It strikes me as odd that the pro-life movement is hellbent on banning abortion outright. Change like this overnight will simply drive abortion underground, throwing women into the hands of shady back alley “Doctors”.
Let us assume these principles for the purpose of this thread.
[quote]1. Humans like sex (crazy, I know).
2. You will not be able to stop non-procreational sex. Ever. To understand why, see 1.
3. Religious musings on sex are irrelevant to this discussion. Not everyone follows the same God, or even any God.
4. Consensual non-procreational sex helps with pair bonding.[/quote]
Now, here is some data, feel free to skip it, but don’t complain it was not provided.
Pregnancy rates for Contraception:
- Abstinence (0%)
- The implant (0.05%)
- Vasectomy (0.15%)
- IUD with Progestogen (0.2%)
- Tubal Litigation (0.5%)
- Depo Provera (0.3%)
- The Pill (0.3% - 8%, largely dependent on education on use)
- Condoms (2% - 15%, again dependent on education on proper use)
- Symptoms based fertility awareness (25%)
- The rhythm method (25%)
- Pulling out (27%)
- Spermicidal Gel (29%)
- None (85%)
Now, we move into the realm of speculation, but again we abide by the principles stated above.
Is there any doubt that providing education on the use of contraception, and providing easy access to said contraceptives would lower abortion rates? This idea, which I can’t even claim as my own, has the benefit of:
a.) Leaving females with choice.
b.) Lowering abortion rates substantially*
Promiscuity is not going to increase noticeably, we already live in a highly sexualized society. Contraception use on the other hand, would be encouraged and rise in use very noticably. Development of contraception for males would also play a large part in this, I have mentioned RISUG before and I will mention it again. Non-hormonal birth control for men, offering a double up and even further reducing pregnancy rates on contraception.
Now, after this wall of text, discuss.
Also, pic unrelated.[/quote]
I think the core point of the other thread was not really whether or not we can or should criminalize abortion, but was an attempt to logically justify our positions first, one way or the other.
I actually think you have a point, though I disagree with much of it. Your argument is certainly much better than a lot of what we’ve been dealing with on the other thread, and you appear to realize it. The problem is that your solution here still doesn’t address the core issue:
If abortion is the intentional snuffing out of an individual human life, then any instance of abortion is, indeed, murder. And if this is true, then talk of “scaling back” the murder (my terminology) starts to look absurd. That’s why we keep finding ourselves back at square one so often.
Here are my honest thoughts: We live in a society that worships both sexuality and self-indulgence. My time in Japan has made it that much more poignantly clear how differently the West views individualism to the detriment of all else. It makes an idol of the individual, and the idea that doing and having whatever it is that YOU want to do and have is the one inviolable dogma of this new postmodern religion.
How many times have we heard,on this very forum, from both sides of the aisle and up the middle, “People should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t affect anybody else.” Well that’s all well and good, and I actually agree with it in theory, except that almost every one of our actions inescapably affects those around us. And the effect of those actions, like ripples in a pond, will spread to affect others, until you can really start to envision the butterfly effect without much trouble.
And so now you have a culture that worships the immediate and absolute indulgence of our every whim, and you apply that to the real world issue of dealing with the consequences of those actions, and suddenly you reach an impasse, and a decision must be made. I want to have sex whenever I want, with who I want, how I want. Well that’s fine, but it IS a choice you have engaged in (we are dealing with the rape/non-consensual side of this issue in the other thread, so I will omit this here for the sake of brevity). And, despite all attempts to reframe the argument and change the definitions of words and relabel and twist the issue into all manner of shapes, not one person has been able to convincingly argue that the product of that willful decision is anything other than an individual human life.
And so now we come full circle. After all of the sound and fury, what we are left with is the creation of a new human life, who should by all means be afforded all of the rights and privileges as his fellow men. The right to LIFE, first of all.
When I look at it that way, I’m sorry, but I just don’t have a lot of patience for finding a middle ground for murdering for the sake of our convenience.We should not just get to do whatever we want. To snuff out an innocent life. Because someone is not ready. Or too young. Or too poor. Or just can’t be bothered. Shit, these are the last people on earth in whom I would want to place the power of life and death.