Abortion vs. sex education and contraception access

[garbon]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

Come on, it's entirely likely the woman has turned up at the abortion clinic on a whim, it's not as if she's given it much consideration in the previous weeks or god forbid have spoken to a family member or friends for advice.

[Ideologue]

So, who makes the determination that the pregnancy is the result of rape?  Do you need a copy of a conviction in hand, or do you adjudicate it separately, under a preponderance of the evidence standard?  Or do we just take her word for it?  (Yeah, right, I'm sure that's happening in Kansas, dude.)

And who makes the determination that the fetus is "significantly damaged"?  A doctor?  A priest?  The mother?  The father?  Because what does "damaged" mean?  What does "significant" mean?

[Ideologue]

And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile.  At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't.  That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock.  In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.

[Josquius]

And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile.  At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't.  That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock.  In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.

Women get the majority vote, men get a say too.
Neither want abortion - all ok
Both want it - all ok
Woman wants it but man doesn't - poor guy. Woman's will trumps his and it goes ahead.
Man wants it but woman doesn't - man signs away all legal links to the baby, pays a hefty fine, woman gets to have kid without the guy being involved.

[viper37]

And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile.  At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't.  That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock.  In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.

Man has the option to walk away.

[Ideologue]

"Legal exit plan."

[Admiral Yi]

Man has the option to walk away.

And write a check every month.

[MadImmortalMan]

Man has the option to walk away.

Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now.   


I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.

[viper37]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

Come on, it's entirely likely the woman has turned up at the abortion clinic on a whim, it's not as if she's given it much consideration in the previous weeks or god forbid have spoken to a family member or friends for advice.

In BB's defense, counseling for an abortion in Canada really means counseling.  It's not a meeting with 20 people from your Church to advise you on the best way to repent your sin.

[Solmyr]

Man has the option to walk away.

Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now.   


I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.

Pretty much. Men can utilize birth control too.

[Martinus]

So, who makes the determination that the pregnancy is the result of rape?  Do you need a copy of a conviction in hand, or do you adjudicate it separately, under a preponderance of the evidence standard?  Or do we just take her word for it?  (Yeah, right, I'm sure that's happening in Kansas, dude.)

And who makes the determination that the fetus is "significantly damaged"?  A doctor?  A priest?  The mother?  The father?  Because what does "damaged" mean?  What does "significant" mean?

The way it works in Poland, you get a certificate from a public prosecutor for the former that the rape has been substantiated (obviously, waiting for a court ruling would not work), and you need opinions from two doctors on the latter. The statute does not simply state "significant damage" but there is a more extensive language involved (basically, inability to survive unassisted and such).

[Ideologue]

Man has the option to walk away.

Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now.   


I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.

Pretty much. Men can utilize birth control too.

Pulling out ain't hard.

The way it works in Poland, you get a certificate from a public prosecutor for the former that the rape has been substantiated (obviously, waiting for a court ruling would not work), and you need opinions from two doctors on the latter. The statute does not simply state "significant damage" but there is a more extensive language involved (basically, inability to survive unassisted and such).

Sounds lame, with a major potential to circumscribe the right to an abortion even within the exempted classes thus carved out.  It also seems like a lot of extra government work, plus a greater burden on the healthcare system.

[Martinus]

Hey, I never said it's a good system. It was meant as a compromise - which the Catholics are now intending to break.