Reducing Abortion Rate in the US
Pro-Lifers are against abortion. They say the life of the fetus matters. They say the will of the mother, (not to be pregnant and not to have a child,) doesn't matter. (Its too late at that point.) The soul of the fetus is basically on a course toward full development and this process should not be halted. It should not be halted because it disregards the will of the soul.
How do we know the will of the soul?
Let's say the energy of the soul fuels the development of the fetus. The stages of zygote, embryo, fetus are growing non-stop second by second and are proof and evidence of volition: This volition comes from an individual (soul) urge for human expression.
And, Indeed, it has been recorded/photographed: A flash of light occurs at the moment of conception. It stands to reason that a soul enters the union of sperm and egg at that moment.
Whether or not you believe that the soul is guiding the development of a new human within the woman's body, how can we prevent the need for abortion.
.. which means premarital conception.
Actually, Pro-Lifers really need to answer this question. Its on them.There is no way to make illegal something we call god who said "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" intended. We can't call anything that being put in place illegal since all of them have existed since existence first existed.
Concerning things done as an individual we will find ourselves less burdened if we allowed the individual to sow or reap their karma since it has also been since existence first existed. Even the various things governments do should not concern us except when it is done to you as an individual unless you are wise enough to know "where in civilization's cycle" we are, then we should work to bring about that which we know has to happen.
Otherwise, accept life for what life has to offer and seek understanding of the cause of the effects so you can know what should be changed at any given time because it is all karma.Yeah, but why should taxpayers contribute to those unpatriotic mothers who choose life of the soul when they can't afford it and have no man to help them? Essentially, is it fair to require taxpayers to pay for their freedom to procreate? And is it fair to give Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding to pay for ooopsies.
"Each to their own" does not work as a societal policy when :
its a matter of consequences everyone else must pay for."IF" this was a "United States" it would not matter because the Preamble reads in part "to form a more perfect union" and Article 1, section 8 and paragraph 1 in part reads taxes are "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
It we were "The United States" the constitution demands there would be no one with more income than any other (children the exception) because we would be of the mind that all man are a family. With that, if they wanted to abort there are plants the Native Americans know which will cause the desired abortion - one of their statements is they "go into the forest for medications but United Statesman go to drug stores" - therefore it would not cost anything to abort.
It is because this nation does nothing except to earn money for those who already have it that those who are taxed have to pay for it.
Karma is a word which a person uses to absolve themselves of responsibility from the mandate to love your neighbor.
Pro lifers are the same. Love a zygote, reap hatred on a human.
You want to stop abortions? Love your neighbor. Reach a hand out. Help a young woman who finds herself pregnant. It would go a lot further than simply demanding they act in accordance with your will.So pro lifers are hard-hearted?
The entire mandate is love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Loving your neighbor is fine if it comes from your own self-guided will and you directly help "your neighbor."
Helping others through contributing to government Welfare programs is not really helping your neighbor.
Would you want to become less self-reliant and more dependent on government assistance?I didn't say any of that about government welfare. Why would you ask that? Government welfare, also, is a response to the truth that we don't get 'love your neighbor'. It is a measure allowing us to ignore that mandate.
The definition of karma is "it is" neither good nor evil, right nor wrong or any other judgmental adjective while suggesting everything your life-force does to another life-force in another body their life-force will enter that body to feel the emotions of the life-force in it felt when you did it to the other. That is the eternal law for every life-force from what is called god's to the tiniest life type.
It is our ignorance of that which makes us want to do something toor for another. Therefore it is our "government caused" ignorance and money dependent that make us expect the government to pay for it. If we knew what the "Natives of this Land" knew when a girl wanted to abort she would find a plant that would induce it.As far as I have heard, Indians would treat adultery quite harshly. They would send the offending couple to the woods and banish them from the tribe. Also, they knew how to prevent pregnancy, (probably by abstaining,) and space births every six years. This gave each child optimum mom time. During those six years, an Indian mother could nurture her child and bring him into childhood while giving him full attention and training for survival, for which there was a lot to learn ...
- so, I do doubt abortions were even necessary.
They knew how to work with nature which THEY respected.According to some I've spoken with, Live to Learn, that was originally the standard.
because I heard it long ago as a matter of fact and history. I believed it then as there was no reason not to. But yes, I need to go and talk to some Indians and see if this hearsay rings true. It just seems likely.
It seems to go against natural human procreation. Having babies willy nilly is more the case in reality for human beings.
I don't know that the girls intended to abort, they say that in some cases if an expecting mother even walked unknowingly through a field containing the plants they often would abort.
I have been shown the plant by Natives and think I would remember if I saw its but the name escapes me.
This has such a simple answer: free birth control. It would drastically reduce abortions and save the taxpayer a ton of money.
Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies Last Year Bringing Total Killed to Over 7.6 Million. Need any more be said?
No. Planned Parenthood does NOT perform abortions. It's other clinics which do. Planned Parenthood provides birth control at a price a woman can afford, and does mammography and pap tests for cervical cancer.
Your anti choice buddies are killing people at Planned Parenthood when they don't even provide abortions. I've never understood Right to Life people killing others at clinics which don't provide abortions.
If we weren't such Puritans in the U.S. and admitted abstinence doesn't work, and provided proper birth control information to people, this would not even be an issue. In Europe, they discuss birth control to teens when they are young, make it available, and the abortion rates are much lower. I don't like seeing people have abortions. But unless people stop believing fantasies that horny teens who are curious about sex will abstain,(or that adults should not be enjoying sex, unless it's for procreation) then stop closing and killing at every clinic which provides birth control.According to https://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ about 3% of planned parenthood's services are abortions. Not that it matters much unless one has decided to define human life as beginning with the fertilized egg (or sooner). Of course, not all people accept that definition as it is a purely subjective definition and without any evidence of being true at all.
But your are most assuredly spot on with the comment about US Puritans and abstinence. The US has a decidedly perverted attitude towards sex or anything remotely connected to sex.Unfortunately, you are wrong, Planned Parenthood does not do Mammograms, they will make referrals to obtain low-cost mammograms. They actually do not even have mammogram equipment at their centers. They do Pap smears.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/plann … ammograms/
Not sure where you got the idea Planned Parenthood does not do abortions? They were actually caught selling fetal parts? I thought this Planned Parenthood ad might interest you. It gives all the information a woman needs to make their appointment. In fact below is the logo you will find on their site... My facts are correct in regards to the stats on the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performed last year and throughout their history. I do admit it is a hard pill to swallow. That's a lot of killing... And no abstinence does not work, but birth control pills do... A bit easier path than killing human being I would say... But to each his own. Intelligent people enjoy sex and never are faced with having to have an abortion. Intelligent people teach their children well...
Planned Parenthoods Opening LOGO
"Quality, Respectful
Abortion Care.
Planned Parenthood provides the highest quality medical care for your abortion – in a supportive and understanding environment."
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/plann … -services?
gclid=CjwKCAjwu5veBRBBEiwAFTqDwdxrxNyGELsWQP9K4FDNrrjs0ZfQFJ8dCEZKSO2MBWk5mm0PqvfhbBoCGnUQAvD_BwE“And no abstinence does not work, but birth control pills do... A bit easier path than killing human being I would say... But to each his own. Intelligent people enjoy sex and never are faced with having to have an abortion. Intelligent people teach their children well...”
What a gross generalization.
Birth control works a majority of the time but definitely not all of the time. I personally know multiple women who have gotten pregnant while taking the pill or with an IUD implanted and you probably do too whether you know it or not. What of them? They were being careful and trying to prevent pregnancy. Does failed birth control make them unintelligent?" Does failed birth control make them unintelligent?" No, it leaves them with a very hard decision in regards to abortion. I would consider they were intelligent in regards to making the decision to use birth control took the intelligent route.
One method of birth control that works almost all of the time is surgical sterilization; and vasectomy is the simplest.
I don't know about souls and the moment "life" begins, but in relation to "Reducing Abortion Rate in the US"
I know that the most significant contributing factor for induced abortion is unintended pregnancy(1).
I know that around 49% of pregnancies in the US are unintended(2).
From that we can deduce that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies will reduce the rate of abortion.
And we know how to reduce unintended pregnancies, because public health bodies like the CDC have told us:
"Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States."(3)
". . . efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion need to focus on helping women, men, and couples avoid pregnancies that they do not desire"(4)
Also, as part of the "Healthy People 2020" framework(5), the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) has a goal to:
"Improve pregnancy planning and spacing, and prevent unintended pregnancy"(6)
16 objectives have been identified to help achieve that goal, including:
"- Increase the proportion of publicly funded family planning clinics that offer the full range of FDA-approved methods of contraception, including emergency contraception, onsite
- Reduce the proportion of females experiencing pregnancy despite use of a reversible contraceptive method
- Increase the proportion of adolescents who received formal instruction on reproductive health topics before they were 18 years old" (7)
The Healthy People 2020 framework was devised in 2010 under the Obama administration(8). Hopefully the current administration will not reverse this, as it has other initiatives started by the previous administration. So far I have seen no indication of that, but I can't be certain if that will remain the case.
(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638200/
(2)(3)(4) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ … ss6624a1_w
(5) https://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/def … mework.pdf
(6) https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topi … y-planning
(7) https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topi … objectives
(8) https://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/def … ease_1.pdfThose are the facts required to reduce abortions but getting people to do it is where the problem is. How do we get "pleasure seeking" people to do what it takes to prevent the unintended unwanted pregnancies to follow those proven preventive procedures is the actual problem.
Why do we have the term "adolescent," the pre-puberty stage of human's development, just before we enter puberty?
That is when a child is supposed to be weaned from nursing which, in most animals and should in human, prevent ovulation in girls. At 12 adolescents should became nomads and learn to live independent of other humans for their focus to be on survival. Then when a boy met a girl without the sexual exciting smell her ovulation they would not even consider copulating and go their own way. That's how we lived before civilization began and during my 36 years as a nomad, except in situations where survival was provided, meeting a girl who wasn't ovulating or my internal opposite there were never sexual urges in me. Experience is the "educator."
So, If we actually want to control abortions, nurse the child for 12 years and send it on it's educating life as an independent adolescents.Oh good, so now women get to take on the responsibility of breastfeeding for 12 years. Sounds like a great solution! .....for a man, who doesn’t actually have to anything. Again. As usual.
No, boy woman don't only the girl woman and we change roles through reincarnation. When both boys and girls become man for every conception a boy causes he transforms into a girl to conceive and vice-versa.
Ohhhh okay then. How about you come back when you’re in your female form and have experienced extended breastfeeding and we’ll see if you still like the idea of nursing for 12 years.
I have incarnated my last time as a human/woman and for every child I caused to be conceived I have been in each girl's body and produced the same children she did either before I was the boy or after it.
I have now gone through the metamorphosis Jesus called "born again" and has become a man so when I began to father children again I will transform into a girl to conceive one or every one I conceive. At that time I will be nursing it for the 12 years as required.
"weaned from nursing which, in most animals and should in human, prevent ovulation in girls."
Can you provide documented evidence/observation that being weaned from nursing will prevent ovulation? Or that reincarnated people alternate sexes or are even reincarnated at all?I took it to mean that nursing prevents ovulation which is true for maybe two years if you’re lucky. Certainly not 12.
Could be. He was very clear that a mother should nurse a child for 12 years. Years, not months, was reaffirmed.
Then nursing for 12 years will not prevent ovulation for 12 years (and a little more)? I admit to ignorance; I'm aware it prevents it for a period, and a little more after stopping, but that's all. 12 years is far beyond anything I've ever thought about, let alone seen studies on!
Also don't know how firm that is; I wouldn't use it for birth control.
92% of women get their period back before 2 years. I got mine at about 15 months postpartum and continued nursing until my daughter was 3... so almost 2 years of ovulating while nursing.
The thing is ovulation happens before the first period returns so you really never know... by the time you get your period you’ve already ovulated and if you were relying on not ovulating as a birth control method, well then, you’re screwed.Well, my (nursing, or so I'm told) mother had 3 children only 12 and 16 months apart - something that doesn't seem uncommon.
Unless 12 years of nursing messes up the system somehow, it kind of puts a stop to the notion that long term nursing results in sterility, temporary or not, doesn't it?My mother had 5 children and between my youngest sister and oldest brother there were exactly 11 months, my sister's on July 21 one year and the brother June 20th the next.
I realize there are some factors which will prohibit the milk's 12 year retention.
Annie, that two years is, I believe, because they become very sexually active often after only about two week after the birth. I know of some boys who said they became active while she was still cleaning her womb out, in about 2 days.
Two weeks after the birth? Are you high? Christ, my bits were still ALL a mess and I would’ve killed dead anyone who tried to get within 2 feet of them let alone stick something up there.
LOL in the library, Amie. Like I say, living civilized our bodies do strange things, maybe you are close to environmental living and your body is pushing you in that direction. That's just my guess.
Wilderness, Again, I believe being sexually active, especially very, will stop the milk and ovulation will begin again.
You know everything about ovulation form a few sketchy anecdotes?
I'm a reasoning boy, Love the rain, who looks for causes behind effects. When I compared human/woman to the self-reproducing environment and realize there are exceptions usually caused by our diverting from the environment's rules that is what was revealed.
The problem with civilized human is they blindly believe everything somebody say they have experimented and found without including environment in their equations.
Being sexually active has nothing to do with anything in terms of milk production/ovulation. Ovulation tends to return when women start nursing less frequently... so unless you’re suggesting women breastfeed a 12 year old as often as a newborn......
No, Annie, once the child reaches, I would say, 4 to 6 since the girl in Iowa said the child nursed before school and after school, I would believe the child would only nurse twice a day around that time.
However, if we lived environmentally a lots of things our b bodies do living socially would not likely be happening, so, if we lived environmentally the girl would not engage in sex until the child became an adolescent.Not only nurse until 12, but abstain from sex, too, as that will cause ovulation.
Don't think I can agree with that theory. Sounds like he recognized that a woman can get pregnant if she has sex, so tried to tie that into ovulation and nursing. I do believe the first - that a sexually active woman can get pregnant - but can't quite follow the connection to ovulation.Wilderness, I'm an old country boy and have observed how any animal, dogs, cats, hogs and many others, if they loose their litters before nursing time is complete they comes into "heat" much sooner than they do when they keep them nursing full term. I see that in most other mammals so it should also apply to man.
Does being in heat not mean ovulation has occurred or, at the minimum, will in the near future? If so, then sexual activity has nothing to do with ovulation - animals will ovulate with or without such activity. If humans follow the same pattern, then, mating has nothing to do with ovulation. Nursing definitely does, but not having sex.
There is also the problem that the large majority of animals will come into heat at specific times of the year. They do not produce young (which means they do not ovulate) randomly; it is dependent on when the young has the best chance of survival.
Finally, not all animals' physiology works that way. Primates in particular accept sex at any time, whether in heat or not, and they are not the only ones. Some, like people, ovulate at various times during the year; rats might be an example. Domesticated dogs (I think) ovulate at any time of the year, as do chickens, but wolves, deer, cows, horses and bears do not.
So I think you're making a giant leap to determine that homo sapiens reproduction operates the same as other animals, plus you're picking out a subset of animals to make that determination. It doesn't work and is known NOT to follow the most common cycle of giving birth at specific times of the year.
Annie, Like I just said, if a girl continue to mate while nursing they loose the milk. I think that is why several girls has been imprisoned in this country for child abuse for not knowing they didn't have milk, I believe they were very sexually active.
It seems, then, that your suggestion is actually abstinence, for nursing mothers that do not practice abstinence will get pregnant.
This in turn means that if women do not mate they will not ovulate, according to your convoluted reasoning. This is demonstrably false to fact.I am only presenting my reasoning with the facts I have obtained in this life's sojourn, if I could bring up the memories of my past lives and analyze them then I would know for certain.
However, there is the rule "there is an exception to every rule including the rule there is an an exception to every rule" so there are surely to be some exceptions to almost every conjecture.
Wilderness,
My mother told me about a mother who nursed a child for 12 years and had no children during that time. Also, When I was in Decorah, Iowa working for a dairy and beef farmer his wife told me of another that did and never ovulated. The girl who became my second wife had a 6 year-old son and her boyfriend began sucking her breast so much that she began to lactate again and until he stopped she didn't ovulate. Those are my sources.
However, in most cases, if a girl continue to have intercourses while nursing they will more often than not loose their milk. Many slaves were required to nurse their master's child, but I know if they mated during that time or not, until they wean them at about 2 or 3 years old.Love the rain, Nature has ways of protecting human/woman from their own ignorance.
You seem to confuse two individual accounts of a correlation in time to indicate a proven causal effect applicable to everyone. This is not how we learn and grow our understanding of the world.
But even if it were proven to be true - that your time correlation of not ovulating while breast feeding works for everyone for unlimited time periods - any suggestion that women breast feed their children for 12 years is NOT going to be accepted as a reasonable birth control method.I agree concerning your last paragraph and am not even suggesting any solution to preventing abortions, I'm using this topic to present "food for thought" since everything is already preordained to happen the way it is.
This is a sensitive subject and a war that will wage until the end of time. There are too many factors that have to be taken into account. If we made abortion illegal, people who have been raped would be forced to carry a constant reminder with them for nine months. In that situation they did not make a choice ... and they would not have a choice afterward either. Could we justify stripping a woman of not one, but two choices? Still, we could write in a loophole that says it is okay for an abortion in that situation but then we would have people crying rape to crawl through the loophole.
I get it. I think that if people make the choice to have sex (willingly) than they should deal with the consequences of those actions responsibly. There are thousands of couples who would give anything to have children and adoption is a better option. However, what if a woman becomes pregnant and then discovers that carrying the child to term would be deadly (or risky) for her? Really ... the problem is that there are too many situations to consider and to group them all into a yes or no decision is just not possible.no. how can we prevent premarital conception and an unwanted child?
I agree there is a war... hopefully, it will not lead to a civil war!
the only answer, of course, is
abstinence.
How can pro-lifers be against abortion in a society which cannot accept abstinence until marriage?Ideally, abstinence is the right solution. Practically (in terms of a working policy), it doesn't work.
We should only work on solutions that are practical and are backed up by data. Abstinence only programs don't work and have no data to support their use.
I am not for birth in all cases.
Rape being one of them.
... and death or danger to the mother.
But ALSO, I am not for the birth of a chemically (drugs/alcohol) addicted/affected baby.
I am not for the birth of a baby into a situation that is not conducive, such as the lifestyle of a destitute single mother. I am not for a baby being born to unfit parents who are sure to raise a liar, thief or murderer.
Am I for abortion is these instances?
well, yes.
... and I hate to say that.
What would a staunch Pro-Lifer say in those instances?Most abortions are abortions for convenience. A married couple will gladly take on a new soul. Why not?
If a husband and wife (who are married) are not in a conducive situation,
( to raise a child) they too should exercise abstinence.
... of course many people have miraculous luck after a baby is born.
... so married women also get abortions. If we know why they do, we can help prevent them as well.
Why do married women get abortions?
Is their's also a matter of convenience?
Sometimes an abortion is desired when a mother has so many children she doesn't know what to do or she feels she is too old and/or not healthy enough.
Should women in this circumstance abstain?
Yes.A new question has emerged in my mind:
Can women abstain easier than men?
I would say yes.I believe it is equal, if they are willing to abstain they will without any problems.
The girl pays the higher price, she does all of the receiving, is why I believe the girls should ask the boys. If we were living environmentally my way would be the way. A girl would seek the boy she desired, both would live as individual nomads, they would mate and go their separate way.
This is the new women's movement,
Isn't it?Kathryn,
Isn't it OK for a man to say no as well? You seem to have old fashioned ideas and want to place all the burden on the woman. I bet there are many new birth control methods that could be marketed for men. They just don't want to be bothered.
Why should a woman take the pill everyday when she doesn't have sex everyday? It causes hypertension, weight gain, and has other side effects. IUD's are often expelled by the body. Most women are uncomfortable with diaphragms. But all those methods depend on her taking medication or inserting foreign objects into her body.
Since men's sexual organs are on the outside, it seems to me scientists could easily think of original new ways for them to be responsible for birth control. Condoms are only effective 80% of the time.
Schools don't teach birth control, but unfortunately, parents don't do a good job of it either. Many don't deal with speaking about sex and birth control at all. In my group of friends and family, I am always the one to give everyone the "talks." I don't think enough adults take the responsibility to discuss birth control with their teens."Since men's sexual organs are on the outside, it seems to me scientists could easily think of original new ways for them to be responsible for birth control."
It may seem that way to you, but apparently the reality is much, much different. A good chemical method has been looked for years but nothing yet. Perhaps because being exterior (although it really isn't) has zero to do with anything.Now Wilderness, you know we boys have been in control since civilization began when one considers the Adam and Eve curse! With that understanding it should have us boys who figured that out but in ours selfish pleasure seeking mentality we didn't.
Same as I said to Jean: I am neither biologist nor physician and don't think you are either. It's real easy to sit back, completely ignorant of the problem, and declare it is easy to fix. Actually doing it is another story.
(You might consider that condoms have been around far, far longer than birth control pills - a strictly male oriented solution)
That's lame and you know it. The Pill came out over 50 yrs. ago, and in that amount of time better male methods of contraception have NEVER been discovered because it's so difficult? Or just ONE option has been unearthed? Give me a break.
When it comes to couples, interior and exterior means a lot. A man can easily get a vasectomy if the couple can't afford or doesn't want more children. I was once on a hayride with a man who had a vasectomy the day before, while at a children's Fall Fair, and he took it like a trooper. The woman has to have a tubal ligation, major surgery, more dangerous.
And why does the U.S. pay so easily for ED medications, yet try to block women so hard from getting to clinics which only provide birth control? I even saw a commercial for ED medication FREE the other night (I wouldn't recommend that without seeing a professional). So make it easy for men to be able to have sex even at an age where maybe that part of life is over, but don't provide birth control for women, make them fight and close all places that provide it?
This whole argument could be stopped if people accepted that abstinence doesn't work, and made birth control more available. Planned Parenthood gives women what they need either free, or on a scale she can pay based on her income. It's really quite simple. Some people have to stop making others feel bad about liking sex. But if one is sexually active, they must take responsibility. Nobody has mentioned risks of disease (which can be transferred to an unborn child). And young girls should NEVER take herbal concoctions to try to end a pregnancy. That's from the Dark Ages and could easily kill her and the child. I'm all for natural solutions, but not to pregnancy issues."Since men's sexual organs are on the outside, it seems to me scientists could easily think of original new ways for them to be responsible for birth control."
I'm neither biologist nor physician, and don't think you are, either. Your statement is thus totally irrelevant for you have zero to back it with (except the comment that it has already been done with a vasectomy).
That was my entire point - that you're making a statement that you have no training or knowledge to support it with.
As far as the rest: ED (Erectile Dysfunction) drugs are to correct something that is wrong, while birth control pills are to interfere with something that is right. Big difference, at least to me - it's like comparing blood pressure medication to having breast implants (in healthy breasts).
Birth control IS readily available; condoms are found in every drug store, every truck stop, and half the grocery stores in the country. They are cheap and effective.
Abstinence; abstinence does not work, regardless of how much churches have pushed for it or how simple it sounds. Education is key, not abstinence.what type of education?
... education that leads to abstinence?
Such as, "Birth control works like this, but NONE of the methods are 100% effective."
"You can get any number of STDs and the only way to avoid catching germs is to abstain."
"Here are all the positions regarding having sex, but don't do these provocative things unless you are married, as they could lead to unwanted pregnancy."
"Here, watch this You Tube video which shows the abortion procedure."
Why would you show a teen how a fetus is torn apart and sucked out of a womb unless you are imparting the message, "Never have sex unless you can afford a child and you are ready!"My opinions are as relevant as yours are Dan. This is the 21st century. I have a lot of knowledge based on life experience, a long and devoted 39 year marriage, and volunteering at Planned Parenthood.
There was nothing incorrect in my statement that you made bold, you just don't want to hear any opinion that is different than yours and love to argue for the sake of arguing.
ED is a dysfunction which makes it difficult to impossible for a man to have intercourse. Women go through menopause and usually slow down their sexual activity a bit by then. But in our times most don't feel like they have to, they like FINALLY not worrying about getting pregnant. But their are men who want to keep on going (and possibly getting women pregnant) until they are at ridiculous ages.
Men have hormonal differences at the same ages, but don't admit it. So I don't accept your argument.
Plus condoms are only 80% effective, though important to use as to not get/spread disease. They get holes in them. They break. Young people not taught how to use them correctly don't benefit from them. Just stop it, the woman carries most of the burden.Your opinions are relevant...when built on a solid base. When built on merely wanting something to be true they aren't worth nearly as much. At least to me, but then I will always try to figure out where that opinion (everyone's, not just yours!) comes from, and if can find nothing to base it on it is pretty much worthless. To me.
As near as I can tell from your posts you believe male chemical birth control is easily found because male gonads are outside the main portion of the body. And as near as I can figure that has exactly zero to do with the problem of finding chemicals that will 100% disrupt the production of gametes (sperm in this case) without undue side effects and without being permanent. That you think it is easy, then, is without basis that I can see. I might agree with you were it a question of mechanical, surgical birth control (vasectomy) but it isn't (I think).
Not sure what the discussion of ED (we both know what it is) has to do with anything, or that menopause and a woman's relief at not worrying about pregnancy does, either.
Either way the fact remains that ED treatment is to restore lost capabilities while birth control to to destroy current, normal, capabilities. A big difference to me (there's that "opinion" thing again!).
If your argument is that age-related losses are to be accepted without effort at restoration, I'd have to reject that. Things like eye cataracts, knee/hip replacements and arthritis treatments all come to mind - they are all age related in most cases and we certainly find it reasonable to try and restore to what youth produced. ED treatments are no different in that and have no connection to free birth controls for women that don't want to purchase for themselves and don't want to use condoms (according to Planned Parenthood, condoms are 98% effective in birth control when used properly and consistently)
No argument that the woman carries most of the burden; evolution saw to that. I'm just not happy being forced to pay for entertainment when it is so readily and cheaply available. And I include condoms in that, in case you're wondering - there is no reason to provide free condoms, free vasectomies or anything else in the way of birth control. I even take exception to the notion that "If you don't give me free birth control, I'm going to produce a baby you will have to support" - blackmail is not something I approve of, for once you pay the danegeld it only grows over time.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn … re-condomsI believe male scientists aren't trying hard enough to find more methods of birth control for men.
Hip and knee replacements are necessary for people to be able to move and work freely. Men can abstain if they have ED. There is a difference between these kinds of "medical conditions." Men are usually older and don't have the sex drive of 20 yr. old guys by the time they experience ED. Sometimes it's time to give up the ship.They got close with this one but then decided that men suffering the same side effects that women suffer was unacceptable so they pulled the plug.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health … ogle.ca%2FThanks Aime,
Acne? Really? Increased heartbeat? The pill causes hypertension, so women on it either have to take BP meds, or go on another method.
Hormones are powerful, and I know that men who do get tested and find their testosterone is low are carefully monitored. Again, none of these side effects are more than what a woman endures to use most methods of birth control. Men are big babies. I'm sure there must be some kind of spermicide or method like the implants they put in women's arms which work for five years.
So, basically, men won't man up to use birth control. Accutane works great for acne. But during the course of medication, a person must use two forms of birth control and have a blood test each month. That's why you see more young men than women with terrible acne. The one course works forever though.
"I believe male scientists aren't trying hard enough to find more methods of birth control for men. "
You did make it clear that you believe that - because, you said, their gonads are exterior to the main body cavity. But how many man hours and dollars are spent each year in that research? How many of both do you think should be spent? Can you justify that (second) opinion, given that there are people dying daily that might be saved with more investigation into cancer, from breast to prostate to lung, while we already have effective birth control readily available? Given that disabled vets often go without prosthetics, should we spend money giving birth controls to people that simply don't want to pay for them? Given that thousands of Americans don't have adequate health care, should we be giving limited resources to kids that want sex but refuse to take responsibility for their actions?
"Men can abstain if they have ED."
Convenient, isn't it? And all those old geezers can stay home in the rocking chair with bad knees, too. Is that what you think we should offer our seniors; an uncaring attitude towards their physiological problems so we can give away free entertainment supplies to youngsters? Really?
Jean, you have twice now given the opinion that we should be developing/should have already developed a chemical male birth control. Both times you've simply made the statement without any form of backup for your opinion at all - there is no indication that you have the faintest idea of what it takes to accomplish what you think should already be done. I certainly don't know the problems faced, and don't think you do, either.
And now you're trying to say that because there is no male chemical birth control yet that men should not receive medical care for debilitating physical problems during their senior years. I trust you see the problem with both statements and do not truly mean either one.You have totally misconstrued what I said. I expressed the opinion that of course, hip and knee replacements must be done. My words at the beginning of the post in question were, "Hip and knee replacements are necessary for people to be able to move and work freely." People of all ages need them, and actually age doesn't come into it. Young people need these replacements too sometimes if they work in fields where they injure themselves repeatedly in the knee or hip. My chiropractor is getting two hip replacements as I write this, as he has to throw his whole body into adjusting people. We must be able to move comfortably, as much as possible, unless sometimes we have chronic health issues where the options have been exhausted.
I don't need backup to think there should be more methods of male birth control. I am a woman who went through enough in my life trying to find birth control with the least side effects while being sexually active. Read Aime's article she so graciously provided. Men are big babies about any side effects that using any other method would cause, and women must suffer them. You have written much on this forum, and only gave one fact. Again, as usual, you are holding me to a standard you don't hold yourself to. This is bullying, which you have done before as well.
This forum is not about the comparison of expenses of birth control vs other terrible illnesses where we must spend money to do more research. This is not a forum discussing other kinds of health care other than birth control. You are completely off topic and this is a different discussion all together. You can't stand it when you are challenged or someone doesn't share your opinion. Almost all of what you said in this last post is ridiculous, and you twisted my words.
If an older man can't "raise the flag" anymore, often a hug or a little tenderness is perfectly satisfactory. My husband and I had a lot of intellectual and creative interests, sex was never the most important thing that held us together. So having been in a long marriage, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if a man can't perform like he did as a teenager. We also had our spiritual closeness.
ED is not a big medical emergency. It is a big step for men to have testosterone treatments, and having suffered hormone issues myself, I would not have a man in my life go through it, I think the risks to his health would outweigh a little bit of enjoyment that could be shared or found in other ways. I swear, this is the last time I will engage with you on a forum. Read what I said, and read this post you just wrote. You are completely off track and not even discussing what's on this forum or what I said. This is beyond the pale, even for you."I expressed the opinion that of course, hip and knee replacements must be done."
Yes, and my comment was to demonstrate that needing a hip replacement is no different than needing ED treatment. If sufferers of ED can live with it because you're ticked there is no male contraceptive, so can those needing a hip. Certainly not having such a contraceptive is not a valid reason to with hold treatment, and neither is not having free contraceptives for women. It's just spiteful.
"I don't need backup to think there should be more methods of male birth control."
On this we disagree, at least in as much as you believe it should already be developed and that we aren't trying hard enough...without having a clue how hard we're trying or what the problem consists of. We DO agree (I think) that safer, more effective and easier birth control is needed for both sexes, not just one.
"This forum is not about the expense of birth control vs other terrible illnesses where we must spend money to do more research."
Any time you want to spend limited resources for a specific cause then another cause will suffer. We do not have unlimited money or manpower to do research with; it must be prioritized. That's all I was saying; that our use of resources must have priorities.
"If an old man can't "raise the flag" anymore, maybe a hug or try a little tenderness."
Or maybe a pill to correct the problem. But not from you, right? If we don't pay for women's sexual pleasures there shall be no solution to ED allowed even if it is readily available.No. I have been saying all along I think other medical issues outweigh ED. I would even say people "suffer" from ED is like saying people suffer from dry mouth. But I never said treatment for it should be withheld. I believe it's natural for men to go through hormonal changes and require less sex, similar to what women experience after menopause. I have written extensively about this in many of my mythology/archetype articles where I discuss how at the third stage of life--60+, most of us turn to spiritual issues and decisions about how we want to spend the rest of our lives.
As a woman like most, who had to try many difficult types of birth control (and suffer from it with hypertension, or by using messy spermicides, or putting foreign objects into my body) to find one that worked, I am qualified to discuss this, and there is nothing spiteful about it. My life experience is my research.You also can't tell me that in all these years, methods of better male birth control have not been discovered or tested. If you believe that makes you "pay for women's sexual pleasures", you are seriously living in the Dark Ages.
It's a double standard. It's getting harder for women to get birth control or even medical care they pay for in this administration who wants to cut health care, even if it's for cervical cancer, and less people are going into the OBGYN field. It's getting too controversial. But ED care is made so easy for men, now they don't even need a prescription or a doctor's visit, they can mail order it, and get several types to see what they like. It's sexist and unfair.
I am a widow who has been celibate for four years. I am speaking for younger women, so they don't have to suffer this sexist nonsense from men as they make these life changing decisions.If your stance is that ED is not as important as other problems, I apologize. What I "read" (understood) was that because women don't get free birth control that ED treatments should not be covered by insurance - a spiteful statement if there ever was one. If you meant something else, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
"You also can't tell me that in all these years, methods of better male birth control have not been discovered or tested."
Here we go again. Jean, you are making a statement here (male birth control has been discovered but hidden) that you simply cannot support. It is an opinion without value, for it is almost certainly wrong and even if correct is unprovable. You can do better than that.
Next, with the ED yet again. How about looking at and responding to the simple fact that insurance does not cover completely voluntary treatments without medical necessity. We don't cover breast implants (except after surgery), we don't cover plastic surgery (except as reconstructive after an accident, etc.). We only cover things that will correct what is wrong with our bodies. ED treatments do that: birth control does the opposite and should thus not be covered.
Before you make such claims as "It's sexist and unfair that women can get chemical birth control and men can't", you might consider the money poured into breast cancer and the myriad of diseases/problems that are purely feminine. When it comes to "unfair or sexist" males are most definitely coming up on the short end of the stick.
I understand your position and that you aren't speaking for yourself. Neither am I, for while married I'm nearly 70 years old and sex does not hold the fascination it did in youth. But I DO speak for myself when I express displeasure at being required to pay for the entertainment of people too cheap to fork out 50 cents for their pleasure. Male or female, they can pay to play...or they can keep their pants on.“We only cover things that will correct what is wrong with our bodies”.... but who decides what’s ‘wrong’? Is any natural medical consequence of an action considered to be ‘right’? Because vaccinations are free and they are not correcting anything that’s wrong - they’re preventing something. If we didn’t interfere with natural progression then getting polio or smallpox would just be a consequence of being around other people.
Dan,
It was my stance that ED is not as serious as more pressing health issues.
I am sure much research has been put into male birth control. But there has been no successful outcome. It is my opinion men won't tolerate some of the serious side effects of birth control and don't want the responsibility. Women get hypertension from the pill, and often have trouble getting pregnant when they go off and it's time to start a family. I know this from experiences of my own and friends. IUDs are painful to have inserted if a woman has never given birth, and I had one that made me very ill and my body rejected it. Other methods involve messy spermicides. So I don't think a little acne is so hard for a young man to endure in the name of not creating an unwanted child.
This forum thread is about birth control and abortion, so I am not considering other health issues as I post on it.
I agree that people should keep their pants on too. But they won't, that's the problem. I don't want to pay for them either. But I do contribute and put my little money where my mouth is, or I volunteer when an issue matters to me. I don't know why we keep having these misunderstandings. I don't like to argue (and I know we are not both speaking for ourselves, but for others).
These are opinion forums, not formal position papers where we have to write and provide footnotes. They are a place to exchange ideas. I express opinions based on my own life experience and what I learn from others (and I do life coach, so I talk to many people in my very populated state). I am a serious person, but if I have to provide references and sources, I will write an article which is researched and publish it under the right niche if it's here, or on another site altogether. I believe you expect too much from forum answers.
Thank you for your gracious apology. We did have several misunderstandings in this thread."These are opinion forums, not formal position papers where we have to write and provide footnotes."
"I believe you expect too much from forum answers."
You may be right. I may expect too much. I don't come to these forums to hear a soapbox speech, spun out of recognition from any factual basis. I come to hear opinions, yes, but ONLY if those opinions are based on something beyond anger or desire for a particular result. I come to hear and listen to how others think - the path they take to reach a conclusion. In many cases, that path is more important than the conclusion as I can and will come to the same conclusion...if the reasoning and base is valid.
Jean, I get you're upset that women take the brunt of birth control. My wife nearly suffered a heart attack from taking the pill as a young woman - it could have cost her her life. But that's a fact, from nature, and not something that those evil men have created. Indeed, the first birth control was a condom, designed for use by men, and it is still in common use today.
I get it. But that disgust, anger, irritation - whatever it might be to you - simply is NOT a valid point to conclude that male contraceptives are easy to find, that it just isn't being done because men don't want the hassle, complications or dangers - they even refuse the responsibility for birth control. If you recall, it was that statement that started this whole thread and, for the most part, it has built from there.
And that simply isn't a path that reason can take, for there is zero indication that there is even a hint of truth in it. You drew a conclusion, a conclusion that vilifies men in general for being unwilling to do their part, purely out of anger and you posted that opinion for all to see. You made excuses to "support" the conclusion - excuses that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Gonads being outside the body cavity cannot possibly (IMO
)have an effect on how chemicals work on them, but that was your stated reason for the logical train to get to your offensive conclusion. It just wasn't "logical" at all and was not a valid reasoning process.
So it was the reasoning process, not the conclusion that I didn't like and complained about. I often will, whether it be convicting without evidence (individuals like Kavanaugh, Zimmerman, etc.) or a specific race or sex as you did. The goal is to work together on problems, not to vilify anyone we don't identify with because they aren't part of our "group".I'm not trying to vilify men, and I'm not angry. I get passionate when I care about something, or I wouldn't even bother to post.
Aime posted info about a method for men, and they didn't want to suffer acne. That's a small price to pay (although I know many young guys who took accutane for severe acne, and it has a lot of precautions too). Most drugs do.
I had the same issue as your wife with the pill, as hypertension runs in my family. It is scary. My body rejected an IUD. I got a serious infection, fever, back pain. I was scheduled to have it surgically removed. The night before I got an excruciating cramp while in the shower, and it came out by itself. Our bodies really do reject what they don't want. So I have felt frustration that men can't do more, even though they don't have options. A woman gets really sick of it all, putting her body through all this, and for so many years. Menopause is a relief.
As far as gonads being outside the body there I was talking about vasectomy or tubal ligation, in which case both are serious decisions for life, and not ones young people will make. That's for a married couple. I thought we cleared that up. I know several men who opted to do that. And it takes lots of consideration. My sister in law is a mortician, and when her husband did it, she made him consider what if she died, and he remarried, and wanted more kids.
But I do volunteer at my local Planned Parenthood, and all I hear are women who are with men who even complain about condoms (although with the STDs in our times, that's just plain stupid). All I can do is advise them not to have sex then. And where I go, we CAN'T suggest abortion, it's against the law. So maybe I don't have as logical a reasoning process as you (although in my serious writing I do), I DO know what I am speaking of, from my extensive experiences with other women. I've never had a man come to see what he could do. If some of that irritation comes through in what I write, I can't help that.
I like men. I was in a long marriage. I have a brother, a son, and two nephews. I have a lot of male friends who are not "boyfriends." I think we've covered this to death now. Have a good weekend."Aime posted info about a method for men, and they didn't want to suffer acne."
I read that post. If you did, too, you found that there was a lot more to it than getting acne.
No, I never did catch that your gonad thing had to do with a vasectomy - my bad. But vasectomies have two major problems - they are expensive (and VERY expensive to reverse) and reversal is far from guaranteed. The mortician's thoughts are very relevant.
And I get to your last paragraph. I agree - we've beaten this to death, and are not that far apart in our thinking. We'd both like to see better birth control, for both sexes, with fewer side effects.
So you have a great weekend, too. I'm meeting up with my grandkids (some of which are asleep in the next room right now) and kids for a cookout! Always enjoyable.
Jean and Wilderness,
The medication prescribed for ED is registered in the FDA as being for a totally different ailment but after approval the Drug company invented ED. Since doctors can prescribe any drug FDA has already approved they give doctors kickback to create ED and prescribe the drugs made for something else they found causes erections.
That's why we have ED as a medical condition when it has been proven - but not usually documented - that 80 and 90 year old boys around ovulating girls will have a normal erection. A girl's odor is what causes all erections in animated life. Therefore ED should be named "Erectile Normal Function" since procreation is the purpose for it.
What causes "erecting at will" is opposite internal natures between the two people - called love - but in all animal kinds (with a few usually humanly conditioned species exceptions) the boys erect only during the girls' heat. Since "Mystery Babylon" or U.S.A. controls most of the known world they have us "Babbling" many socially caused conditions as being natural when in fact they are conditioned behaviors.I'm sorry, but drug companies did not invent the inability to get an erection. Saying that it is proven but undocumented does more to confirm that than to deny it.
The fact that animals do not get erections without the presence of a female "in heat" is obviously incorrect - anyone with a male dog knows better than that after a few episodes with the owners leg.
But your comment that all animal kinds follow that pattern is also incorrect - several (if not all) of the Great Apes - which includes humans - do not follow that pattern. Bonobos even use sex as a "calm down!" tool by the matriarch of the group. Sex pretty much at will is alive and well in the animal kingdom just as it is in the human species.Wilderness,
I have 6 children that I know of and one I think was aborted. 3 of the six and the one I think was aborted were first conceptions and the other 3 were second or later with the closest of their siblings being 4 - therefore my belief is girls should nurse their child for 12 years until our milk teeth are replaced then the adolescent should leave home. My first conceptions's erections was so powerful that I think I might have raped them but they were as willing as I so it wasn't necessary, the second or later 3 the erections were strong but not like the first conceptions and the other somewhere around 50 other girls plus the other encounters with the girls who conceived my erections were most of the time just an erection I could of done with or without. That has proven it to me with one except when I took a "speed" pill and I had another reaction similar to the first conceptions.
If other boys were as observant as I am they would say the same thing. Another friend of mine who is, I believe, "spiritually conceived" and we talk about some of everything. He say there were times when his erection was so powerful he felt like he could rape the girls bu an inner voice prohibited him for engaging in sex. That is proof other than what happened to me during my sexual encounters to make my assessment concerning boys' sexual behavior.Amie,
You just red about how a boy has observed his own sexual activities that make human nothing more than a different breed of animated life. The one main difference is man and woman boys' penis don't protrude beyond their foreskin is why Adam and Eve in the metaphor lost most of their hair when civilization was formed.
The reason they were ashamed is because once Eve ovulated Adam's penis didn't extend beyond the hair like other animals so the hair was removed for mating using the foreskin. Later, because girls don't receive much if any pleasure from a foreskin penetration, circumcision was implemented. Still, most boys don't provide girls with pleasure other than orally.
Wilderness, Aren't those dogs "conditioned" by man?
No. And certainly the wild bonobos and other primates aren't either.
Jean Bakula, if the girl followed what I believe as I've said in the "The Sex Game" below the blame should be on the girl but as it is today the blame should be on the boys.
In this system man have made
To obtain a mate boys pursue a girl
Has become the general rule
All over this man made world.
In the natural order before this world
When man had sex only to procreate
Girl decided if and when to give birth
Choosing a boy as she began to ovulate.
If you are a girl and expect me to pursue you
After you give me your come on sign,
Forget it, take the place that's rightfully yours
And tell me what you want to save yourself time.
Daily I show I have an interest in you
And always make it known that I'm free,
Yet you play that role set by society
Waiting for the asking to come from me.
I don’t think it’s on pro-lifers to answer the question of how to reduce the abortion rate. I’m pro-choice but I don’t like the idea of abortion nor do I think it should be seen as a convenient method of birth control. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.
What’s on the pro-lifers is to figure out how to accommodate all the children that they’re wanting to force women to birth.
Anyway, how to reduce abortion rates... accurate and thorough sex education for everyone. None of this “abstinence” BS. Teach youth how to safely have sex and how to maximize efficacy of birth control methods. And then give them shame-free access to those birth control methods.... of course, birth control methods leads to conception. Abortion clinics freely distribute condoms because they know this is the case.
Its good for business.
I agree (with some minor editing):
"accurate and thorough sex education for everyone ... teach youth how to safely have sex (after they are married ...)
and how to maximize efficacy of birth control methods. And then (do not) give them ... access to those birth control methods."Well, condoms are not the only form of birth control. It’s the only one given freely by abortion clinics because it’s the cheapest form of it and easiest to supply. And also better than nothing.
I think you must have missed appropriate sex ed classes yourself if you believe that birth control leads to conception. Not being effective 100% of the time is not the same as being effective none of the time.And this is exactly why we have a problem. “Just don’t have sex” is not a realistic solution for the vast majority of people. So preaching that instead of teaching them about birth control leads to them having no idea how to best prevent pregnancy, and then feeling guilty when they DO get pregnant because they were told not to have sex in the first place. So... abortion looks pretty appealing at that point.
So preaching abstinence leads to not using birth control (and those being preached to do not listen.)
Thank you for isolating this difficulty.
I would agree.
But birth control is still risky.
and just saying "no" would be better.
Also, if men could just realize its all on them ... the happiness or unhappiness of this poor beguiled (or beguiling) girl ultimately leads to keeping his balls in his pants, or stepping up to the plate, when that fails.
Why is it so hard to not have sex when one is not ready to concieve????
Its not. But what IS hard ... is to think.
Its OKAY to Think!Because people like sex, and have sex for other reasons than procreation.
.... maybe they shouldn't. Maybe they should only have sex when they want to conceive.
But I've always hated the word should.
Its a human dilemma and the pro lifers need to answer it.You aren't going to change human nature.
Birth control methods are your answer.
Kathryn,
Marriage as we know it is a fairly new institution. Most marriages were arranged before New Testament times. Marriage had more to do with safety in tribes, or a way for tribes to keep peace, with wives as the offering. The bigger the family tribe, the better the safety.
Then marriage was used as a form of wealth management, the woman was "given" in marriage for a herd of goats, for example.
Later, as we get to New Testament times, people were supposed to suppress their desires and encouraged to be celibate, to be only with God, not their mate. The Old Testament or Torah believed marriage to be a dignified and moral social arrangement. But early Christians were more concerned with converting others to Christianity through Baptism, not in good parents bringing babies into the world. They thought the End of Days was near anyway. Even in marriage, couples who engaged in sex were considered impure and immoral. Remember St. Paul and his views on marriage?
The Christian Church basically wanted and still wants to control everybody. Then marriage was allowed, but divorce was not, under any circumstances. Men could still seek sex out of marriage and have many wives. But the woman had no rights at all. So the rules of marriage changed in whatever worked best for the Church.
Priests turned marriage into a life sentence for a woman, and it had nothing to do with love, or having babies in a secure "marital" relationship, as men had many children with many women. For ten centuries Christians did not consider marriage holy or sanctified at all. Christian men regarded marriage as a nasty, worldly affair that was only about sex and females, not about high concepts like divinity. So when modern religious conservatives wax poetic about what a sacred tradition marriage is, they are only correct if they are discussing Judaism. Christianity does not share an historical or consistent reverence towards matrimony. So all this talk about "premarital sex" is nonsense.
Peasants and Pagans had more freedom than Christian women, and the things you are saying are your incorrect understanding of the Biblical view of marriage, which you shouldn't push on others.
I once did a two year Bible study during which marriage and sex were discussed. I am also a student of religions. I am flipping between this forum and an article I wrote about the history of marriage.You need to brush up on your Christian religious beliefs if you think your abstinence until marriage argument is right. People have been ignoring that since the beginning of time.
On a better note, when you began the thread, I did agree with most of the points you made in what I believe was the 4th post you made. But many anti abortion activists don't want to understand that abortion is the most heart wrenching decision a woman ever has to make, and she thinks about it every day of her life. I've been with friends who did this and know the emotional costs. Also, many anti abortionists have had abortions, and are born again Christians, who want to bombard everyone with their "new' beliefs.Actually Jean,
The church handed all controls over to the "European" boys and, as they forced their beliefs on the people they concurred (Rev. 6:2) by preaching the story "about" Jesus - not his message that god is within us - and killing them into accepting it the concurred boys began to follow suit. Otherwise, well said because Christianity is primarily controlled "even today" by boys.
Think: "Do I want a soul coming into my womb and tyrannizing over ME?"
Not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a soul. Some people think it to be just a fertilized egg. I personally fall into the latter category, but I won’t rag on anyone who falls into the former. Those people certainly would not be wanting an abortion and all the power to them. It would just be nice if those same people respected the fact that those in the latter category have every right to make their own choices based on their own beliefs just like they do.
I agree. (Except, I do believe the soul is present at conception.)
But what is the position of the Pro-Lifers in regards to freedom of choice?
... for one thing, they do not agree to Planned Parenthood's allotment of taxpayer money.
Not getting pregnant when one cannot take care of their infant/toddler/child is tantamount to being patriotic, I would say.What one choses to believe doesn't change the fact that there is a life-force in the sperm that fertilizes the girl's egg, without there being one there is nothing to trigger the metamorphosis of the birthing process.
What one choses to believe doesn't change the fact that there is a life-force in the sperm that fertilizes the girl's egg, without there being one there is nothing to cause the metamorphosis of the birthing process.
There is a gamete containing reproductive fluids.
"A gamete is a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell during fertilization (conception) in organisms that sexually reproduce. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, and in which each individual produces only one type, a female is any individual that produces the larger type of gamete—called an ovum (or egg)—and a male produces the smaller tadpole-like type—called a sperm. In short a gamete is an egg (female gamete) or a sperm (male gamete). This is an example of anisogamy or heterogamy, the condition in which females and males produce gametes of different sizes (this is the case in humans; the human ovum has approximately 100,000 times the volume of a single human sperm cell. In contrast, isogamy is the state of gametes from both sexes being the same size and shape, and given arbitrary designators for mating type.
The name gamete was introduced by the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel. Gametes carry half the genetic information of an individual, one ploidy of each type, and are created through meiosis." Wikipedia/gamete"Ploidy (/ˈplɔɪdi/) is the number of complete sets of chromosomes in a cell, and hence the number of possible alleles for autosomal and pseudoautosomal genes.
Somatic cells, tissues and individuals can be described according to the number of sets present (the ploidy level): monoploid (1 set), diploid (2 sets), triploid (3 sets), tetraploid (4 sets), pentaploid (5 sets), hexaploid (6 sets), heptaploid or septaploid (7 sets), etc.
Humans are diploid organisms, carrying two complete sets of chromosomes: one set of 23 chromosomes from their father and one set of 23 chromosomes from their mother. The two sets combined provide a full complement of 46 chromosomes. This total number of chromosomes is called the chromosome number." From Wikipedia/ploidyEven with that, there is/was what is also called "stone babies" which is nothing but a glob of growing tissue that does not take any particular shape especially in the few times they are delivered naturally after nine months. There was a time when some girls never went to a doctor or midwife until their water broke. There was a doctor in Fort Worth, Texas who delivered one and the mother lived to tell about it.
KLH, I have talked with a girl who remembers entering her mother, later she wondered what was that behind her, a twin, she remembers her birth, the the doctor's name and names of the people in the room because she could read minds even as an early "Indigo Child" 40+ years ago. It is from her that I determined she entered through the boy's sperm.
Take it or leave it, there are some thing not written in "Wikipedia".she entered the egg, of course, after the flash. the flash occurs first as the sperm enters the ovum. it attracts a soul to come and enter the union. The strongest soul makes into the egg. there is a fight amongst many souls who are waiting to incarnate.
Her memory went back to flowing through the father and swimming to the egg.
That fight is there but "Destiny" requires which one will become what body at any given conception due to Karma.if there is "destiny" how can there be a fight?
of course you and I are just guessing.
But you know what? If we do not have intuition we can't do anything but guess!!!!!And the point is that the baby, (soul) has picked its parents. How sad to turn it away.
(convinced of my own guessing, I am.)Every war between nations or within nations is a predestined fight because Revelation 13:3's "I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast" predicted both the U.S. Civil War and Ronald Wilson Reagan (letters in all there parts equals 666) attempted assignation so that is not guessing but predestination as is everything else that happens within existence.
Her parents was her destiny to cause the living conditions that were/is affecting her behavior today. All causes, effects and consequences are predestined, thus, it allows the ability for foretelling them.
I’d go with “scientific process” rather than “life-force” personally
As a long time metaphysical student, most of us believe the soul comes into the body at birth.
And strangely, that opinion appears to be supported by the biblical text.
I agree with Aimee. Follow your conscience guided by your beliefs, freely. And give others respect and room to do the same.I agree with Aime too. In the Russian Orthodox Church, they believe the soul doesn't enter the child until they are baptized, which is often 6-8 weeks after the baby is born, old enough to be out with a group of people. Do some research Kathryn. Something not out of the right wing playbook. Jodi Picoult just wrote an excellent book called A Spark of Light, which covers both sides of the issue fairly and well. It's fiction, but also the reality we live in, and heavily researched. Read some of the books or material she used as sources at the end. I actually think you would like the book too, it's a fair look at both sides of a contentious issue.
Birth begins at the joining of the sperm with the egg as it began to morph into the child at it's completion should be realized, as a student of metaphysics.
Maybe no interest loans could be issued in instances were life is chosen.
Once a woman who finds herself in such a circumstance is on her feet, she could pay it back.one of these posts is likely the other is not.
hint: mine is more likely than TheO's.
How could walking through a field produce enough toxicity and target to cause expulsion of a zygote, embryo or fetus?
(That one is hard to believe, for me anyway.)I was told that by different types of native tribe in different areas of the the Americas, both Canada and US.
The life force/spirit/soul enters the union of sperm and egg and guides the process of development in creating a unique new person under the direction of its own DNA.
LOL. Without the ominous thunder clap as the pillar of fire burns brightly on the mountain we cannot assume God has spoken a truth. It's your opinion. A strange one, to boot.
"DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
And this is not strange???well, it is complicated and absolutely fascinating, is it not.
It is fascinating. But, nothing like a belief that a soul wanders around waiting to happen upon an egg and a sperm in close proximity.
One is the product of research, the other, just making things up as you go.its all product of imagination.
it either God's or ours.
The difference is that God's imagination manifests as reality.
What I say, that the soul exists on the other side, on the metaphysical side, is also spoken of by those who know the truth of the matter: that the soul continues on after death and reincarnates when it decides to take on a new body. You can believe it or not.
If you can't know for sure, but it makes sense to you, and gives you hope, why not believe it? And in so doing very possibly save a soul, who is attempting to incarnate, from the heartbreak of rejection!
or not.
... whatever.
Its up to you and what you want to believe
or not believe.
Completely up to you.
I choose to believe that my soul continues forever until I am reclaimed by God's light/bliss ...
and that I will reincarnate into the human body to experience life on earth,
(or some other planet,) until that happens.
.What one believes should be prefaced by that. 'I believe'. And beliefs should not be used to make negative statements about others. It is just a belief, after all.
Your "beliefs should not be used to make negative statements about others. It is just a belief, after all" gets a Thumbs Up from me, Live to Learn.
There is always sex with one; just use your imagination.
You don't have to have sex with someone else. People have the ability to imagine, unlike animals. Create your own porn.
Is this a skill which needs o be taught?
Isn't sex with one(self) probably the only and way to deal with human sexual urges when pregnancy/abortion is NOT an option?
Yet, I fear posting this!!!!!!!Is this a skill which needs o be taught?
I think the average 14 year old can figure it out for themselves lolThey would not be if their mother - there would not be marriage - had been a nomad during her adolescence and once conceived abstained then after birth nursed the child for 12 years then left it to fend for itself upon weaning.
That way the child would not have been around constant endearing activities that leads to sexual desires nor would it have been feeling the mother's emotions while in the womb.nurse the child for 12 YEARS? did you mean months?
No, not months and yes years.
The only milk for man, human and woman's children comes frogman and we ned it until our "milk teeth" are replaces at 12 years old. Compare man with the other mammals and that we will find.Well, it would certainly control the population! Few children at 12 years old could support themselves whether in the Amazon jungles or the streets of Detroit.
You must face reality. Humans will have sex. This will sometimes result in unwanted pregnancies, which will sometimes result in abortions. The most effective way to prevent abortions to to provide free and easy access to birth control for both men and women. People will not be dissuaded from having sex in significant numbers, no matter how hard you try.
That's the most logical conclusion, and the reason why abortion rates are so high in the U.S. And the current administration is doing all it can to close any facilities where women can get free or low cost birth control. This is seen especially in rural areas, where the nearest place can be hundreds of miles away.
I don't like to see abortions. But birth control sometimes doesn't work.
The U.S. is no longer an agrarian society where everyone needs a dozen kids to work on the farm. Many families have no children, or one, maybe two. Times change.
The conservative administration we are living under wants to control women, and is closing facilities and not providing funds for women's needs (also other people's needs). Places to get help are disappearing by the day. In MS, archaic rules are still on the books where the hallways of facilities have to be a certain width to stay open. A woman can abort until I believe 15 or 16 weeks, but the courts get involved and keep putting her off until her time runs out. In my opinion, I wouldn't have an abortion that far along, but if someone wants to, she shouldn't have to play games with rules they make up on the spot.Once the 16 wks. are up, if she does find a way to abort, she will be imprisoned for murder. Sharlee, that should make you happy. Not as many people want to adopt as you right to lifers think either. They only want white newborns.
As far as Planned Parenthood, they don't normally provide abortions, but it varies from state to state. If the state closes down every other place a women can go in case of an unexpected pregnancy, a Planned Parenthood may do it, but as a rule they are not equipped.
I've brought it up before, but many parents are remiss in discussing birth control with their children. But if a teacher tries to advise a teen who asks for help in that area, a parent can get the teacher fired for sexual harassment. In normal times the Board of Ed would back up the teacher, but now the teacher would just get fired. Another lost resource.
So conservatives don't want abortion, or any way for young people to get birth control. You can't have it both ways. And they only care about the fetus until birth. Then they complain about any services like food or diapers to help care for the child once it's born. I guess all you anti choice people make generous contributions to children's causes all the time, since you care about these children so much? I always contribute to an organization when I feel strongly about an issue, and always support Planned Parenthood, as well as other charities."And the current administration is doing all it can to close any facilities where women can get free or low cost birth control."
Low cost birth control (less than 50 cents per episode) is readily available in every drug store in the nation. Or by mail if you want. What do you want - a dispenser in every front yard!?Wilderness, have you seen the "Bar Codes" on birth certificates? The more birth the more money congress can barrow from the "Federal Reserve" to spend on the USA's war machine.
True Pretty Panther, humans and womans will have sex but man will not except according to the uncivilized order for sex which is reproduction.
"IF" human and woman were to go through the metamorphosis Jesus called "born again" and become man who objectively observe, participate to determine various outcomes and reason with them for determining the best course to follow they would choose the uncivilized path and indulge according to their reasonings. Thus, it boils down to the individual's destined state of consciousness.
Since human and woman's state of consciousness is sense gratification, almost nothing beyond it being their destiny will allow them to do anything other than what and the way they do things.
Now, how in sam hill can anyone teach something like that?
Be specific.Kathryn,
I'm shocked! The Bible takes a very dim view on this.show where! So that is worse than conceiving out of wedlock?
No, I don't think so. I was kidding (see smiley face)? Actually for people interested in celibacy, meditation is a help in that area.
I know. I saw the smiley face, but I was not amused ... because seriously, the Catholic Church has traditionally considered it a sin, as I recall!
I just wonder where they get that?
The Catholic church really needs to become little more helpful. They do not believe in birth control, they do not believe in sex with one(self,) and they do not allow priests to have wives. For some reason, the Catholic Church has so many problems and so few answers!Agreed. I totally understand your position. I just don't see enough people getting on birth control, and unless they do, it's going to result in illegal abortions, much more dangerous than what we have, but are losing the right to have, now.
I don't like the Democratic position on late term abortion either. I can agree if a woman is maybe 4-6 weeks pregnant, because it's just a group of cells (my opinion). But I am afraid if we limited the time frame that a woman could have an abortion, we would have more situations like what I described in MS, and how the courts get involved, and drag their feet until it's way too late. Then sometimes I've heard the woman takes a morning after pill or another pill she somehow obtained. If it doesn't work, then the child is born, but has no Mom, she's in prison. That's an awful scenario too.
Teaching about birth control, making more methods for men and getting them to man up and do it, and making it more accessible is the only sensible answer. Women take risks to be on many methods of birth control. I have examples from my own life, because women have many childbearing years. But it's too personal for a public forum.Thanks Jean, for bringing this issue into the higher chakras!
"Sigmund Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity and civilization, allowing people to function normally in culturally acceptable ways. He defined sublimation as the process of deflecting sexual instincts into acts of higher social valuation, being "an especially conspicuous feature of cultural development; it is what makes it possible for higher psychical activities, scientific, artistic or ideological, to play such an "important" part in civilized life". Wade and Travis present a similar view, stating that sublimation is when displacement "serves a higher cultural or socially useful purpose, as in the creation of art or inventions".
Yes, meditation and a lot of other great endeavors!
Sublimation, I believe its called.You are most welcome. Celibacy can result in increased creativity in many areas of life.
The Catholic church seems to have thought so, anyway.
Another way is to get out of social living and into an individual nomad live which my experiences have proven eliminate most sexual desires.
Humans have the capability to have control over themselves.
We have a lot of leeway and have less built-in instinctual mechanisms than animals. We were made in the Image of SPIRIT which equals love and logic, as God is loving and logical. He wants us to guide our wills according to the Intelligence we all innately have.
For goodness sakes, have sex (with someone else) if you wish to have a child together and you have the means to provide for that child for the rest of its life. After all, children need the help of their parents, preferably both of them! Humans love their offspring and the offspring love their parents their whole long lives.
Just abstain, (from having sex with others), sublimate and or meditate until you meet someone you fall in love with and you both want to share your love with a new human.
Love is something you feel on a level that is everlasting.
Okay?
Presto No more abortions!~!!!!!I agree, but people are people are people.......
Kathryn,
I believe out of all the posts in this thread, you are the only one who mentioned LOVE. I could never imagine having sex without love, or taking the chance of bringing a child into a loveless relationship. 182 posts about birth control and sex, and only one person mentions love. Isn't it odd nobody brought up that one component? And you mentioned Spirit too. I am going back to read some of your work.Maybe you didn't read one of mine, Jean, but I did mention it when I was explaining my sexual experiences, so make that only 2 mentioning of love.
Not only humans but every type of being within the Zeroverse is in its image.
And yes, human are made in the image of god and in it's likeness but that is all until they have completed their learning process by experiencing every individual attribute of god individually as both genders. That's the purpose for "the knowledge of good and evil" at this material civilization foundation and "law of karma" throughout eternity.
Until human have gone through the metamorphosis called for us "born again" we are like tadpoles in water that only recognizes half of life, after the new birth we become like frogs and grow into understanding both water life and land life. Therefore human/woman don't have logical they have only an half view of life on earth but after the our "rebirthing" into man we then grow out of our ignorance and into understanding life obtaining logic unbound selfish love.
Earth's life is predestine and we can't change it, the thing to do is "as much as possible" stop being selfish and judgmental and allow everyone to live the life of their destiny. If one's karma require aborting it is their destiny so let them be, if it isn't that yours be satisfied that it isn't but don't disturb your peace of mind working to prohibit what "god" put in its will for others.
Da darr, you have peace of mind and they have theirs.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
0As a kind of a side note ; What does anyone think of the newest info showing fully one third + of childbirths are now C-sections ? I believe the number released this week is 35% .
They say it is safer for the baby to not have to pass through the birth canal. Women are afraid their own passage way will harm the baby.
Fear is at the root of C sections. Perhaps it is a more noble and unselfish thing to do?
I would rather not be cut down the middle and given anesthesia. I would rather allow the body to do its thing, (which is amazing) and be conscious as it is happening. But each to their own. We have the technology and the drugs. Maybe good for another thread.Who is “they”?
Passing through the birth canal exposes babies to their mother’s bacteria which helps promote digestion and immune functioning. The pressure of the birth canal also helps clear out their lungs.
C-sections pose plenty of risks to both mothers and babies and should really only be performed in emergencies.Money is the root of C sections.
Doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies make a lot more money from C sections than they do from natural births.
Our doctor rejected a C section even though my wife went through 44 hours of labor (without pain killers) before finally giving birth.
Those were the days when we weren't getting burned by out-of-control medical care.Your doctor wanted to spare you the expense?
He made a rational, common sense medical decision without any need to make money from it.
"Money is the root of C sections. "
An obvious, easy conclusion that demonizes those selling something by simply saying "Doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies make a lot more money from C sections than they do from natural births." without ever looking at or examining other, potential, causes or why the decision was made. A simple assumption that it was for money does not mean that it was. Not even my suspicion that your answer is correct means that it is.
I rather believe, KLH, the natural birthing without doctors' and midwives' aid strengthens the child like the Butterfly exiting the cocoon, if it has help it dies, therefore I would say the "C-section" birth is one major contributing factor for children's not being able to function mentally as they grow up.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Or as I fear , like everything today from drug abuse , opioids , prescription addictions , marijuana freedoms , that we are evolving a populace who wish for no pain , no sacrifice , a numbing of senses for all of life . The "I want all of the rewards of my living without any of the personal sacrifices "?
I’m not really sure what that has to do with anything... recovering from major abdominal surgery is not the “easy” way to birth a child.
Ed is a boy, I would think Aime, so what would you expect?
If you guys had read it as I said "as a side note " , too many people are so focused on "no pain " for anything in life that nothing surprises me . In fact I Was listening to a discussion of C sections yesterday with two women , When I mentioning 37 % of births as C- sections released this week and one of them said , "We can then pick the birth dates "..........
Humanity is getting weirder , if that's even possible .
Related Discussions
- 322
Every Dem Voted for Late Term Abortion Up to Nine Months?
by Jackie Lynnley 5 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
- 19
Don't Be Fooled Pro-Life Is The Real Pro-Choice
by Thinkaboutit77 15 years ago
People who are pro-life are really pro-choice because it is the pro-lifers who wish to give the unborn child a CHOICE rather than have the choice made for them.The pro-choice movement is really a pro-abortion movement because abortion is a big business, there's a LOT of money involved in this side...
- 257
The Abortion Debate and Cotraception for Minors
by Chris Mills 11 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
- 96
Regarding Human Conception:
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Presently, a woman has, by law, the freedom to end her pregnancy. After all, its her life and her body. Is this issue, free-choice abortion, a matter of politics? Social science/politics is about what is good for society as a whole. Is abortion good or bad in the light of what is best for...
- 64
Is Using Birth Control a Sin?
by Mikel G Roberts 14 years ago
If using birth control is a sin... and since abstinence is a form of birth control, doesn't that make abstinence a sin?If abstinence is a sin... is being celibate an even greater sin?And the final point, if birth control in any form is a sin, then anytime we don't have sex at every opportunity are...
- 583
killing babies??
by Amber Musselman 14 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I don't really think that abortion should be able to be done. I come from a...