Top products from r/Abortiondebate

We found 20 product mentions on r/Abortiondebate. We ranked the 16 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Abortiondebate:

u/Veritas-VosLiberabit · 0 pointsr/Abortiondebate

>The direct quote from the OP is "Allowing easier access to sterilization" so, no, allowing access to something and forcing it on people are not the same things.

Given that some of the other comments on this post suggest the possibility of giving out 10-year hormonal birth control implants to all the women, this question is worth clarifying on. I've had discussions before where it was suggested that all men be required to have mandatory (hopefully reversible) vasectomies which they would I guess have to get permission to reverse back if they ever wanted to have children.

>Why word that this way? Women are sexual beings, too, and can be attracted to someone and initiate sex without being "seduced". They're free agents.

I think that you're ignoring the huge factor that the male partners have in forcing women to have abortions because they threaten to leave. Do you think that the majority of single mothers are raising their children alone because they or their male partner refused to continue the relationship with the child? I think it's overwhelmingly the latter. That's why I phrased it the way that I did. Do you know where we might get the numbers on what proportion of the time an abortion is being had more so because of the wishes of the male vs. the wishes of the female?

>Are you aware of the laundries, boarding schools, mother and baby homes, and so on that existed around the world as places for unwed mothers to go during pregnancy to hide them away?

Well first of all those institutions were actually pretty rare relatively speaking (only about 10,000 women went through the laundries in Ireland) and were really the exception rather than the rule. They mostly served women at the bottom of the economic spectrum who were in danger of becoming beggars or prostitutes. Women came and went as they pleased, often leaving after a few months when they were able to find better employment elsewhere, were reclaimed by a family member, etc.

>Laundries were notorious for horrifying abuse

Citation please? The academics who have looked into the history of the laundries tell something of a different story.

>People have freedom of choice in countries with the NHS. They can choose to utilize the NHS or they can shell out for a private doctor like we do in the states.

The problem is that in socialized countries the income tax is something like 60 percent to subsidize those sub-par services. You don't have enough disposable income to go and get private treatment and you don't have the freedom to choose how your money is going to be spent.

>they use the NHS instead of dying or going bankrupt like we do in the US.

The average time to get treatment from a specialist in Canada is 19.8 weeks after being referred by your general practitioner. Forgive me for thinking that I would much rather get a private plan myself and be responsible for my own decisions.

>Most people fail to follow through because their child of choice, usually a healthy white baby, isn't available.

You work in the field? This says that white adoptees are under-represented with Asian and mixed-race adoptions being over-represented. Where are you getting your data from?

>Considering the sheer number of children aging out of the foster care system, don't you think they would still be better off with parents of the same sex, or a single parent, than living in a group home and being homeless on their 18th birthday even if your "studies" were factual?

If you want to read a book written by children who were adopted by gay and lesbian couples that argues against gay and lesbian adoption, I'd recommend this one. What a lot of it comes down to is the modeling of behavior. A little girl adopted by two gay men will feel her femininity repressed because she does not have a mother to model her behavior and expectations off of. For a lot of these kids, this results in them having internal conflicts and their own gender confusion. Something like 30 percent of adopted kids come out as LGBT themselves, compared to only something like 2 percent of the general population.

u/cr0ss0vr12 · 2 pointsr/Abortiondebate

>I have never heard anyone say that a zygote is a individual organism, it isn't a distinct species, its simply a stage of early fetus development in humans.

At this point you're just arguing genetics with genetics textbooks and other reputable sources that agree, a distinct human being is created at fertilization:

  1. “A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being.”
    1. Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)
  2. “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
    1. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2)
  3. “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]”
    1. Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55)
  4. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
    1. Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]
  5. “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. … At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun[.]”
    1. Considine, Douglas [ed.], Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
  6. “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
    1. Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
  7. “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
    1. “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune Congressional Testimony
  8. “Zygote: The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.”
    1. Planned Parenthood
  9. "The sperm and egg merge to form a little single-celled organism called a zygote, which consists of the 23 chromosomes from the man's sperm and the 23 chromosomes from the female's egg.”
    1. HowStuffWorks
  10. “Zygote : fertilized egg; one-celled organism;”
    1. Oklahoma School of Math and Science
  11. "Organism, being a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently"
    1. Hyperdictionary.com
  12. "Conception and Fertilization! The egg and sperm meet, creating a single cell organism called a zygote."
    1. Pregnancy.org
  13. "The egg and sperm will meet, creating a single cell organism called a zygote "
    1. Maternity Corner
  14. "When sperm reaches and is able to fertilize a female's egg, the first building block of life is created in the form of a one-cell organism called a zygote."
    1. Ehow.com
  15. "Upon the uniting of a sperm and an ovum, a single celled organism called a “zygote” is formed. This single celled organism consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes, in other words, 46 single chromosomes, of which 23 are inherited from father and the remaining 23 are inherited from the mother. "
    1. Educational Weblog
  16. "If a woman has intercourse around the time of ovulation, one sperm cell out of millions of sperm that are deposited into the vagina, may fertilize the egg within the fallopian tube. The result is a single-celled organism called a zygote."
    1. Basic Reproductive Biology for Lawyers ; Anne Borkowski, MD
  17. http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-human-zygote-is-organism-and-why-it.html
  18. https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

    ​

    >There are no positives for your altered definition, and its definitely not how the terminology is used in the scientific or medical field.

    I literally just gave the biggest positive for why I would like to use my definition. The second reason is that it's not alerted, but rather the proper definition and I don't like it when helpful definitions are hijacked.
u/cand86 · 5 pointsr/Abortiondebate

>You don't order up what procedures you want done like they're on a restaurant menu.

You'd be surprised. There's an excellent book- Jennifer Block's Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care that I really love, that goes into depth about how many non-medically indicated Cesarean sections we perform here in the U.S..

u/angpuppy · 1 pointr/Abortiondebate

Apparently, the violinist argument was first made in 1971. It was a moral philosophy paper by Judith Thompson. If you want to know how the debate looked in the 60s and before, I'd suggest reading Defenders of the Unborn. https://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Unborn-Pro-Life-Movement-before/dp/0199391645

u/TheExplodingKitten · 3 pointsr/Abortiondebate

Well now you are completely changing your argument. I take it you have abandoned your defense of your OP.

An unborn child cannot be biologically categorised as a parasite. Prochoicers call it a parasite to degrade the unborn child. Killers have to degrade before they kill. It's the number one rule of killing. Jews weren't considered humans or germans in nazi Germany. At the time the propaganda was "They look like us act like us but they aren't us". They too, were called parasites


Whether you could categorise an unborn child as a parasite or not is actually kind of irrelevant. It would make your argument solely rely on the negative semantics we have of that word in the English language. That's not a strong argument. However I will indulge in some science:

  1. A parasite is an organism of one species that lives in or on an organism of another species and receives nourishment from the host.

  2. Parasites are invasive organism that come from an outside or external source. A fetus comes from an inside or internal source (ie fertilized egg)

  3. Parasites are generally harmful to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.

  4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).


  5. When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).


  6. Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.

  7. A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.

  8. Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.

  9. Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.

  10. The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.

    sources:

    http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

    https://books.google.nl/books?dq=Cheng,+T.C.,+General+Parasitology,+p.+7,+1973&hl=en&id=d4GQlYzode8C&lr=&oi=fnd&ots=l6EmR3PEvV&pg=PP1&sig=wr-51nFxVEYVcWvVnLhfGq8jVls&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Cheng%2C%20T.C.%2C%20General%20Parasitology%2C%20p.%207%2C%201973&f=false

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/i-am-pro-life/is-the-fetus-a-parasite/452615701428057/

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-embryo-as-a-transplant/

    https://www.amazon.com/Position-Modern-Science-Beginning-Human/dp/0937930024
u/BestGarbagePerson · 8 pointsr/Abortiondebate

Sanger never was for abortion. Her entire career was spent advocating for legalizing birth control. As in condoms, diaphrams, spermicide and the pill.

Your wiki link only touches the surface on the debate, it does not provide any direct evidence. Of which I've seen btw, the letter in question. So too have I seen her bio where she talks about talking to the KKK she didn't want to but her whole life was dedicated to spreading the message of contraception to as many people as possible.)

Sanger also testified to Congress and Judges her fundamental belief that abused mothers create abused children. She was ahead of her time. Now we know for a fact that even our own epigenetics are influenced by generational trauma. That was the extent of her eugenics. She was exceedingly against the classist inequities that enabled rich white women to procure knowledge and means to birth control (and knowledge about sex) while the poor and minorities were denied this right.

Just look at her life, she was the 8th child of (was it 12 I can't remember,) and her mother was chronically pregnant, chronically ill and died at a young age (40s) of illness. While her father (who supposedly was a total jerk) lived on til his 80s, spry and healthy. Why do you think she is pro birth control then?

Ironically too btw, in the same Congressional hearings of which she testified about her belief that denying women reproductive control was abusive...that the people against it (some even Catholic Bishops...I can drop a name if you want although I'll have to go through my book again) were literally testifying in Congress about the need for white women to have "at least 4 children each" to save the European race.

It's a classic narcissist/propaganda move to accuse the opposing side of the thing you were actually doing. Which btw, it was the religious who appointed themselves "guardians of white culture" who were the most racist, throughout all the time that Sanger fought for the right to BC, and before that time, when the Comstock Act was originally passed.

BTW, all this is directly from a book I'm reading about the SCOTUS case Griswold V Connecticut. This is not a pro-choice book, but a legal text by a law professor on the history of the right to birth control in the US.

I highly suggest you read it.

https://www.amazon.com/Griswold-v-Connecticut-Constitutional-Landmark/dp/0700613781