recap ...
  • They tried for a year to get pregnant, went on fertility drugs, and then ended up with 6 at once - something that humans were not entirely designed to do naturally.
  • They refused selective reduction to 2 - which would have greatly increased the chances of having healthy children and a full-term pregnancy - instead, they left that part of the situation up to "God's Will".
  • They were all born, four and a half months early, with weights ranging from 11 - 19 oz.  Your survival rate for being born at 22 weeks is about 2%.
  • Three have already died.  The remaining three are in critical condition and, being this premature, will most likely have health problems directly resulting from this for the rest of their lives.  This assumes they survive at all.
My questions / comments for the community:
  • I'll only gloss over the hypocrisy of defying the way God made you, using fertility drugs to get what you want, and then resorting to "God's Will" after you get pregnant.  I'm sorry, but if they were going to play by any precedent set by God, Ryan should have hooked up with Brianna's sister.
  • How can a couple that considers themselves "pro-life" use fertility drugs, which greatly increase the incidence of multiple fertilization, resulting in the need to make the choice between selective reduction (to increase the chances of the survival of one or two) or putting the entire group at severe risk in which all of them may now die? 
  • Wouldn't the true "pro-life" couple reject putting themselves in that situation to start with?  Hell, I'm pro-choice and I would refuse to put myself in a situation in which I'd have to make that decision.
  • Why did they not choose adoption, which is strongly advocated as the Christian alternative to abortion??
This issue has undoubtedly been covered before, so I'll leave it up to the mods to approve this.  Also, I do hope that the remaining children survive and grow up healthy, even if I believe their parents are a couple of nitwits.
70 in flight. deliver me?

Reporting Statutory Rape [13 Jun 2007|08:23pm]

catholic_heart
Ok, disclaimer first. I am pro life, so while I'm going to try my hardest to keep my opinion to myself until it gets to comment time, if anything comes out slanted towards the pro life side, well I'm just sort of hardwired like that, so try to excuse me.

Many of you have probably already either heard the story or seen the video of Lila Rose, the 18 year old UCLA student and pro life activist who went to Planned Parenthood posing as a 15 year old girl with a 23 year old boyfriend. She videotaped (well, it's really just audio because the video is hidden) the conversation, and was encouraged by the clinic worker to make up a date of birth that would make her appear to be 16, thus preventing the clinic from having to report her boyfriend for statutory rape. The video available is produced by Rose, and it gets a little hokey at times (it has Ludacris and Mary J Blige in the background, and some freezeframe and repeat stuff in it), but here is the link of the video in case you haven't seen it.

In 2002, an activist group called Life Dynamics ran a campaign in which a woman posing as a 13-year old impregnated by a 22-year-old and called clinics operated by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The group has compiled tapes of workers encouraging girls to lie about their age to avoid being reported as a victim. This is the website where the make some of those tapes available.

So, to open up the discussion, I have two questions: one, should abortion and birth control providers be legally and/or ethically required to report instances of what the law determines to be statutory rape? Two, in the current legal environment where such a requirement does exist, should criminal charges be filed against those clinics/providers who do encourage girls to falsify information for the purpose of protecting a statutory rapist?

If there are any other angles to this discussion which I have missed, please feel free to bring them up.
48 in flight. deliver me?

On Abortion, Hollywood is No-Choice [12 Jun 2007|09:27am]

gingie1223
"IN the hit indie movie “Waitress,” the lead character, Jenna, finds out she’s pregnant at a time when she’s plotting to run away from her abusive husband. In last week’s No. 2 film, “Knocked Up,” Alison becomes pregnant after a one-night stand with Ben, an ungainly suitor.

In some ways, both movies mirror reality. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy says unwanted pregnancies have actually increased among some adult women, even as they have decreased among teenage girls. More than half of all unwanted pregnancies occur to women in their 20s.

But in another way, both movies go out of their way to sidestep real life. Nearly two-thirds of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, data from federal surveys shows." (more)


Mostly, I just thought the article was interesting. But, what effect do you think movies (particularly those without an apparent agenda) have on popular political opinions, specifically that related to abortion? Does the art reflect the times or do the times reflect the art?
61 in flight. deliver me?

question about the Brain [19 May 2007|02:02pm]

lynzabeth
So i was running through old posts here and I came across
(Cut for low bandwidth folks)

This picture makes a good point- about the end of life, not the beginning.  I tend to agree with the original purpose.  A brain is perhaps the most important organ in the human body because it transmits the mind (brain isn't the mind, mind isn't the brain, brain transmits the mind, mind uses the brain).  So without the brain, you have no way of expressing your mind. 

Therefore, when is a brain enough of a brain to be considered a brain, able to transmit the mind.  When does the mind begin existing?  Do our brains have to be fully functioning in order to be considered fully human? If our brains are only partially functioning, are we considered partially human?  Does the mind have any say in this? 

I'm a For Better of For Worse addict, and this morning the strip had this to say
In this comic, since Jim is not able to express himself verbally or otherwise because of a stroke.  He has aphasia.  But he is able to have cognizant thoughts and feelings.  Does that mean he is only partially human because his brain is only partially working?

Moving away from end of life issues again, I found this article this morning which found that our brains are not fully physically developed until between ages 10 an 12.  Of course, through adolescents we continue to develop neural pathways and have much development to do in that manner, but our brain has all the organic matter it will ever need.  So it takes much longer than 9 months in the womb to get a fully functioning brain. 

If the original image is correct for both end of life and beginning of life issues, that means that when I loose my brain completely, i am completely dead, and if i don't have one at all, then i am not alive (this includes brain stem).  But is existence of our mind is reliant on existence of our brain, or vice versa?  (note, literature for the last 100 years in Psychology has expressed that the 2 are separate functions, mind v. brain, not one in the same). So is then our person-hood reliant on our ability to express our mind?  And are we somehow subhuman if we can not do so fully (re: Jim and the stroke, or a child before age 12)?
108 in flight. deliver me?

Sex selection. [18 May 2007|06:16pm]

sunovermountain
The issue of using abortion for sex selection is definitely complicated. In some countries, prospective parents are not allowed to know the sex of the fetus at all, as there is a discrepancy in the number of men and women. In those countries, it has gotten to the point that there is actually social upset due to the shortage of women.

Particularly for pro-choice people, what do you think about sex-selection?
Should it be banned in countries such as China and India?
Should it be banned in countries where there is currently no major difference in the number of men and women (such as the US)?
Do you think it is immoral or unethical to abort based on fetal sex?
46 in flight. deliver me?

Pro- Life Insurance [11 May 2007|10:18am]

5010
As we all know, there are choices one can make to minimize unintended pregnancy, but risks are involved. Even permanent options such as tubal ligation and vasectomy have rates of failure. How can men and women manage such risks?
Read more...Collapse )
31 in flight. deliver me?

MOD POST - PLEASE READ [10 May 2007|05:46pm]

muliebrity
It has recently come to our attention that some community members think the mods "do nothing" about personal attacks. However, this overlooks a key point - we need to be made aware of such attacks. We are not, contrary to popular belief, omniscient beings who are aware of every comment made in this community. If you have a problem with the behavior of another member and you see that a mod has not yet taken any action to diffuse the situation, EMAIL US. Our contact information, as well as our policy on this issue, is on the community info page. Presumably all of you read it when you joined, but if not, please avail yourself of it now.

PS-Morbo is currently accepting sacrifices of small children and puppies posts for the queue. Satisfy him or face his alien wrath.
deliver me?

Ultrasound Legislation [01 May 2007|05:15pm]

sunovermountain
As some of you may have heard, Texas has recently passed a bill requiring physicians to provide their patients with an opportunity to view the ultrasound prior to performing an abortion. The patient must sign a form signifying that they did receive this opportunity, however it is not mandatory to actually view the ultrasound. (Initially, the bill required the patient to view the ultrasound, but NARAL and numerous other organizations worked to make the law more moderate).

So, here's my question for everyone:

What do you think of requiring physicians to provide the patient the opportunity to look at the ultrasound?

1. Do you think it should be required? Why or why not? What purpose does it serve for the patient, the physician, and the advancement of your political agenda (or your opposition's)?

2. What impact, if any, do you think such requirements have on the number of abortions? Do you have anything to back up your opinion?


ETA
Just to clarify, for those who weren't aware, doctors perform an ultrasound prior to the abortion anyway, so this does not increase the cost of the procedure. Should have mentioned this earlier.
70 in flight. deliver me?

navigation
[ viewing | 20 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]