* Condoms
* BC pills with 99% effectiveness
* IUDs
* The BC "ring" (Nuvaring)
* Morning-after pills

Ladies, if you're going a-whoring, you have no excuse for not being prepared.

Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth. If you're going to just lie around, do it with your knees closed.


Obama @ Saddleback = FAIL.

Obama still dodged the actual question that was asked. The question was, "at what point does a baby get human rights in your opinion?" Instead of approaching a subject he knew he would be on the wrong side of with this crowd considering his past voting record, he dodged that one completely and turned it into some fluff about "working together to decrease unwanted pregnancy." When a baby gets human rights can extend beyond just abortion considerations. There are cases where murderers of pregnant women are charged with double homicide. What if that woman had an abortion instead? Does the baby have rights when the mother is killed, but not when the mother kills it? It is an area that should be addressed and more clearly defined legally.

Of course, we already know where Obama stands from his voting record. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of fear that he might accidentally grant protection to a fetus and threaten Roe vs Wade (his own words). He also said he would vote for it on the federal level if an identical bill was presented that protected Roe vs Wade. When the identical bill that he said he would vote for was presented at the federal level, Obama voted against it. CNN and CBN confronted him in an interview about this and Obama called it lies and deliberate misrepersentations of his position. You can see that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c

Shortly after the interview, Obama's campaign admitted that this was false and he did in fact vote against the identical bill. This allowed living, breathing babies that were now outside the womb as a result of failed abortions to be thrown into medical waste bins. Until this bill finally passed in 2005, babies were being murdered legally. I say murder in this case because you are not even talking about dividing cells at this point. You are talking about a baby that is now breathing on its own outside the womb. In the face of testimony from nurses and evidence presented, Obama still voted against the bill 3 times with different excuses in each instance. So, back to the question he dodged. Obama never answered when he believes a baby gets human rights.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

>> ^HollywoodBob:
I have a solution, outlaw abortions, make vasectomies mandatory, for all males over 12.
No more unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. Try to dispute it.


isn't outlawing abortions redundant at that point?

I have a solution, outlaw abortions, make vasectomies mandatory, for all males over 12.

No more unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. Try to dispute it.

>> ^nadabu:

First off, that was a wonderful comment, and that's why I always hate the whole abortion debate, because I empathize with the pro-life argument.

I think calling it murder is associating it with the wrong crime. I think it's more like partial suicide, since the baby can't survive without the mother, and I don't think anyone has premeditated the malicious killing of their own child when they're having an abortion.

Attempting suicide is illegal, but it doesn't seem to have stopped people from doing it.

The pro-choice argument isn't about diminishing the life of the baby, it's about trying to keep these partial suicides from turning into full-on suicide, because banning abortions won't stop them from happening, but it will stop them from being done in a fashion that puts the mother at risk.

The other half of the argument, and the half that's gone neglected much of the time is that we do want to reduce the number of abortions, primarily by reducing unwanted pregnancies through sex education, and access to contraceptives.

That said, I always find myself wavering about this topic when it really gets discussed, and I'd really like to find a compromise on it that a) ensures it's rare b) ensures the safety of the mother c) isn't based on religious dogma.

The sci-fi fan in me says the whole thing would become moot if we had a way to transfer the fetus to an artificial womb. That way the former-mother would have the baby gone right away, but it could still be carried to term, and adopted.

Maybe the answer is to pour money into that, I don't know.

Since I can't resist the political angles, I've got to point out that Bob Barr's ex-wife says he consented to her having an abortion while they were still married (and Larry Flynt of all people presented evidence that supported the claim). Also, Bob Barr voted for the Patriot act just a few short years ago when he was a hardline Republican.

If you want Obama to win...vote for him!

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise.

You must by default be pro-sex to be pro-life.

The main issue, which Obama states rather clearly, is that the most effective ways to reduce both abortions and unwanted pregnancies is not the il/legaliziation of abortion.

Most of the hardcore pro-life crowd are also strongly anti-sex-ed, which is completely inconsistent with their claim that they want to reduce abortions. Reality-based sex-ed , and anonymously available birth-control and reproductive health services are the best way to stop unintended pregnancy, and STI's.

Stopping unwanted pregnancies stops abortions, simple as that.

Setting aside the misleading title, tags, and description, you could have posted a video with the full answer he gave some 20 seconds after this clip ends.

As for "not having an opinion" he gave one: which was that we don't know when life begins, only God does.

You can disagree with that (and he does discuss that in his full answer), but you can't call that part of his answer a dodge, just humility.

He goes on to talk about reducing abortions through providing greater education and assistance to the people who're likely to wind up with an unwanted pregnancy...but I'm sure that's just Christian Marxist craziness to you. Probably something he got from his "crazy" pastor about helping the least of us.

"Okay, so explain why a first trimester fetus has no rights and a third trimester fetus does. Because it "looks" more human at that point? This is where your argument that life can be defined at some subjective point between development stages is going to fall apart."

Hey! Good job of asking me a question and then being generous enough to answer it for me too!

If you return to my original post you will see that, in reply to your statement "Life has to be defined at conception" I replied:

"No it doesn't; not if by "life" you mean individuated living personhood; not in any legal or moral sense it doesn't. Why should it? Just because you say so? I'm not convinced."

So the question is both about personhood, in the legal sense, which is bestowed upon birth, and about humane medical treatment for unwanted pregnancies. Go and research what disinterested MEDICAL DOCTORS have written of the ethics around the question of abortion beyond the first trimester.

I don't think anyone on the pro-choice side of the fence is "pro-abortion". I think any reasonable person on either side of the issue agrees that they should be rare things indeed.

The whole abortion debate usually gets sidetracked into a religion vs. science debate, and while on a philosophical level it's an argument worth having about when exactly in the reproductive process the mass of cells should be viewed as a person, it really only has bearing when we talk about compromises like limiting how late into a pregnancy abortion should be legal.

When we're talking in the context of an absolute ban, it more goes to a practicality issue -- if a woman is determined to abort a child, removing doctors from the equation isn't going to do anything except make the situation more dangerous for the mother.

I'm fully in favor of requiring any woman who wants an abortion talk to a counselor who tries to convince them adoption is the moral choice, but I think ultimately it's up to the mother, because it simply will be no matter what laws or penalties you put in place.

I think all the energy expended trying to ban abortion should be aimed at trying to prevent the unwanted pregnancies, through realistic sex education, and ready access to contraceptives.

When it comes down to it, parents don't get to decide when their kids have sex, they just get to decide how much information they have about it, and how easy it is for them to get contraceptives.

>> ^Lurch:
I can't agree that a critical part of being a parent is deciding to kill your child. Extreme scenarios mean nothing when viewed from the perspective of killing an unborn child. There are always alternatives that may sound terrible, but at least don't end in death.


I never said killing your child was a critical part of being a parent. I said judging whether the conditions are right to have a child was a critical part of being a parent. (in response to your statement that "it's not our job to be the judge of whether conditions are too terrible for the child or not")I also said that should be something you figure out before pregnancy, but sometimes things don't go according to plan and you've got to make that decision after the fact.

The one thing I will agree with you on is that there are usually other good options. I'm not "pro-abortion"; I don't think any sane person is. I'm pro-choice. I think abortion is horrible, but I don't think it should be illegal. I think you reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

.".. but really qualm, I wouldn't go depending on stuff like that as an answer to all your troubles. Seek out the help of a medical professional."

An answer to all my troubles. Very nice. I didn't say anything about any medical condition except unwanted pregnancy. You're pretty patronizing here.

Maybe you should go see an optometrist; you know - the people for whom the glass is always half full.

"i'm just trying to figure out how you get to personally see a herbal abortion work. and then, how do you see it five more times? yikes."

It's actually pretty easy to understand, MINK. First somebody gets pregnant. Then they take the stuff. Then they're no longer pregnant. Neat, huh? Think about that for a while until it sinks in. lol

Calling it "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" is really nothing more than your chosen use of buzz words, one's just more pleasing to the ear. Lets not pick at people for the one they wish to employ. What you are for or against is the ability for women to have a pregnancy terminated that they feel is too much of a burden to continue with. This may be due to a large variety of causes (eg. rape; socio-economic limitations; unintended pregnancy, due to faulty contraceptive or perhaps a partner deceitful about fertility; mental immaturity; etc.).

Obviously these are pretty harrowing conditions shown in the film, such as why most of these pregnancies aren't simply avoided by adequate birth control - an obvious lack of community or individual education, which leads not only to the terminations but the huge problem of childcare for the unwanted. Abortions are not (and should not) be simple, care free procedures and I think anyone (pro or against) would like to see that the consequences of a termination are known to all women, so that the need for one is avoided as often as possible.

The reasons against abortion are fairly obvious, as I don't think any well minded person would like the idea of seeing an infant looking fetus being cut and expelled. But I assert that we have to consider the effect of continuing an unwanted pregnancy, should it lead to an abandoned child to a life in foster homes or the streets. Because lets face it, there just cannot be an abundance of caring adoption families for every single ovum that gets fertilised.

I've known a decent number of adopted men and women. They wonder who their biological parents are and why they were put up for adoption, but I've never met one that would rather have been aborted despite their admitted possibility of having been the child of an unwanted pregnancy. Because of these people I've known, I've adhered to the thought of "pro-choice" for the child. If adopted life is so awful, let the "product of rape or other said unwanted pregnancy" decide to live or die. Taking that choice away is NOT "pro-choice", it's simply pro-abortion. (Although I can sympathize with a rape victim. I would consider that to be in the gray, allowable area in terms of law).

And in response to "would you adopt a child of rape?": First, yes, if I intended to adopt, I would have no interest in the conception or how it occurred (in answer to Mink... and many "pro-lifers" think as I do, those who don't need to re-evaluate things). That's not important genetically or otherwise. Anyway, this question is moot for the fact that that particular information would not be provided, and if I were seeking an infant for adoption, I wouldn't give a crap the means by which he/she was conceived. Huge numbers of couples who are incapable of conception would love to adopt infants.

Well, I think I've successfully refuted everyone, I'll now take my leave confident that I've changed lives..

BWHAHAHAHA! Post that in the siftquote Hall of Fame!

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness, qruel is right, that these same corner dwelling rightous (not in the 80s way) folk are totally against education and condoms. So you can't defend their good works and say "everyone is for reducing unwanted pregnancies" and then sabotage everything with ridiculous efforts like taking science out of science books and replacing it with religious dogma. You can't block efforts at education and possible condom programs in high schools and then say that you care about unwanted fetuses. I guess you only care AFTER someone gets pregnant, not before when something can actually be done (ie. education, contraception).

You have the Dominos-town in FL banning anyone in town from selling condoms. Yet these same loons would run around preaching to passersby with their fetus pictures.

"See the concept of .. avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place."

I think everyone is for that, son (or kid/person/liberal/whatever I'm supposed to call you without trying to show my dominance--which of course we know doesn't exist on the internet due to its level playing field)


'...telling all the obese people in this country "don't eat too much"'

you've got some good advice there, I agree. eating less usually does result in weight loss...


Boy, 52 comments, this vid has all you kids/people/troglodytes all in a tizzy, it's quite entertaining

Well, I think I've successfully refuted everyone, I'll now take my leave confident that I've changed lives and the world in the process.