While both sides in this debate may have some points, it’s misleading to assert that both sides of the debate are equally rational. We should be glad that the vast majority of teenagers know that contraception is available, but at the same time try to understand why they’re not using it.
A CDC study release earlier this month gave some insight into the major reasons: 31% of teenage mothers didn’t know they could become pregnant at the time they had sex. I’m sorry, but anyone who demonizes easy access to birth control and abortions but at the same time pushes “abstinence-only” education, this statistic rests squarely on your shoulders.
The next largest bracket, 24%, stated that they didn’t use birth control because of pressure from their partner not to do so. We are failing our daughters if they believe that pleasing anyone is worth sacrificing their health, safety and future. The fact that we give a global stage to a man like Chris Brown, who not only beat a woman but failed to display, even once, a sense of true contrition for it, is not encouraging. It’s not exactly fair to compare more liberal states to conservative states in this regard, as many women from conservative states travel to neighboring ones for abortion.
A more apt comparison would be to Europe, which has easy access to birth control, is vastly more sexually liberal, and yet has a drastically lower abortion rate. I wonder why that is?
This commenter is allowed to have opinions.
This is from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. If you haven’t read it already, READ IT RIGHT NOW.
Why? If abortion is no big deal, why would you want to reduce them? If abortion is a benefit to society, a great thing for women, why would you want to reduce the number of abortions? You can’t have it both ways.
^ seriously? Grow up. Of course he wants to reduce them, they are a great thing for women. To be able to have a choice. But prevention like contraception, safe sex. Is much preferred. This is the single most stupid comment i’ve ever read. Women don’t WANT to get an abortion. They want to prevent pregnancy, so preach contraception.…
Did you see what you said? “Of course he wants to reduce them, they are a great thing for women.” You’re contradicting yourself.
Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.
FIFTY-FOUR PERCENT. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
And the sentence directly after that says: “Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.” You can find the original study here.
Most of the women having abortions after using contraception were using the male condom or the birth control pill - two of the easiest methods to fuck up.
We’re human. We make mistakes. We take antibiotics, forget pills, rip condom wrappers open with our teeth, put them on backwards, get pressured by our partners, or just think we’re magically immune to pregnancy (oh yes we do).
Guess what could reduce these problems? Comprehensive sex education! Learning about saying yes and no, about pregnancy and birth, about contraception and birth control and biology, all contribute to fewer unwanted pregnancies!
Of course we should want to reduce them - preventing pregnancy is much cheaper than ending it! Who would WANT an invasive surgical procedure if there’s another option. I’m pro-abortion like I’m pro anesthesia: I’m glad they’re legal and available for people who want and need them, but that doesn’t mean I want everyone I meet to get a morphine drip.
This, in turn, leads to the peculiar idea that a woman should be forced to have a baby, to “pay,” or be punished for having sex and becoming pregnant, by having a baby. This idea shames women for being sexual. The inhumanity of the contradiction becomes glaring when we take it to its logical conclusion - the defining of a baby as a punishment.
[Idiocy is ableist, but I’m not sure what I’d replace it with. Too many words, probably. This quote is also ciscentric - there are people who can get pregnant who do not identify as women, and women who cannot get pregnant.]
It is when a woman becomes a conscious agent in the act of abortion that she becomes subject to suspicion and condemnation. Women’s active involvement in life-giving matters threatens the entire system under which we live because it challenges male control.
[This was written in a ciscentric context. There are those who can become pregnant who do not identify as women, and there are women who cannot become pregnant.]
Just another reason why easy, safe, affordable and accessible access to birth control, contraceptives, information on abortion and other choices should be made available everywhere.
Last week, a pro-life congressman introduced legislation designed to combat race and sex selective abortions in the US. Two problems: sex and race-selective abortion is a problem rampant only in its rampant nonexistence. Second, the proposed legislation has the most snicker worthy name an anti abortion law could have, short of “Captain Jesus’s Babysaving Homunculus Rights Act.”
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, otherwise known as the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011” promises to invoke the names of a lady and a black guy to remind abortion doctors that some baby ladies and black guys grow up to be Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass. The bill was introduced by Trent Franks of Arizona. In a letter to his colleagues, Rep. Franks wrote,
[T]he Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, or “PRENDA,” … restricts sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion, and the coercion of a woman to obtain either. The woman seeking an abortion is exempted from prosecution, while abortion providers are held to account.
The notion that abortion rights should be restricted because some children grow up to be Frederick Douglass is just as ridiculous as encouraging abortions based on the fact that some women grow up to be Elizabeth Báthory and some black men grow up to be John Allen Muhammad. But that’s beside the point! It appears we have a rampant coast to coast targeted fetal genocide going on.
Except not really. In fact, since abortion became legal, we’ve seen an uptick in baby girls born. While most American parents say they’d prefer to have a son, the ones who actually take measures beyond expressed preference to ensure the gender of their unborn child are trying to have a girl. Further, only 5% of abortions take place beyond week 16, the point at which doctors can glean a fetus’s sex based on ultrasound images.
Representative Franks, a white man, has claimed that his desire to disallow “race-selective abortions” is based on his concern that the black community is having so many abortions. He doesn’t say how, exactly, doctors are supposed to determine that a black woman seeking an abortion is doing so because her fetus would be black or whether she’s just doing it because she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Further, how would one determine that a white woman wasn’t having an abortion because she was struck with a bout of self-loathing after reading a book about early Americans’ treatment of native tribes they found living here? Maybe Representative Franks thinks that no one would ever abort a white baby because of its race.
And, let’s be honest here: this isn’t really about saving girls and minorities; it’s about eventually making abortion illegal. From an opinion piece on Life Site News entitled “Is a ban on sex-selective abortion the best way to fight Roe v Wade?”—
A sex-selection ban would indeed present the Supreme Court with a dilemma. To strike down such a law-in essence, to embrace a constitutional right to sex-selection abortion-would expose just how extreme and immoral the Court’s present abortion doctrine really is. To read such a result in the name of “gender equality” would be monstrous and absurd. Such a ruling would undermine support both for Roe and for the Court as an institution as never before. (Concern for the Court’s own prestige and public support was, in fact, part of the reasoning in Casey for reaffirming Roe.) A sex-selection ban dares the pro-abortion justices to embrace an abortion right to kill girls for being girls. Such a ruling would expose the illegitimacy of the Court’s abortion decisions.
Well, there you go. It’s not really about protecting any specific disenfranchised group, it’s about outlawing abortion outright.
Franks first introduced a bill that aimed to ban sex selective abortion in 2009, but it never got out of committee. Maybe because he didn’t call it the Mia Hamm and Michael Jordan Everyone Must Have All Babies Act of 2009. Better luck this time.