Abortion

[Sweet J]

Of course it is a problem for some families, I am not denying that, but the problem is bigger than just having a job. If you value your work over your kids, clearly there is a more serious issue at hand, but to say that every household should have at least one parent who works at home/not too often is just kind of...unrealistic for some families.

I am serious, but only while the children need near 24/7 taking care of. Once the children go to school then that stay at home parent(who happens to be the father in my cousins case) could go back to full time work,out of the house, if they wish.

I know children who have stronger bonds to their nanny than their biological parents, due to their nanny effectively acting as their parent.

It appears they love their nanny moreso than their real parents, and cry almost the whole time when they're forced to leave.

This is anything but a good thing, so therefore I suggested it as an ideal plan to prevent this, now you bring up financial issues that need to be taken into consideration in some families, and that's a good point, so the effort is to balance, as you said, which is more important for the parents, are they a Father or Mother first, and a bread winner second? or the other way round. Though that brings up the issue, what are daycare/nanny prices anyway? They're hardly cheap, so what real financial advantage exists from two full time working parents with financial problems? When you subtract childcare $ per hour, how much are you really making?

Have we de-railed the thread?

Right, back to Abortion.

Human life is no one's property. Just like the woman, the developing child is in society. Without society the woman would most likely already be dead. The Police that protect her neighbourhood while she sleeps do not 'own' the woman, but she certainly has a great deal to thank them for.
Similarly the Child has a great deal to thank their mother for, but the mother does not 'own' the child. No moreso than a house owns its occupants.
You see my point? I am by no means great at explaining myself.

This is not to be misinterpreted that women should simply be baby machines, on the contrary, women should use contraception, but if in the unlikely event she does become pregnant without her complete desire for that outcome, it is not completely her decision to terminate the child.
As the child is not her property. It now exists and has become a burgeoning member of society, a society it will ultimately depend upon for a time, until becoming an adult, at which point it will contribute to it. It is the epitome of selfishness to deny the child life, and to deny society the childs life.

Can you also accept that the zygote has the same genome as that of a grown adult? That, what makes an individual an individual is their genes? then if you accept this, why do you insist that the zygote is not human? The Zygote left in its natural environment has a high probability of developing into a contributing member of society, potentially another orphan like Sarah McLoughlin.

If a mother has a right to do what she wishes with her unborn developing child, Does the Earth itself which sustains all of us, 'own' us because it supplies us with oxygen to breathe?
I wonder, how would you feel if the Earth itself decided to abort you out into Space? Would you think it fair? or morally justified?

 

[SlayerFest]

I am serious, but only while the children need near 24/7 taking care of. Once the children go to school then that stay at home parent(who happens to be the father in my cousins case) could go back to full time work,out of the house, if they wish.

I know children who have stronger bonds to their nanny than their biological parents, due to their nanny effectively acting as their parent.

It appears they love their nanny moreso than their real parents, and cry almost the whole time when they're forced to leave.

This is anything but a good thing, so therefore I suggested it as an ideal plan to prevent this, now you bring up financial issues that need to be taken into consideration in some families, and that's a good point, so the effort is to balance, as you said, which is more important for the parents, are they a Father or Mother first, and a bread winner second? or the other way round. Though that brings up the issue, what are daycare/nanny prices anyway? They're hardly cheap, so what real financial advantage exists from two full time working parents with financial problems? When you subtract childcare $ per hour, how much are you really making?

Have we de-railed the thread?

Well I agree that a parent needs to spend time with their children when they're young. I mean paternity leave here is only 6 months which is just insane! That is not even close to enough time. I see your point, and I do agree to an extent. I'm personally not a huge fan of nannies, but it can work out in some situations. In my friend's case, they only needed their "nanny" to pick them up/drive them to school because her parents weren't available to do it, and occasionally cook dinner and they didn't hire her until the kids were at least 7 or 8. I agree that parents should be there to raise their own children.

Haha yeah...we kind of did de-rail it 😉 sorry! Back on track.

 

[EvilWillow]

You can get pregnant at any time...

Actually, that's incorrect. You can only get pregnant on the days that you are fertile, or when you are ovulating.

MandaMeena agrees: I hope you aren't insinuating that Planned Parenthood employees pressure their patients to get abortions... I really really hope you aren't saying that.

I never insinuated. I stated very clearly and plainly that they do in fact pressure women into having abortions, because they tried to do it to me.

 

[MandaMeena]

Actually, that's incorrect. You can only get pregnant on the days that you are fertile, or when you are ovulating.



I never insinuated. I stated very clearly and plainly that they do in fact pressure women into having abortions, because they tried to do it to me.

If you have unprotected sex at any time in your cycle, you can get pregnant.

And I have been on the bad end of customer service at Target, but it doesn't make it company policy.

EvilWillow disagrees: no, dear. you're wrong.

Ok. Have fun with your baby.

 

[This Year's Girl]

Actually, that's incorrect. You can only get pregnant on the days that you are fertile, or when you are ovulating.

I think you're talking about the "safe periods" - the periods of the menstrual cycle when the probability of pregnancy after having sex is low. Safe periods are sometimes used as a simple sort of contraception, also called the rhythm method. The problem of ensuring periods is that they are difficult to predict more accurately and really can't be trusted. A couple who consistently uses the method can reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, but not eliminate it.

Also (of course you know this, I understand that) but I want to say it anyway since I think it's so important: one should always use some kind of protection when having sex. Sexual transmitted diseases aren't fun at all.

 

[Sweet J]

I think you're talking about the "safe periods" - the periods of the menstrual cycle when the probability of pregnancy after having sex is low. Safe periods are sometimes used as a simple sort of contraception, also called the rhythm method. The problem of ensuring periods is that they are difficult to predict more accurately and really can't be trusted. A couple who consistently uses the method can reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, but not eliminate it.

Also (of course you know this, I understand that) but I want to say it anyway since I think it's so important: one should always use some kind of protection when having sex. Sexual transmitted diseases aren't fun at all.

Agreed, Not to mention Sperm can survive up to 5 days in the uterus depending on conditions.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/AN00281

So this form of contraception is not at all effective.

 

[This Year's Girl]

As I said earlier, I'm staying out of this debate. But one thing that I think we could all agree on, no matter our feelings about abortion, is that safe sex is really important. I think that's great! Regardless of our opinions about this subject I don't think any of us think that it's good when a woman gets pregnant and aren't ready for it. So common ground can be found, even when talking about a sensitive subject like this one. 🙂

 

[dexeded]

Human life is no one's property. Just like the woman, the developing child is in society. Without society the woman would most likely already be dead. The Police that protect her neighbourhood while she sleeps do not 'own' the woman, but she certainly has a great deal to thank them for.
Similarly the Child has a great deal to thank their mother for, but the mother does not 'own' the child. No moreso than a house owns its occupants.
You see my point? I am by no means great at explaining myself.

This is not to be misinterpreted that women should simply be baby machines, on the contrary, women should use contraception, but if in the unlikely event she does become pregnant without her complete desire for that outcome, it is not completely her decision to terminate the child.
As the child is not her property. It now exists and has become a burgeoning member of society, a society it will ultimately depend upon for a time, until becoming an adult, at which point it will contribute to it. It is the epitome of selfishness to deny the child life, and to deny society the childs life.

Can you also accept that the zygote has the same genome as that of a grown adult? That, what makes an individual an individual is their genes? then if you accept this, why do you insist that the zygote is not human? The Zygote left in its natural environment has a high probability of developing into a contributing member of society, potentially another orphan like Sarah McLoughlin.

If a mother has a right to do what she wishes with her unborn developing child, Does the Earth itself which sustains all of us, 'own' us because it supplies us with oxygen to breathe?
I wonder, how would you feel if the Earth itself decided to abort you out into Space? Would you think it fair? or morally justified?

So is your point a zygote is in fact sentient life? Or that it has the potential? (If it is the former, then this debate can go no further. If it is the latter, I agree that it has the potential, but so do millions of other ovules.) I do not agree that what makes an individual is their genes. A zygote is not developed enough to be considered an individual, so I still insist it is not human (although it is technically, but not where it counts in this debate). As for the 'Earth abortion' analogy... just, no. We're sentient. We think. It's not fair nor morally justified.

 

[EvilWillow]

Ok. Have fun with your baby.

Heh, well that was rude.

Also (of course you know this, I understand that) but I want to say it anyway since I think it's so important: one should always use some kind of protection when having sex. Sexual transmitted diseases aren't fun at all.

I wouldn't know. I've never had one and I've only slept with one person in my life, my husband.

 

[Cast No Shadow]

I wouldn't know. I've never had one and I've only slept with one person in my life, my husband.

I'm in the same position as you, Ash, having only had one partner and also never having had one...however I'm still aware that STIs aren't fun 😛

 

[EvilWillow]

I'm in the same position as you, Ash, having only had one partner and also never having had one...however I'm still aware that STIs aren't fun 😛

I guess what I meant to say is I wouldn't know about them from experience. But of course I'm sure it's no picnic. 😛

 

[Flannen]

Guys, I'm pretty sure that Darla has now posted at least 2 warnings in this thread. Telling each other that you're wrong, being patronising and making snippy comments in karma comments is the exact behaviour that will lead to this thread being closed. If you can't discuss the topic without taking everything personally and in an emotional way then cool off and come back later.

This is the third, and I think it's safe to say, final, warning.

 

[EvilWillow]

I think you're talking about the "safe periods" - the periods of the menstrual cycle when the probability of pregnancy after having sex is low. Safe periods are sometimes used as a simple sort of contraception, also called the rhythm method. The problem of ensuring periods is that they are difficult to predict more accurately and really can't be trusted. A couple who consistently uses the method can reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, but not eliminate it.

It's not really a prediction if you know what you are looking for. I called it Natural Family Planning. I think it's way better for me than dumping a chemical in my body that has been proven to cause breast cancer.

Not to say that no one else should, I'm not on that boat. I think that if a woman wants to take that risk, then that's her business. It's no different than someone smoking.

Back on topic, there is no absolute 100% ways to prevent pregnancy unless you abstain, but there are safer and more natural alternatives to consider, and they are very effective if you do what you are supposed to.

 

[Taake]

Telling each other that you're wrong, being patronising and making snippy comments in karma comments is the exact behaviour that will lead to this thread being closed.

I'm going to re-iterate this because it is not one instance that Flannen is referring to here. Darla has already posted two warnings because of this repeated behavior.

Condescension and reductio ad absurdum may be interpreted as rudeness because they are in fact often rude even if it wasn't specifically what you were intending. There are a lot of different opinions in here, a lot of passionate emotions, but at the end of the day we still have to respect that we are all different people, with different backgrounds and emotional responses and that we all deserve to be respected for that.

If you don't want someone to be rude to you, than please, don't be rude yourself. Think before you post and if you feel emotional or upset then;

If you can't discuss the topic without taking everything personally and in an emotional way then cool off and come back later.

This is important guys, take it to heart.


(and this goes for all threads and all members by the way)
🙂

 

[VisionGirl]

It's not really a prediction if you know what you are looking for. I called it Natural Family Planning. I think it's way better for me than dumping a chemical in my body that has been proven to cause breast cancer.

Not to say that no one else should, I'm not on that boat. I think that if a woman wants to take that risk, then that's her business. It's no different than someone smoking.

Back on topic, there is no absolute 100% ways to prevent pregnancy unless you abstain, but there are safer and more natural alternatives to consider, and they are very effective if you do what you are supposed to.

Natural Family planning can be very effective. How effective? Well it depends on which study you consult and whether they're measuring method error vs user error and lots of other variables. I am wagering that it's more effective if you Have taken a class and use more than one method (daily basal body temperature + cervical mucous checks for example). NFP is not the rythym method! That does still exist (fertility beads etc) & is sometimes still used when teaching illiterate groups for example. But the main issue is that it requires that the couple abstain during fertile days, something that most couples do not wish to do. The use of contraceptives during fertile days is against Catholic teaching and that method would not be called NFP but FAM (Fertility Awareness Method).

I used NFP for a short period of time and have never used the Pill. However I am a proponent of a woman's right to use it and have access to it. I think the comparison of oral contraceptive use and smoking is incorrect with regards to risks, benefits, and side effects.

 

[EvilWillow]

Natural Family planning can be very effective. How effective? Well it depends on which study you consult and whether they're measuring method error vs user error and lots of other variables. I am wagering that it's more effective if you Have taken a class and use more than one method (daily basal body temperature + cervical mucous checks for example). NFP is not the rythym method! That does still exist (fertility beads etc) & is sometimes still used when teaching illiterate groups for example. But the main issue is that it requires that the couple abstain during fertile days, something that most couples do not wish to do. The use of contraceptives during fertile days is against Catholic teaching and that method would not be called NFP but FAM (Fertility Awareness Method).

I used NFP for a short period of time and have never used the Pill. However I am a proponent of a woman's right to use it and have access to it. I think the comparison of oral contraceptive use and smoking is incorrect with regards to risks, benefits, and side effects.

I took the NFP class, and it is very effective. I use the basal body temp and cervical mucous method. I chart every single day.

I used the pill a couple of times and both times, two different pills gave me bad side effects.

Btw, I wasn't comparing it to smoking in that way. What I meant was if someone wants to do something to their body and are aware it could possibly harm them, that's their business. I wasn't comparing the actual amount of harm between BC and smoking, I should have clarified that.
I am in firm agreement that women have the right to use the pill to avoid pregnancy. It's just not something I choose to do.

Also, I smoke occasionally, and the birth control pill is not smoker friendly at all.

 

[MandaMeena]

Smoking often inhibits ovulation, tubal transport, and implantation in women, not to mention the nicotine in cigarettes has been shown to "be a potent vasoconstrictor reducing uterine and placental blood flow." This means a woman who smokes has a higher chance of spontaneous abortions according to Stanford medical research.
So if you smoke and you get pregnant, and the "unborn child" is aborted, is that still a natural occurrence, or the product of the mother putting chemicals in her body?

 

[EvilWillow]

Smoking often inhibits ovulation, tubal transport, and implantation in women, not to mention the nicotine in cigarettes has been shown to "be a potent vasoconstrictor reducing uterine and placental blood flow." This means a woman who smokes has a higher chance of spontaneous abortions according to Stanford medical research.
So if you smoke and you get pregnant, and the "unborn child" is aborted, is that still a natural occurrence, or the product of the mother putting chemicals in her body?

I don't smoke when I'm pregnant, so I feel this is moot.

Do you mean the woman smoking and knowing that she is pregnant? Because I believe the answer would obviously be that it was her fault.

If you mean while she didn't know she was pregnant, then obviously it's not her fault because she didn't know.

 

[MandaMeena]

No I mean smoking can inhibit pregnancy. Putting aside the bad side-affects it can have on a baby, the nicotine and carbon monoxide can hinder implantation, basically making it a form of contraception (albeit a rather ineffective kind). Even if that doesn't happen, it can cause the body to abort the unborn fetus that made it past implantation.

Also, even if you don't smoke while you are pregnant, the chemicals can stay in your body for some time.

 

[EvilWillow]

No I mean smoking can inhibit pregnancy. Putting aside the bad side-affects it can have on a baby, the nicotine and carbon monoxide can hinder implantation. Even if that doesn't happen, it can cause the body to abort the unborn fetus.

Also, even if you don't smoke while you are pregnant, the chemicals can stay in your body for some time.

What point are you trying to make with this, exactly?