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.
1. Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
2. Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
3. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy (Landmark Law Cases & American Society)
Sentiment score: -1
Number of reviews: 1
Used Book in Good Condition
4. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Used Book in Good Condition
5. Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
7. Willing and Unable: Doctors' Constraints in Abortion Care
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
8. The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life
Sentiment score: -1
Number of reviews: 1
9. Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
ATRIA 37 INK
10. Raising White Kids: Bringing Up Children in a Racially Unjust America
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
11. Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family 'Equality'
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
American Fighter Spring 2020 CollectionWhite/Bright TealModel measurements: 5’5” height, 32” bust, 24” waist, 33” hips, wearing a size S.65% Cotton, 35% PolyesterThe graphics and design of this tee will make you stand out for any occasion
12. Old Sparky: The Electric Chair and the History of the Death Penalty
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
A New York Times Bestseller A shocking exploration of America’s preferred method of capital punishment.
13. This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Used Book in Good Condition
>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.
>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:
​
>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.
>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..
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
95% of women dont regret their abortions
Not everyone wants children and women do regret becoming mothers
https://www.amazon.com/Regretting-Motherhood-Study-Orna-Donath/dp/1623171377
The nursing personalities of newborns were first described and classified by Edith Banfield Jackson, MD, a Yale University researcher in the 50s:
After a couple days of this, I was reading the book Your Baby’s First Year, from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and came across a section, called Getting to Know Your Baby’s Feeding Patterns, that ---> described five different nursing personalities<---, including the “Excited Ineffectives” — infants who “become frantic at the sight of the breast.”
The breastfeeding types were characterized by Yale University researcher Edith Jackson, M.D., during the 1950s, when she observed hundreds of nursing newborns in the university hospital’s maternity ward. If you had a healthy, full-term baby, you might recognize your tiny sucker in one — or all — of these profiles (adapted from the AAP’s Your Baby’s First Year and the original Yale study). (Second full paragraph)
The book can be found here
----->>>>> Now, describe the personality of the zygote at conception. <<<<<-----
My kiddo is 3, so I'm certainly no expert. It seems there's at least one book about the subject: https://smile.amazon.com/Raising-White-Kids-Bringing-Children/dp/1501856421?sa-no-redirect=1
And many online resources: https://rebeccahains.com/2014/12/05/raising-white-children-to-be-anti-racist-allies/
https://mashable.com/2017/07/27/black-parents-white-allies-support/
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:
sources:
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
https://books.google.nl/books?dq=Cheng,+T.C.,+General+Parasitology,+p.+7,+1973&amp;hl=en&amp;id=d4GQlYzode8C&amp;lr=&amp;oi=fnd&amp;ots=l6EmR3PEvV&amp;pg=PP1&amp;sig=wr-51nFxVEYVcWvVnLhfGq8jVls&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Cheng%2C%20T.C.%2C%20General%20Parasitology%2C%20p.%207%2C%201973&amp;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
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