Comic Genesis Forums

MistressMaggie wrote:I also believe that if you get into a car accident, you should be entitled to medical care. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with people who choose to drive drunk or recklessly because they know they can get medical care if they have an accident.

I think this is an excellent illustration...

I'm just doubt many women are using abortion this way.

It also keeps bringing me back the the point that abortions are safer than childbirth is.

Seth Marati wrote:

Honor wrote:I'm also pro-choice with qualifications... I qualify it by saying that it should be available until the child is perhaps ten years old.

That would certainly make things interesting:

...And let that be a lesson to the rest of you kids.

Yep... I always used to say, very seriously, "I support free access to abortion until the forty-third trimester." and then watch as the concept settled in and the realized they meaning.

I suppose if we're going to be absolutely realistic and honest, I couldn't really justify legalizing abortion much after the age of, perhaps, two or so, though.

Up until some point, the expelled post-fetus is really nothing more than a potential human.

If potential is the determining factor here, then one might be able to draw from that a policy that allows for the "aborting" of those who have *wasted* their potential. Of course, once the way is cleared for that, then I'm in trouble. And that's not cool.

Anyway, levity is all well and good, but I would like to contribute something serious to this discussion. Probably tomorrow, if sleeping tonight doesn't wear me out.

Keep posting Maggie, and please don't change your avatar...

On another note, I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice too, but I tend to lean towards that choice being abortion.

Would I prefer women who didn't want kids to not get preggers in the first place? Damn right I would, but if you're some 16 year old twit who's 21 year old boyfriend knocked you up, and by god you're going to keep the baby because of some stupid reasons that are more ideology and base sentiment than fact and wisdom, I would much rather you get an abortion than bring another human in to the world that's most likely to grow up and be as stupid as you.

Oh, and what's with celebrities adopting kids from other countries? Its not like we don't have orphans here in the good 'ole US. Hell, some of them are even funny colors.

Squiddy wrote:Oh, and what's with celebrities adopting kids from other countries? Its not like we don't have orphans here in the good 'ole US. Hell, some of them are even funny colors.

Yeah, but they're American.












Kidding. Just kidding.

squidflakes wrote:Keep posting Maggie, and please don't change your avatar...

...gawwwd, I know! doesn't it just rock your socks off?

How about being liable for the whole cost of an abortion [honestly I don't know how much they cost, are we talking a difference of many thousands of dollars or $6.50?] since if the woman in the situation who may wish to get an abortion without the support of the sperm-donating man would be paying the full cost on her own. [since this is such a tiny disagreement, I'll vote for the half-cost option]

How about women living in those areas where access to abortion is really limited? I keep reading these articles about states where there is *1* abortion provider who lives in a little armed camp and women are hitchhiking cross-country to get an abortion. Is it fair to those who can't get an abortion to tell them "Well, you're pregnant and you could have gotten an abortion so you deal with the kid and here $1000"?

It seems to be "common knowledge" here in Japan that abortion is used as birth control. I don't know the actual facts of it but birth control pills were not available here until quite recently and a long standing propaganda campaign against birth control pills has left most women here rather afraid of them even though they're available now.

I voted no but for a different reason. Each partner decides whether the pregnancy should continue or not. However, in the case of a conflict, it is the woman who is affected by the consequences the most and this gives her the casting vote. Alas, this gives her the vote. That's mathematics for you.

putaro wrote:How about women living in those areas where access to abortion is really limited? I keep reading these articles about states where there is *1* abortion provider who lives in a little armed camp and women are hitchhiking cross-country to get an abortion. Is it fair to those who can't get an abortion to tell them "Well, you're pregnant and you could have gotten an abortion so you deal with the kid and here $1000"?

It seems to be "common knowledge" here in Japan that abortion is used as birth control. I don't know the actual facts of it but birth control pills were not available here until quite recently and a long standing propaganda campaign against birth control pills has left most women here rather afraid of them even though they're available now.

The exchange program students at our school were told as of March that it is illegal to bring birth control pills into Japan.

Honor wrote:

squidflakes wrote:Keep posting Maggie, and please don't change your avatar...

...gawwwd, I know! doesn't it just rock your socks off?

...but what about the possibility that it can get better?

Ok, I know I should just let this drop, but I feel the need to clarify the anorexic/alcoholic thing from earlier.

When the anorexic goes to a plastic surgeon and asks for liposuction, (s)he is asking the doctor to fix what (s)he sees as the problem. An outsider looking at the situation would see that the problem is not being fat, it's being anorexic.

When the alcoholic goes to the surgeon, they're looking for the solution to what they see as their problem; that they need a new liver. An outsider looking at the situation would see that the problem is not his liver, it's his drinking.

When a woman repeatedly goes to an abortion clinic for the solution to their problem, a pregnancy, they should also be treated for the bigger problem, which is repeatedly getting pregnant in the first place. Why are we treating the symptoms and not the cause?

I believe I've heard of abortion clinics that require you to be counselled before the procedure, anyone know anything about that?

MistressMaggie wrote:

Honor wrote:

squidflakes wrote:Keep posting Maggie, and please don't change your avatar...

...gawwwd, I know! doesn't it just rock your socks off?

...but what about the possibility that it can get better?

so what do we think? better? worse?

When a woman repeatedly goes to an abortion clinic for the solution to their problem, a pregnancy, they should also be treated for the bigger problem, which is repeatedly getting pregnant in the first place. Why are we treating the symptoms and not the cause?

Fair point about treating the symptom and not the cause, but I still don't think that large groups of rationa, sane, women (of any economic bracket) use abortions in the example that you are using.

Also counseling prior to abortion is dependent on which country your in, what kind of clinic you're getting it done at and how many pennies you have. Sad but true.

Also forgive me for not quoting you properly Maggie, but I'm thoroughly knackered.

By the way, nice ass

EDIT: because double posts suck.

This is a very personal and touchy subject for me, so I'll try my best not to get preachy or argumentative.

I've always considered myself to be Pro-Choice. However, after a situation that occoured a few years ago, I've been seriously bothered by the fact that the choice can only be made by women.

The law doesn't recognize the fact that there are men out there who would willingly raise a child that they created, accidentally or not, without any support or input from the woman involved if she doesn't want the child.

If men don't have the choice to raise the child if the mother doesn't want it, why should the law compel them to support a child that they didn't want. A woman can "make a mistake" or something could happen by "accident" (quotes used to imply that a lot of planning can go into these mistakes and accidents) which would force a man into a position to raise or support a child that he never intended for there to be. If the situation is reversed, the woman can use abortion as a "get out of responsibility free" card.

It strikes me as odd that it requires both a man and a woman to create a child, but only the woman has the right to determine whether or not the child will even be born, let alone what will happen to the child if it is born.

This is really two separate issues.

Issue #1 is - the current state of technology in birth control SUCKS.
My opinion; we, as a civilization, can do better, we HAVE to do better. If it were up to me, we WOULD do better. Abortion is a terrible form of birth control, whether you believe a fetus is a human life or not, or whether you believe human life has any "sacred" meaning at all or not. I've put my hand on a mother's belly, and felt my own children move. I've got my own feelings about that. But my final word on abortion: I don't have a right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body, if it does not hurt anybody else. A person is not legally a person until the person is born. There is no birth certificate, there is no social security number. In order to really make abortion illegal - you'd really have to change these two legal facts. Probably 90% of the "abortion debate" is really just a bunch of political noise directed at coalition building. Yes, there are real impacts - such as; abortion may be legal, but under Clinton, who was objectively pro-choice, access to abortion dropped something like 90% in this country, because clinics were harassed, shut down, doctors were killed, restrictive laws were passed, while not banning abortion, - but nothing was done in favor of this legally recognized right. So - for all the noise that the left makes in favor of "a woman's right to choose" - they sure as hell didn't back them up in the 1990's when they had the power. And for all the noise that the right makes in favor of a ban, they sure as hell didn't outlaw it outright in the 2000's when they had the power.

It's all just empty noise. And the fact is - we need better technology, and better education.

Issue #2 - The paternity and child-support laws in this country SUCK. Many men get off the hook completely, while others can be constantly harassed by a vindictive ex, exploiting the system just to make the guy's life impossible.

I knew a guy, who got dragged into court every 6 months, over the two years I knew him, his finances picked over, the woman's lawyer trying to get any excuse for an increase. This guy worked 60 hour weeks, and she didn't work at all, had the typical unstable home with many "model-citizen" boyfriends, parties with drugs, never cleaned the place, (I saw it) the whole nightmare scenario - and this guy couldn't get joint custody, or even better than every-other-weekend visitation. The mom was basically living off of him. He tried to start his own company with a couple of partners, and they got their startup capital together to open an office - well, she got wind of it, somehow, and her lawyer got a judge to freeze the business account until they could get a look at it to see if she was entitled to a cut. They couldn't pay their rent, so the business had to fold - the partners pulled out, and he lost his job, because he was working the side business, and wasn't able to pay his existing support. The state took the money he owed from the frozen account - even though it wasn't his. All in all, a complete clusterfuck. His girlfriend was a saint, for sticking with him despite the hell his ex put him through.

Then again, my wife's biological father - was married to her mother, left, never paid any support. Same for my mother. My wife's best friend, got pregnant at 18, guy stuck around for a couple of years, turned out he had a wife and 4 kids in Texas, went back to them, never paid a dime in support.

Me? I got lucky, my ex wasn't vindictive, she never sued me, (we weren't married, so there was no legal support agreement). We verbally agreed on an amount, I paid. Our boy is 19, almost 20, and I'm still paying - though I'm going to be stopping this year, because she is out of work, not looking for a job, just divorced her fifth husband, taking care of their infant daughter, and our son's not working either. I can't support two families. He can come stay with me if he wants. But he wont. I sponged off my parents when I was 19, so I would feel bad to cut him off, but he's giving the money to his mom, she's living off it, and that's not at all fair to my wife and our kids, especially when my wife works.

So - we had a good thing going that worked pretty well, it wasn't perfect, but we mutually agreed like grown ups to be cool about it, and it lasted for a while, and while it has turned bad, I'm glad it's gone as well as it has. I'm proud of my boy, I'm glad I know him, and I'm glad he knows me.

I don't know what the answer is on the child support thing. I know that my case is the exception, not the rule. If I had to go back and choose to do it over again, of course I wouldn't say that I would abort my son. But on the other hand, I was stupid - I made a stupid mistake for having unprotected sex. I made a stupid mistake believing her when she said she was on the pill. I made a stupid mistake for getting involved with a woman who I *knew* had a reputation for being a lying whore. I had been warned.

And I also know that in almost every other child-support case I've heard of - either the guy gets TOTALLY screwed, and is basically assraped by the system for 18 years. Or, the guy gets totally off, without any responsibility at all (like my wife's dad.) - maybe there should be an "out" for a guy, to waive all parental rights and responsibilities. But I would think that that would have a way of backfiring; 18 years later. I know that the horror stories of guys getting harsh judgments, are partially driven by a system run by people who are sick of the ones that get away scott-free. (In some states, there's specific laws about paternity suits being required when the child is on state-aid - ie. welfare). But it's not fair to make one guy pay through the nose, because someone else doesn't pay at all. And it's not fair to make a father pay to support a kid, and have the mother live off that support. Maybe it's not fair to make the taxpayers support a kid on welfare, because the father isn't supporting the kid.

Guys CAN waive all parental rights and responsibilities; I know that much from watching Law and Order and glimpses of Court TV. Doesn't mean the girl can't go after him later for monetary support, a fact I personally find very unfair, but which has yet to be changed.

I'm firmly pro-choice. Doesn't mean I think it should be used frivolously; I'm not a huge fan of plastic surgery or semi-invasive beauty treatments (although I wouldn't say no to laser hair removal, if only because I hate shaving my legs every other day or more), and far too many women use it over and over so they don't have to worry about other avenues of birth control. I dislike that muchly.

BriHahn wrote:Guys CAN waive all parental rights and responsibilities; I know that much from watching Law and Order and glimpses of Court TV. Doesn't mean the girl can't go after him later for monetary support, a fact I personally find very unfair, but which has yet to be changed.

I'm firmly pro-choice. Doesn't mean I think it should be used frivolously; I'm not a huge fan of plastic surgery or semi-invasive beauty treatments (although I wouldn't say no to laser hair removal, if only because I hate shaving my legs every other day or more), and far too many women use it over and over so they don't have to worry about other avenues of birth control. I dislike that muchly.

Why do I bother posting? Bri's much better at explaining what's going on in my head..

MistressMaggie wrote:Ok, I know I should just let this drop, but I feel the need to clarify the anorexic/alcoholic thing from earlier.

Nothing is communicated when someone just "lets it drop"... So, if communication and better understanding between human beings were a religion, "letting it drop" would be a cardinal sin.

MistressMaggie wrote:When the anorexic goes to a plastic surgeon and asks for liposuction, (s)he is asking the doctor to fix what (s)he sees as the problem. An outsider looking at the situation would see that the problem is not being fat, it's being anorexic.

Ok... My bad. The problem here, I think, is that my mind added a word. I thought about the condition of anorexia nervosa, rather than the symptom of anorexia, in general... So the illustration I got was giving liposuction to someone who was already, by definition, of a low body weight. Sorry.

MistressMaggie wrote:When the alcoholic goes to the surgeon, they're looking for the solution to what they see as their problem; that they need a new liver. An outsider looking at the situation would see that the problem is not his liver, it's his drinking.

Granted... But the fact that the liver in question is exceedingly rare and could save or improve the life of someone on whom it wouldn't be "wasted" is part and parcel to this view, right...?

If livers were free and abundant and grew on trees, then the only way this argument has legs is if we see the drinking as inherently sinful and something the drinker should be punished or suffer for... Which gets us to a quite valid underlying illustration about how many Americans, at least, emotionally think about pregnancy and abortion.

I'd say, if we can cheaply and easily create new organs by cloning or something, and the procedure can be reduced in cost and difficulty to something like... I don't know... Getting a boob job... Then there's no issue with it. Drink all you want, smoke all you want, dance naked, and fuck like bunnies. You can always get new lungs, a new heart, a new liver, new boobies, and an abortion or abortion pill.

(detour...)

In fact, the thought reminds me of a book I liked very much when it came out, John Varley's Steel Beach... Any book that opens with the line "In ten years, the penis will be obsolete." gets an immediate smile from me, but the world presented is one in which almost any medical ill can be solved immediately and inexpensively. One of the characters is a tabloid editor who smokes and drinks so much that he has to get the above mentioned organs replaced every twenty years or so... But everything, eyes, hair, skin tone, even gender, can be wholly and actually altered (this is the kind of sex change were you get ejaculated sperm or periods, if you want them) in an afternoon of harmless, painless procedures. At the time I thought it was one of the most beautiful and alluring visions of the future I'd ever heard of... And I'd hardly be inclined to disagree now.

(/detour)

MistressMaggie wrote:When a woman repeatedly goes to an abortion clinic for the solution to their problem, a pregnancy, they should also be treated for the bigger problem, which is repeatedly getting pregnant in the first place. Why are we treating the symptoms and not the cause?

The only "statistics" I've found so far come from a site that cites no references I can find... (Anyone else got better?) but are still interesting...

IS ABORTION USED AS BIRTH CONTROL? Percentage of abortion patients who *were* using a contraceptive during the month in which they became pregnant - 51.3%. By age: 17 or under - 39.4% 18-19 - 48.8% 20-29 - 51.9% 30 or over 58.8%

By birth control method: condom - 28.6% Pill 26.0% withdrawal - 11.1% diaphragm - 10.1% sponge - 9.1% rhythm - 7.3% foam - 4.0% suppository 2.6% IUD - 0.6% sterilization - 0.4% other/don't know - 0.2%

Percentage of women getting abortions who've had (1) no previous abortion - 57.1%, (2) 1 previous abortion - 26.9%, (3) 2 previous abortions - 10.7%, (3) 3 or more previous abortions - 5.3%

Each year, contraceptive users account for 43% of unintended pregnancies (1.5 million).

Although it's a bit retarded that they list 'rythem' and 'withdrawal' as forms of birth control...

MistressMaggie wrote:I believe I've heard of abortion clinics that require you to be counselled before the procedure, anyone know anything about that?

Personally, I think objective, non-biased counseling should be required before any surgery, 'elective' or otherwise... The requirements of this sort placed on abortion are typically high, but, as Lulu points out, rarely (if ever) perfect.