Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

Quote:

Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction

I would love to see that study. Please post a link if it is available.

Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work. There is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others. It is known, however that when they do become sexually active, teens who received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. In fact, 88 percent of students who pledged virginity in middle school and high school still engage in premarital sex. The students who break this pledge are less likely to use contraception at first intercourse, and they have similar rates of sexually transmitted infections as non-pledgers (Walters, 2005; Bearman and Brueckner, 2001). Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active (AGI, 2003a; Jemmott, et al., 1998; Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2000; NARAL, 1998).

The U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world, and American adolescents are contracting HIV faster than almost any other demographic group. The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is at least twice that in Canada, England, France, and Sweden, and 10 times that in the Netherlands. Experts cite restrictions on teens' access to comprehensive sexuality education, contraception, and condoms in the U.S., along with the widespread American attitude that a healthy adolescence should exclude sex. By contrast, the "European approach to teenage sexual activity, expressed in the form of widespread provision of confidential and accessible contraceptive services to adolescents, is . . . a central factor in explaining the more rapid declines in teenage childbearing in northern and western European countries" (Singh & Darroch, 2000). California, the only state that has not accepted federal abstinence-only money, has seen declines in teenage pregnancy similar to those seen in European countries. Over the last decade, the teenage pregnancy rate in California has dropped more than 40 percent ("California reduces...," 2004).

I'd like to throw a hypothetical situation out there for the men in this discussion.

Suppose you were a low wage earner and you and your wife have three kids under 5 years of age. You are not making ends meet. She can't work because you can't afford childcare for 3 (it would add up to more than she could bring in by working). You don't have health insurance. Your wife has been getting as much free birth control as possible, but she becomes pregnant with a 4th child anyway. Your home is already at the breaking point. The two of you are not incredibly happy because of the stress of the bills and the kids and the knowledge that with each birth of an additional child, the resources for the kids you have must be redistributed among them so that your hopes for their future are diluted. Your wife's body is also stressed from the three successive births and breast feeding. She's mildly anemic and her pregnancy causes violent mood swings that make life at home even more unbearable -- especially for the kids. Both of you believe that the stress of another pregnancy and the forthcoming child will mean the end of your marriage. The idea of giving a child you created to strangers to raise is unbearable. Do you consider abortion? What if you want her to have an abortion and she doesn't? What if she wants an abortion and you don't? What is your responsibility to the children that you already have? Should you stop having sex with your wife until she reaches menopause to avoid further unwanted pregnancies?

Intrepid wrote:

dora17 wrote:

p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".

When it joins with the egg

That's a good answer.

Certainly better than any Dora has put forth. She seems to think a baby -- err "parasite" -- only becomes a person upon emergence from the birth canal.

Ticomaya wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

dora17 wrote:

p.s. to tony: i agreed with a lot of what you said, like when the right to an abortion ends, once the baby can survive outside the mother... sorry if you felt i quoted you too much out of context, i was just interested in that question of when a "seed becomes a person".

When it joins with the egg

That's a good answer.

Certainly better than any Dora has put forth. She seems to think a baby -- err "parasite" -- only becomes a person upon emergence from the birth canal.

I don't "seem" to think that-- i DO think that, and I don't see how you feel it's logical to just arbitrarily say that the answer "when a sperm joins an egg" is better than "when it is no longer physically connected to its mothers body." Both answers have validity in some ways, but an embryo is just not biologically the same as a person. If we are talking about science, the answer is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person. If we're talking about what individuals feel the answer is morally, then neither answer is right or wrong, and it's pretty
high-handed of you to say that my answer is invalid. I don't say people who think that a fertilized egg is a person are wrong, i just say that they shouldn't be able to use law to force their beliefs on others.

Of course your answer is wrong.

Of course your answer is wrong. Life begins at conception ... that's the best answer.

Ticomaya wrote:

Of course your answer is wrong. Life begins at conception ... that's the best answer.

You care to provide any supporting evidence, Tico?