What will it take to change attitudes towards abortion?

[deer of the dawn]

I voted for Jimmy Carter when I turned 18, but from then till the last election I voted Republican because I am pro-life at heart and felt that it was a matter of life or death, even if I didn't agree with a lot of Conservative planks. However, the scales finally fell from my eyes. For 45 years Republicans have played pro-lifers like a violin, dangling a pro-life carrot when in fact I no longer believe there is any political will to overturn legalized abortion. I realized that if abortion were to end, it would have to be due to a change of heart amongst people.... not politicians.

According to this study, abortion rates have fallen to their lowest rate since Roe v. Wade (1973). (I am curious why no newer statistics than 2014 seem to be available...)

In other news, defunding family planning clinics that provide abortions actually has led (in Texas, anyway) to 3% higher abortion rates (and even higher teen birth rates). In one county, according to the article, abortions nearly doubled after pro-choice clinics were defunded.

There are no easy-peasy answers.

Let me add that I am very much in favor of providing birth control to sexually active people. The link between poverty and young motherhood is way too clear, the world over. And although it's easy enough to say that because no bc is 100% effective, girls should keep their knees together, it's also clear that women have varying degrees of "choice" where that is concerned, when you take into account that 1/3 of women are raped during their lifetimes. (I would be ecstatic if elective abortions were legal ONLY for cases of rape/incest, because that would eliminate 99.99% of abortions.)

My main point is that I question whether overturning Roe v. Wade is the answer to the abortion epidemic. I question all the current answers, and want to know what will lead to that sea-change in attitude toward the life of the unborn that will end the epidemic, without legislation.

Years ago, I was on the board of a women's shelter. One day I got a phone call from a state legislator, who wanted to ask some questions about the shelter. (I was really nobody, and I got the phone call while at home making my toddler a pbj, or something.) After, we chatted briefly and the conversation turned to abortion. He said that he personally was pro-life, but he came down pro-choice because he felt it was a woman's right to choose.

I told him what I still believe-- that if everyone voted according to their own conscience, abortion would never be legal. We've all seen the bloody buckets of tiny dismembered hands and feet and KNOW it's horrific. What will it take for people to vote their conscience?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[...]

Let me add that I am very much in favor of providing birth control to sexually active people. The link between poverty and young motherhood is way too clear, the world over. ...

[...]

This is precisely where the Catholic (or at least, this Catholic ) would say that the "prophetic power" of Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae would come into the discussion.

Pope P6 made basically four predictions that the positive, cultural approval (not simply tolerance or sufferance) of artificial contraception -- by separating the Unitive and the Generative meanings of sex -- would eventuate.

[...]

Pope Paul VI made four rather general "prophecies" about what would happen if the Church's teaching on contraception were ignored.


Infidelity and moral decline

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." ...

[...]

Lost Respect for Women

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." ...

[...]

Abuse of Power

Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a "dangerous weapon... in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies." ...

[...]

Unlimited Dominion

Pope Paul's final warning was that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. ...

[...]

One can't violate one of the Social Justice pillars (in this case, the Dignity of the Family) without weakening all the others (such as the Dignity of Life).

Now, by lasering-in on just a little fragment of your post, please don't think that I'm trying to bogart your thread. I'm sure that it presents many other fertile (no pun intended ) avenues for fruitful (again ) discussion which could be developed.

Rather, just adding my 2-cents early. In before the threadjack.

[Zarathustra]

I told him what I still believe-- that if everyone voted according to their own conscience, abortion would never be legal. We've all seen the bloody buckets of tiny dismembered hands and feet and KNOW it's horrific. What will it take for people to vote their conscience?

Oh, that's easy in theory: get party politics out of it. But that's harder in practice. It is human nature to take shortcuts to thinking critically. Most people just believe what their parents believe or what their "tribe" believes. A lot of people won't consider making abortion illegal simply because that's what Republicans want to do. Once a party captures a position or a demographic, it's hard to wrest it from that party.

However, it's not impossible. The party that was for slavery, for Jim Crow, and resisted the Civil Rights Act somehow managed to convince black people that voting them was a good idea.



What. The. Fuck.

Another part of the problem is the absolutism on both sides. I agree that perhaps an exception should be made for rape and obviously health of the mother, but if you're going to frame it as "murder," then is it really okay to murder someone else just because you were raped? The absolutism of the Religious Right ends up killing a lot of babies that might otherwise be saved by a compromise position in the middle.

As I've said many times, I used to be strictly pro-life, not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that the line between human and not-yet-human simply cannot be drawn at birth. Thus, my position was already in opposition to the absolutism of the Left. But I failed to take seriously the problem of absolutism on the Right--justifying this by assuming that erring on the side of life wasn't inappropriate. But now I do see room for compromise as long as we're talking first trimester or at least when there is not yet a brain and not possibility of consciousness. The very fact that we can't say exactly when a human becomes human means there is room for both positions.

[deer of the dawn]

Another part of the problem is the absolutism on both sides....s I've said many times, I used to be strictly pro-life, not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that the line between human and not-yet-human simply cannot be drawn at birth. Thus, my position was already in opposition to the absolutism of the Left. But I failed to take seriously the problem of absolutism on the Right--justifying this by assuming that erring on the side of life wasn't inappropriate. But now I do see room for compromise as long as we're talking first trimester or at least when there is not yet a brain and not possibility of consciousness. The very fact that we can't say exactly when a human becomes human means there is room for both positions.

Which is exactly why I have kind of softened on birth control pills, which can cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg; so technically also an abortion. It seems a waste of energy to focus on that when there are (literally) larger issues. However, I still consider that a fertilized ovum is a human being. It's never anything else.

I wanted to point out that in the article that shows that abortions per thousand women per year has dropped to pre-Roe v. Wade numbers, both PP and pro-lifers claim credit for the drop. When I look at the statistical profile, I see a generation going, Whee!! I can get an abortion, a get out of jail free card! But when that generation's daughters came of age, the numbers drop. Maybe the generation that had the most abortions learned that you can get rid of a fetus, but it's way more complex than that. Other issues don't go away. Hopefully they transmitted that expensive wisdom to the next generation. Maybe that is part of what we are seeing. Both sides want to claim credit using absolute statements. We know reality is complex. The way people think and choose is complex.

And in order to address those complexities, perhaps there must be compromises made on the path to justice. Politically speaking.

[SoulBiter]

Another part of the problem is the absolutism on both sides....s I've said many times, I used to be strictly pro-life, not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that the line between human and not-yet-human simply cannot be drawn at birth. Thus, my position was already in opposition to the absolutism of the Left. But I failed to take seriously the problem of absolutism on the Right--justifying this by assuming that erring on the side of life wasn't inappropriate. But now I do see room for compromise as long as we're talking first trimester or at least when there is not yet a brain and not possibility of consciousness. The very fact that we can't say exactly when a human becomes human means there is room for both positions.

Which is exactly why I have kind of softened on birth control pills, which can cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg; so technically also an abortion. It seems a waste of energy to focus on that when there are (literally) larger issues. However, I still consider that a fertilized ovum is a human being. It's never anything else.

I wanted to point out that in the article that shows that abortions per thousand women per year has dropped to pre-Roe v. Wade numbers, both PP and pro-lifers claim credit for the drop. When I look at the statistical profile, I see a generation going, Whee!! I can get an abortion, a get out of jail free card! But when that generation's daughters came of age, the numbers drop. Maybe the generation that had the most abortions learned that you can get rid of a fetus, but it's way more complex than that. Other issues don't go away. Hopefully they transmitted that expensive wisdom to the next generation. Maybe that is part of what we are seeing. Both sides want to claim credit using absolute statements. We know reality is complex. The way people think and choose is complex.

And in order to address those complexities, perhaps there must be compromises made on the path to justice. Politically speaking.

Free birth control has definitely lowered the number of abortions. I expect that trend will continue

[Rawedge Rim]

I told him what I still believe-- that if everyone voted according to their own conscience, abortion would never be legal. We've all seen the bloody buckets of tiny dismembered hands and feet and KNOW it's horrific. What will it take for people to vote their conscience?

Oh, that's easy in theory: get party politics out of it. But that's harder in practice. It is human nature to take shortcuts to thinking critically. Most people just believe what their parents believe or what their "tribe" believes. A lot of people won't consider making abortion illegal simply because that's what Republicans want to do. Once a party captures a position or a demographic, it's hard to wrest it from that party.

However, it's not impossible. The party that was for slavery, for Jim Crow, and resisted the Civil Rights Act somehow managed to convince black people that voting them was a good idea.



What. The. Fuck.

Another part of the problem is the absolutism on both sides. I agree that perhaps an exception should be made for rape and obviously health of the mother, but if you're going to frame it as "murder," then is it really okay to murder someone else just because you were raped? The absolutism of the Religious Right ends up killing a lot of babies that might otherwise be saved by a compromise position in the middle.

As I've said many times, I used to be strictly pro-life, not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that the line between human and not-yet-human simply cannot be drawn at birth. Thus, my position was already in opposition to the absolutism of the Left. But I failed to take seriously the problem of absolutism on the Right--justifying this by assuming that erring on the side of life wasn't inappropriate. But now I do see room for compromise as long as we're talking first trimester or at least when there is not yet a brain and not possibility of consciousness. The very fact that we can't say exactly when a human becomes human means there is room for both positions.

Don't see how the Religious Right ends up killing a lot of babies by not compromising.

It's a lot like saying that since the law doesn't compromise on murder that a lot of people are getting killed that otherwise wouldn't.

[aTOMiC]

As I have always said abortion as a solution to a problem will continue to be an option as long as there is no viable alternative in the minds of those that employ it.

In theory if creating a child became a deliberate act instead of a possible by product of sex for entertainment then the need of the use of abortions would be eliminated.
If humans required a medical treatment in order to conceive then only under a doctor's care would people have children and therefore it would be a carefully considered action instead of a possible outcome of careless behavior.

Sounds dystopian on the surface I know and would require a willingness of the public at large to make changes to the human reproductive system. But would effectively eliminate all unwanted conceptions.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

As I have always said abortion as a solution to a problem will continue to be an option as long as there is no viable alternative in the minds of those that employ it.

In theory if creating a child became a deliberate act instead of a possible by product of sex for entertainment then the need of the use of abortions would be eliminated.
If humans required a medical treatment in order to conceive then only under a doctor's care would people have children and therefore it would be a carefully considered action instead of a possible outcome of careless behavior.

Sounds dystopian on the surface I know and would require a willingness of the public at large to make changes to the human reproductive system. But would effectively eliminate all unwanted conceptions.

Just give all young men a vasectomy at the age of 16. It is a minimally-invasive procedure which takes as little as 10 or 15 minutes and may be reversed later in life. Of course, rates of sexually transmitted diseases will increase but those, also, are the result of a choice being made, but at least it is easier to deal with an STD than it is to have a child.

It still baffles me that this remains an issue in 2018, though. Roe v Wade will never be overturned and the Religious Right's opposition to abortion is only adherence to a self-imposed moral code about a topic that is not directly addressed in The Bible.

[Rawedge Rim]

As I have always said abortion as a solution to a problem will continue to be an option as long as there is no viable alternative in the minds of those that employ it.

In theory if creating a child became a deliberate act instead of a possible by product of sex for entertainment then the need of the use of abortions would be eliminated.
If humans required a medical treatment in order to conceive then only under a doctor's care would people have children and therefore it would be a carefully considered action instead of a possible outcome of careless behavior.

Sounds dystopian on the surface I know and would require a willingness of the public at large to make changes to the human reproductive system. But would effectively eliminate all unwanted conceptions.

Just give all young men a vasectomy at the age of 16. It is a minimally-invasive procedure which takes as little as 10 or 15 minutes and may be reversed later in life. Of course, rates of sexually transmitted diseases will increase but those, also, are the result of a choice being made, but at least it is easier to deal with an STD than it is to have a child.

It still baffles me that this remains an issue in 2018, though. Roe v Wade will never be overturned and the Religious Right's opposition to abortion is only adherence to a self-imposed moral code about a topic that is not directly addressed in The Bible.

Key word on the vasectomy thing is "MAY".

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-proced ... c-20384537

Success rates with vasectomy reversal will range from about 40 percent to over 90 percent. Many factors affect whether a reversal is successful in achieving pregnancy, including time since a vasectomy, partner age, definition of success, and surgeon experience and training

Second (you knew this had to be coming)

A. There is no guarantee that RvW will not be overturned, though I admit that it's still an uphill climb.

B. I believe the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible somewhere, and would seem to apply.

[Cail]

The larger issue is the way abortion has been conflated with women's rights, and the (largely) successful disinformation campaign that's made the fantasy of a prenatal baby being something other than human accepted fact.

I'm also pro-life with no regard for any religious reasons. I believe very strongly in early and comprehensive sex education, and in easy access to birth control. In 2018, with both partners using birth control, the chances of becoming pregnant are minuscule - as in far less than 1%. The fact that anyone talks about "unwanted pregnancy" is indicative of a complete lack of responsibility for oneself.

There's only one way to make a baby (outside of a doctor's office). If you choose to have sex, you're accepting the fact that you're engaging in the behavior that naturally produces children. Ergo, if you don't want kids, either don't engage in that behavior, or make damn sure that you and your partner are taking precautions.

But instead of talking about those choices, PP and other advocacy groups infantilize women and suggest that their only choice (or power) is after the fact when they choose to abort the baby.

That cycle has to stop. Women are not taught to own their sexuality, and all the responsibilities that flow from that. Instead, a made-up right after the fact is touted as a Woman's Right To Choose. Hogwash. You want to see pregnancy rates (as well as rape rates) go down, stop treating women like children and teach them to take control of their sexuality and their natural part in the reproductive process.

Yes, natural part. Because the argument has been made that the woman's been invaded by this parasite of a zygote. Nope. Fallacious argument from the start - unless it was a child conceived by rape (which is also very rare).


Then (or at the same time, doesn't matter) we have to purge the idiotic idea that a prenatal baby is anything other than a human being that deserves basic human rights. It is not, "a clump of cells". I just spent two years in college getting my Mortuary Science degree. I took the same pathology, anatomy, and microbiology classes that someone would take in medical school, and we used the same textbooks. No one of those books ever described a prenatal baby as anything other than human, and all of them refer to fertilization as the beginning of human life.

All. Of. Them.

Nowhere did I see any sort of description of a clump of cells that at some ill-defined and arbitrary point suddenly becoming human. In fact, there is no living being in nature that changes from one form of life to another (no, not caterpillars and butterflies, those are developmental stages). Yet otherwise intelligent people will argue that the baby growing inside a woman is something other than human.


The only cogent argument for abortion on demand is that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the baby; either of the above arguments just raise the flag that the arguer doesn't understand the issues. If you truly believe this, then it's a hard argument to counter. There's established legal precedent that minor children don't enjoy the same rights as adults. The question then is whether or not the mother can make a compelling case for killing her child; that her need outweighs the baby's right to life.


The difficulty in getting to a rational discussion is equilateral - neither side wants to budge on anything. The shrill pro-choice side wants abortion on demand at any time for any reason, period. The shrill pro-life side wants no exceptions, wants to prosecute doctors and mothers, and keeps whining about God. You're never going to get any movement there.

You want to solve the abortion problem? It'll take a generation, at least. Start teaching children that a child is, in fact, a child at conception. By dehumanizing it, we've made it acceptable to kill (and humanity's got a lousy track record when it comes to dehumanizing certain groups). Teach the real-world consequences of pregnancy. Teach birth control as though it's as important as gun control.

And, as in every issue, both sides need to stop making ideological purity the enemy of compromise.

[Ur Dead]

Can't make much of it until I heard from the most important voice.
The ones who were aborted.

[Gaius Octavius]

The larger issue is the way abortion has been conflated with women's rights, and the (largely) successful disinformation campaign that's made the fantasy of a prenatal baby being something other than human accepted fact.

I'm also pro-life with no regard for any religious reasons. I believe very strongly in early and comprehensive sex education, and in easy access to birth control. In 2018, with both partners using birth control, the chances of becoming pregnant are minuscule - as in far less than 1%. The fact that anyone talks about "unwanted pregnancy" is indicative of a complete lack of responsibility for oneself.

There's only one way to make a baby (outside of a doctor's office). If you choose to have sex, you're accepting the fact that you're engaging in the behavior that naturally produces children. Ergo, if you don't want kids, either don't engage in that behavior, or make damn sure that you and your partner are taking precautions.

But instead of talking about those choices, PP and other advocacy groups infantilize women and suggest that their only choice (or power) is after the fact when they choose to abort the baby.

That cycle has to stop. Women are not taught to own their sexuality, and all the responsibilities that flow from that. Instead, a made-up right after the fact is touted as a Woman's Right To Choose. Hogwash. You want to see pregnancy rates (as well as rape rates) go down, stop treating women like children and teach them to take control of their sexuality and their natural part in the reproductive process.

Yes, natural part. Because the argument has been made that the woman's been invaded by this parasite of a zygote. Nope. Fallacious argument from the start - unless it was a child conceived by rape (which is also very rare).


Then (or at the same time, doesn't matter) we have to purge the idiotic idea that a prenatal baby is anything other than a human being that deserves basic human rights. It is not, "a clump of cells". I just spent two years in college getting my Mortuary Science degree. I took the same pathology, anatomy, and microbiology classes that someone would take in medical school, and we used the same textbooks. No one of those books ever described a prenatal baby as anything other than human, and all of them refer to fertilization as the beginning of human life.

All. Of. Them.

Nowhere did I see any sort of description of a clump of cells that at some ill-defined and arbitrary point suddenly becoming human. In fact, there is no living being in nature that changes from one form of life to another (no, not caterpillars and butterflies, those are developmental stages). Yet otherwise intelligent people will argue that the baby growing inside a woman is something other than human.


The only cogent argument for abortion on demand is that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the baby; either of the above arguments just raise the flag that the arguer doesn't understand the issues. If you truly believe this, then it's a hard argument to counter. There's established legal precedent that minor children don't enjoy the same rights as adults. The question then is whether or not the mother can make a compelling case for killing her child; that her need outweighs the baby's right to life.


The difficulty in getting to a rational discussion is equilateral - neither side wants to budge on anything. The shrill pro-choice side wants abortion on demand at any time for any reason, period. The shrill pro-life side wants no exceptions, wants to prosecute doctors and mothers, and keeps whining about God. You're never going to get any movement there.

You want to solve the abortion problem? It'll take a generation, at least. Start teaching children that a child is, in fact, a child at conception. By dehumanizing it, we've made it acceptable to kill (and humanity's got a lousy track record when it comes to dehumanizing certain groups). Teach the real-world consequences of pregnancy. Teach birth control as though it's as important as gun control.

And, as in every issue, both sides need to stop making ideological purity the enemy of compromise.

I agree with everything in this post. There is no denying, from a scientific standpoint, that a zygote/embryo/fetus (whatever snapshot in time you are looking at) is a developing [human] organism. It aggravates me when I see something on a pro-choice website (can't remember which one specifically, but I think it was a Canadian group) make the argument that the fetus is simply an "extension of the maternal tissue." This is emphatically untrue. Fetal tissue is not maternal; rather it is tissue of an unique organism with equal genetic contribution from the father and mother. There's a reason why in Rh disease that maternal antibodies attack the fetal tissue. This only happens if the body's immune system recognizes something as foreign.

A molar or partial molar pregnancy isn't one with a human being because there is no complete organism. The former has no fetal parts while the latter only has some fetal parts present.

Also, regarding your statement about medical curriculum, while what you say is true regarding textbooks, there is an awful lot of pro-choice activism. Being pro-life in medical school can adversely impact your career, particularly if you want to go into OB/GYN. Professors sometimes broach the subject in group discussions. Some of these folks you have to rely on if you want a letter of recommendation for residency, and the topic might be broached in residency interviews from what I have heard.

I can understand the pro-choice argument. They see the developing zygote/embryo/fetus as a "clump of cells" (which is basically true as we are all just a colony of cells if you want to be reductivist). We don't feel guilty about stomping on ants, but we might feel guilty about killing a pet. The problem with this type of thinking is that it goes into fallacious reasoning that something is only important if it is "big enough."

I also have trouble with the pro-life side (especially the religious pro-life side) because they can be just as extreme as the pro-choice side where everything is black-and-white and must be thought of in absolute terms without compromise. I don't believe in prosecuting physicians and patients who engage in elective abortions, and I damn sure don't believe in not providing emergent abortions (resulting in the mother's death). That is wrong. Also, I absolutely loathe the Roman Catholic church's perspective that contraception is evil. This is backwards thinking as there is no moral equivalency between denial of gametes (i.e., sperm) into a woman's uterus and the destruction of the life of a developing human being.

I believe that condoms and other birth control should be as easy to access as buying a soda from a vending machine. There should be condom vending machines in every bathroom (male and female). Charity groups should be able to bring wheelbarrows of condoms to every college campus and give them out for free. Rather than promoting abstinence (which goes against human sexuality), we should promote early sexual education about safe sexual practices.

Also, another issue I have with the pro-choice argument is that while many pro-choicers might be personally anti-abortion (believing it is immoral usually for religious reasons) how can you reconcile the two? We don't get to make a choice over whether or not something is considered theft or murder, for example. If I gut an intruder who breaks into my home and get sent to jail for it because the law doesn't believe in self-defense, then I don't get to debate it. The law is the law, whether or not we agree with it. The argument about a woman's "right to choose" doesn't make much sense to me.

[Avatar]

Just give all young men a vasectomy at the age of 16. It is a minimally-invasive procedure which takes as little as 10 or 15 minutes and may be reversed later in life. Of course, rates of sexually transmitted diseases will increase but those, also, are the result of a choice being made, but at least it is easier to deal with an STD than it is to have a child.

Totally in favour, (been advocating reversible sterilisation at puberty for years), but 16 is too old already.

Also, if you're unlucky enough not to be able to reverse it (should you pass the requisite tests etc. ) then adoption or artificial insemination remain options.

If no babies are unwanted, then no abortion will be necessary.

--A

[Skyweir]

mmm.. mandatory umm ... reversible .... sterilisation .. not a bad plan .. now try getting the necessary leverage to make that a thing

I kinda like the idea of parent licensing lol but again cant see that flying either.

I think providing accessible, free contraception a great idea Deer ... and that contributes to reducing further abortion statistics.

[deer of the dawn]

Just give all young men a vasectomy at the age of 16. It is a minimally-invasive procedure which takes as little as 10 or 15 minutes and may be reversed later in life. Of course, rates of sexually transmitted diseases will increase but those, also, are the result of a choice being made, but at least it is easier to deal with an STD than it is to have a child.

Totally in favour, (been advocating reversible sterilisation at puberty for years), but 16 is too old already.

Also, if you're unlucky enough not to be able to reverse it (should you pass the requisite tests etc. ) then adoption or artificial insemination remain options.

--A

Can't say I can go with this.

.. it is easier to deal with an STD than it is to have a child.

I'd rather have ten children than herpes.

If no babies are unwanted, then no abortion will be necessary.

Almost no abortions are "necessary" (and I only say"almost" because there is such a thing as a life-threatening pregnancy). Most pregnancies would result in healthy infants who would most likely be snapped up for adoption. (Where are the gay-marriage victors who now want to adopt??)

I am about as conservative morally as a person can get, feeling that sex is ideally reserved for monogamous marriage between a male and a female. But I also recognize that the world is filled with people who do otherwise. And it is the weak who pay the price-- the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves, and females who (although I could get screamed at for saying so) do not have a physical advantage over males, nor the enfranchisement males have gained through their physical power. And in order to combat the poverty that accompanies early and frequent childbearing, especially out of wedlock, women ought to have access to birth control. Especially where their sexuality is not within their power, which is still true for much of the world.

I agree completely with Cail and Nanothnir. But the discussion is supposed to be about how we, as a society, move to that place where abortion is not chosen because it is seen for what it is: murder. We can't get there by yelling and absolutizing (if that's even a word).

Years ago, I listened to an interview on NPR's Fresh Air talk show with the woman who at that time headed a group called "Democrats for Life", which as you can guess represented the Pro-Life contingent within the Democratic Party. At the end of the interview she said that she hoped for the day when "abortion is repugnant, like cannibalism." That's the dream.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I already know that no one would ever take my "snips for 16-year-old males" seriously, which is why I don't suggest it seriously. Given that birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, and/or spermicidal foam exist people who are taking these easy-to-obtain and inexpensive precautions should never wind up having to choose adoption or abortion. Of course, some people are simply irresponsible; those people probably shouldn't be having children under any circumstances.

[Gaius Octavius]

There's always the pull-out method, which we all know is full-proof.

[Skyweir]

How to have your cake and eat it

Well I suppose we have to trust Nano, hes a Doctor

[Avatar]

Of course, some people are simply irresponsible; those people probably shouldn't be having children under any circumstances.

And yet those are the ones most likely to have them unintentionally.

--A

[Skyweir]

mmm... youre not wrong