Abortion
-
Anyone read the chapter in Freakanomics where they put forward the idea that the drastic drop in crime is in relation to Abortion becoming legal. I believe statistics show children who are adopted out or not wanted by their parents are far more likely to engage in crime and end up in the justice system. Once these poverty stricken woman had an option to abortion many took it resulting in a drop in crime 15 years later.
I think many of us let our own biases influence us when talking about this subject. Many of us have no idea what true poverty is like for children or being in a home that is surrounded by drug use, alcoholism and violence. I would assume any woman who chooses to have an abortion has thought pretty hard about said decision and it would be a last resort. Unless we can somehow magically experience life as she does how can we really be in a position to judge.
The poverty argument is the reason why I believe women shouldn’t only be allowed to abort in the third trimester right up until birth, the choice should be extended beyond to infants, toddlers, through kindy and right up to primary school — at least. Circumstances change, a parent gets divorced or loses a job, maybe even hits the bottle or gets hooked on meth & fentanyl. It’s definitely a hardship, and we need to be sensitive to these hardships. Those kids are more than likely going to become criminals and hooked on drugs themselves. Which is why when such circumstances arise, it should be permissible — possibly even recommended by the state — for a legal guardian to exterminate the problem. It does sound a bit rough solution for the sensitive types, especially the religious, but then we would have to assume any mother-or-father who chooses this drastic option has thought pretty hard about said decision. It would be a last resort — I call it the pro-choice final solution.
-
Anyone read the chapter in Freakanomics where they put forward the idea that the drastic drop in crime is in relation to Abortion becoming legal. I believe statistics show children who are adopted out or not wanted by their parents are far more likely to engage in crime and end up in the justice system. Once these poverty stricken woman had an option to abortion many took it resulting in a drop in crime 15 years later.
For a long time that was my basis for my stance on abortion but I see it has since been somewhat debunked. Pinker makes some really good points which the freakonomics authors dubiously left out.
-
Some interesting stats I was not aware of. No idea if they are 100% accurate but if they are is worth reading.
In 2008, 51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice.I also read close to 30% of woman have experienced stealthing where the male removed the condom without their consent.
The majority of woman are unmarried and in there 20's
From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S
So anytime a woman chooses to have sex with a fertile man she has a real risk of getting pregnant. It appears millions of woman have fallen pregnant whilst using birth control and do not want to have children.
It is very hard to debate this topic as we all have our strong opinions and we will defend our position strongly.
-
I also read close to 30% of woman have experienced stealthing where the male removed the condom without their consent.
That is such utterly feral behaviour. As is the apparent effectiveness of the oral contraceptive. I wonder if that is more susceptible to diet or timing in terms of how effective it is? 6-8% is getting into iffy territory.
-
@Paekakboyz said in Abortion:
I also read close to 30% of woman have experienced stealthing where the male removed the condom without their consent.
That is such utterly feral behaviour. As is the apparent effectiveness of the oral contraceptive. I wonder if that is more susceptible to diet or timing in terms of how effective it is? 6-8% is getting into iffy territory.
Yeah fairly shocking, I used to get annoyed with having to wear a condom when the wife was on the pill, but given those stats I'm glad I did.
-
I also read close to 30% of woman have experienced stealthing where the male removed the condom without their consent.
I am very sceptical about this. I suspect it does happen, but I also suspect women lie about it, perhaps because they don't want to be viewed as stupid and irresponsible.
-
Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice.
Well that has me super concerned about my swimmers!
I'm dubious about this. My youngest sister was conceived when my mum was on the pill...my mum is also the most forgetful person I have ever met and I'd wager she had forgotten to take the pill, I wonder if that is what is meant by failure rate in actual practice.
-
@Crazy-Horse the wording is also interesting as it says 'experiencing' rather saying a pregnancy was directly related to that behaviour for the group getting an abortion. Not to go all counter culture but talking about stealthing is definitely a thing online, seemingly more within incel/anti-cuck related groups... which is actually a bit odd as isn't their main gripe not getting any action!!?
-
We'll never ever stop unplanned pregnancies, it's futile to try, worse to lecture about how "people should be more careful and virtuous like me".
Have reasonable term Abortion available to those that want it and everyone else simply go about your business, and keep your opinions to yourself a let that guide your life.
Same as pet euthanasia, gulp, and human euthanasia when that becomes a thing in the next decade.
-
In 2008, 51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
wording seems a bit ambiguous, so assume question may have been better worded, but isnt there a window before/after contraceptive pill is still ineffective...
as for the stealth bit, fark that, you use condoms for more than preventing pregnancy when not in long term relationships...even then, they arent 100%
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Abortion:
I also read close to 30% of woman have experienced stealthing where the male removed the condom without their consent.
I am very sceptical about this. I suspect it does happen, but I also suspect women lie about it, perhaps because they don't want to be viewed as stupid and irresponsible.
You would have to assume that if a woman is asking the male to wear a condom she would also be on the pill. No way a woman is trusting a man every time. I suspect with today’s tinder culture it has more to do with preventing stds than pregnancy as most woman would do their own contraception surely.
You also have to remember we are fucken persistent bastards when trying to get a root. We also would rather not wear a condom if we can, I know when I was 16 I pressured my girlfriend into allowing me not to wear one when she was on the pill.
I suspect many unplanned pregnancies are more the male pressuring the woman into sex than the woman going nah fuck the risks let’s do it. Like my mate said once, Nah don’t wear a condom I use the pull out method...... Sweet as bro.
-
@taniwharugby said in Abortion:
In 2008, 51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
wording seems a bit ambiguous, so assume question may have been better worded, but isnt there a window before/after contraceptive pill is still ineffective...
as for the stealth bit, fark that, you use condoms for more than preventing pregnancy when not in long term relationships...even then, they arent 100%
Yeah that is my understanding, and I know I have to take certain pills every day, couldn't tell you how many times I forgot, especially if away from home.
-
@taniwharugby another point is that us over 35s grew up during AIDS freak out times, not sure if the condom message these days carries the fear message so much.
I spoke with an AIDS council guy in Thailand a few years ago. He said that HIV transmissions via prostitution had decreased but 15 years after the epidemic the prevalence of "private" transmission had worryingly increased. Infidelity in the community was the cause.
Ergo, the use condom message must be in the face of all new generations
-
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-reform
-
-
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-reform
This is going to make a lot of people very angry.
-
-
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-refor
This is a fetus at 20 weeks:
Difficult to see how they can justify that.
-
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Abortion:
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-refor
This is a fetus at 20 weeks:
Difficult to see how they can justify that.
I'd suggest staying away from sone of the 'opinion' on stuff.co.nz ..beggars belief that some think this hasn't gone far enough
-
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Abortion:
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-refor
This is a fetus at 20 weeks:
Difficult to see how they can justify that.
I wish I hadnt looked at that, just makes me more angry that babies of that age can be terminated.
-
-
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Abortion:
@Rembrandt said in Abortion:
So NZ gov announces abortion reform bill. Figure as this is an extremely sensitive topic best to keep to the abortion thread rather than NZ politics.
The proposed abortion law Bill will:
-
remove any statutory test on the health practitioner for a woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant
-
for a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, require the heath practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and well-being.
-
ensure that health practitioners advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion, although counselling will not be mandatory
-
ensure that a woman can self-refer to an abortion service provider
-
enable a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities, on a case-by-case basis
-
ensure that practitioners who object to providing services on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection, and that the woman can obtain the services elsewhere
-
retain the criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for procuring an abortion
-
retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
I have no idea what the chances of getting this through. For my mind it is too extreme.
20 weeks in some circumstances is old enough to survive outside the womb so in my mind this equates to murder (edit: on further reading 21-22 weeks is the youngest, still to close for my mind with technology always improving. I think 16 weeks is standard in Europe, that feels more appropriate)
I don't like the idea of optional counselling would prefer this mandatory even if it is government funded.
I don't like late term abortions being allowed for 'mental health' reasons. Mental health is extremely subjective, easily manipulated and often temporary. You could make the same 'mental health' case for and against abortion and its the against abortion argument which seems to be overlooked.I don't understand how this last part works logically or ethically even if it is absolutely necessary.
*retain the criminal offence of killing an unborn child for any person who causes harm to a pregnant woman and in doing so causes the death of a fetus
Can the difference between a 'baby' of unlimited worth and a 'fetus' of zero worth be determined on whether they are wanted? If this decision is based on the babies sex (as it can be with certain cultures) is this ethical?From: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114751896/live-government-announces-abortion-refor
This is a fetus at 20 weeks:
Difficult to see how they can justify that.
I'd suggest staying away from sone of the 'opinion' on stuff.co.nz ..beggars belief that some think this hasn't gone far enough
Should have followed your advice. Just a "medical procedure" apparently.
-