legislating morality

[z0wb13]

That being said, when a woman goes to an abortion clinic, fills out the paperwork, pays for the procedure, etc, I think it is safe to assume that is premeditated. Plain and simple, it is a decision made before the act, not during it. This clearly fits the bill of 1st degree murder.

you sound like you watch a lot of television. in law and order, what are the usual motivations for murder? think hard;p they are none of the same motivations to actually have an abortion. on tv, people murder each other because they were going to lose something invaluable, or they covet their neighbors asses, or some other black/white trope about justice.

and don’t get me wrong, i love jack. he’s the only character whose name i can remember (sam wasterson, waterson, something?) and he’s a lapsed catholic;p

but let’s say that i’m married, i have four kids, and i have just enough money to send 4 of them to college. and that’s it. that’s the motivation for getting an abortion, one of a multitude of possible motivations. think harder;p would jack mccoy prosecute that mom for murder?

probably not. and mccoy is a bulldog. he goes after everybody. but he is smart enough to realize that a case that would conflate abortion with murder holds no water.

 

[bz5]

you sound like you watch a lot of television. in law and order, what are the usual motivations for murder? think hard;p they are none of the same motivations to actually have an abortion. on tv, people murder each other because they were going to lose something invaluable, or they covet their neighbors asses, or some other black/white trope about justice.

and don’t get me wrong, i love jack. he’s the only character whose name i can remember (sam wasterson, waterson, something?) and he’s a lapsed catholic;p

but let’s say that i’m married, i have four kids, and i have just enough money to send 4 of them to college. and that’s it. that’s the motivation for getting an abortion, one of a multitude of possible motivations. think harder;p would jack mccoy prosecute that mom for murder?

probably not. and mccoy is a bulldog. he goes after everybody. but he is smart enough to realize that a case that would conflate abortion with murder holds no water.

Aren’t some states, at least, allowing prosecution for two murders when someone kills a pregnant woman?

 

[z0wb13]

Aren’t some states, at least, allowing prosecution for two murders when someone kills a pregnant woman?

i don’t know; you tell me. i don’t have time to do everyone else’s research, so if you want to know, do a google search. have fun and good luck!

 

[Mumbles140]

**1)**i think if you knew more about human reproduction, it would make more sense to you. but i can’t be bothered to look it up for you right now.

**2)**if abortion is a kind of premeditated murder…

**3)**human pregnancy…but, explain how this isn’t a religious position? …i am only pointing out that your snapple-top “facts” are either wrong or incomplete.

**4)**having “unique” dna doesn’t mean that something is alive. no science book in the world would make this claim. a dead fish is teeming with unique dna. a blastocyst is not a person in any objective reality. you could claim that zygotes are sacred, and should be legally protected, but it will be very difficult to prove that something is sacred without making supernatural assumptions.

1. You quoted me on something I misspoke on. I had intended to say that conception does not begin at implantation. This was reinforced by my closing statement in that paragraph, where I say that pregnancy may occur with implantation, but the living organism is there already - hence, conception has already occurred. If not, what would be implanting itself in the womb?
2. I am not a medical expert, but I was unaware that women could be certain that they could get pregnant but not carry to term. I’ve known women who have had multiple miscarriages, and yet still try because they haven’t been told they are infertile. There is no deliberate act to end the pregnancy. This is reflected by the Church’s stance on ‘risky’ pregnancies for the mother. If the mother needs a procedure done to save her life that will result in the death of the child, it is not an abortion. However, if the procedure’s purpose is to end the life of the child, it is an abortion. Intent matters, so a woman getting pregnant and having a miscarriage has no intent. The same holds true in the law. Also, you don’t even try to deny that, if you recognize a pre-born child as a human, than first-degree murder is the appropriate charge.
3. The charges you are making about my beliefs are true - those are my religious beliefs. But you have yet to refute the facts that I have presented in the case that life begins at conception. Also in your response, you discuss the ‘unique DNA’ point, and refute that as it is. But my point isn’t that unique DNA, by itself, proves life. However, if you take into account unique human DNA (human DNA = not a cancer, so melanoma point is moot), separate from its parents (i.e. not part of the mother’s body, though residing in it), that is living (negates the dead fish argument), the conclusion must be that this is a human.

Let me try to present it as a logical argument.

P1: Every human has DNA that is unique from his or her’s parents’ DNA, and only human beings have human DNA.
P2: Every human being is comprised of living cells - non-living beings do not have living cells.
P3: An organism existing in the body of another organism can be separate from the host (i.e. it is not simply ‘part’ of the host, but a different organism).
P4: At conception, cells from the mother and father merge to create an organism comprised of living cells, separate from the mother’s body, that has a unique set of human DNA.
Therefore, at conception, there is the creation of a living set of cells distinct from the parents. This means it is a live organism. Because that organism has human DNA, it is a human being.

If you want to argue any of the premises, I will gladly have a discussion with you about them. If you don’t see a logical connection between the premises and conclusion, please let me know. And lastly, if you see any mention of God, or any premise resting solely on religious beliefs (just because the religious beliefs coincide with the facts doesn’t mean the facts are invalid), please alert me that I am resorting to religious arguments.

1. What is your definition of a zygote as it pertains to humans? My understanding is that it is the organism created after the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm. I know you think I’m pretty shaky on scientific fact, but I believe this ‘fertilization’ event leading to the creation of a ‘zygote’ is, in layman’s terms, conception. Since my argument is that life begins at conception, than yes, I recognize it as sacred. And yes, my religion recognizes all life as sacred, as do most religions and societies, the Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and plenty of other secular bodies. Just because my religious beliefs agree with my arguments doesn’t mean my arguments are based on my religious beliefs.

And I still don’t recall if you ever offered up any scientific evidence supporting your religious beliefs concerning the importance of ‘breath’. If you simply recognize it as religious beliefs and are not making claims of it being factually accurate, then please say so. But, if you belief your beliefs are backed by science, please provide the science supporting it. If you already stated this or provided the arguments, my apologies that I missed them - let me know and I will search for them in the thread.

 

[Mumbles140]

you sound like you watch a lot of television. in law and order, what are the usual motivations for murder? think hard;p they are none of the same motivations to actually have an abortion…

but let’s say that i’m married, i have four kids, and i have just enough money to send 4 of them to college. and that’s it. that’s the motivation for getting an abortion, one of a multitude of possible motivations. think harder;p would jack mccoy prosecute that mom for murder?

Arguing that, because I enjoy Law and Order, my points are invalid isn’t really making a point at all. I laid out the legal guidelines for 1st degree murder, which no one refuted. Without refute, I believe they are an accurate generalization. That being said, the rest of your points are not related to this argument. However, I’ll humor your request about ‘motives’.

You say the motivations are never the same. I disagree. People murder other people to keep secrets. A teenage girl who is pregnant may not want her parents to find out for fear of punishment, etc. That’s as far as I’ll go in making comparisons.

You also note the case of the mother of four (you, in your paragraph). Though you didn’t specifically say it, the assumption is that she has enough money to send 4 kids to college, becomes pregnant with a 5th, and decides to abort rather than not have the money to send the 5th to college. Whether a fictional TV character would prosecute or not is pointless. Whether a real DA would prosecute is also pointless - abortion is currently legal in the US Code of Law.

However, though legal, one must really examine the sanity of the mother in this case. First, I’ve known of people aborting because they were teenagers and afraid of being found out, to cover up an affair, because they weren’t at a time in their life to have a child, etc. But because the child won’t have the mom’s money to go to college? Come on. The child could be intelligent and go on scholarship (really, this could happen to any of the 5). The child (or any of the five) could take out student loans. Heck, the child could decide to honorably serve for the USA right out of high school. If you are going to come up with a scenario to prove a point (not sure how the point is relevant anyways, but I digress), please respect me enough to use a realistic example.

 

[Mumbles140]

i don’t know; you tell me. i don’t have time to do everyone else’s research, so if you want to know, do a google search. have fun and good luck!

The laws are very controversial because abortion is still legal. However, there are states that have laws allowing for charges against damage to/death of the fetus when the mother is assaulted/killed. Other states have laws protecting fetuses when the mothers do acts that result in the death of the child. I’m not saying these laws aren’t contradictory to legalized abortion, but it seems the trend in those states is to recognize a fetus as a human being, and therefore afforded the same rights as a human being.

Examples include the case in Indiana of the pregnant woman who drank rat poison as a suicide attempt. She survived and gave birth (I believe prematurely) to a very sick child (as a result of the suicide attempt), that resulted in the child’s death 4 months later. In Alabama, a pregnant woman who miscarried was charged with the death of her child because of alleged cocaine use during the pregnancy. My understandind is that the allegations were for regular cocaine use, and not a single-incident, but I only read a very brief description.

 

[z0wb13]

Intent matters, so a woman getting pregnant and having a miscarriage has no intent.

i’m struck again. maybe i presume too much, but your assessment seems oblivious to the possibility that woman in all of these hypotheticals might be thinking, rational actors.

But because the child won’t have the mom’s money to go to college? Come on.

this happens a lot. it’s baffling that it hasn’t occurred to.

Statistically one in three U.S. women will have an abortion in her lifetime, the study found, but that risk does not apply to all women equally. Women who choose abortion are more likely to be in their 20s or 30s than in their teens or 40s; they’re more likely to have children already; and they’re also more likely to be black or Hispanic than white.

Read more: time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843717,00.html#ixzz1gIHNkz7S

anyway, the point is that i don’t see how you get to decide for other people’s families how many children there should be. that seems… crazy! like, crazy invasive. i just think it crosses so many lines of decency to assume that you know how everyone else should raise their families.

i guess if you could empirically prove that catholics raise better children, or mormons, or whoever, then maybe we could argue that a theocracy is better than a democracy. but that is ultimately the choice you are left with if you follow your position to its logical conclusion.

at least we can agree on jack mccoy;p

 

[z0wb13]

that is living (negates the dead fish argument), the conclusion must be that this is a human.

i don’t think you adequately prove life. it sounds like the underpants gnomes from south park:

dna (steal underpants)=>???=>life (profit)

there are other established prerequisites for life (like being self-sustaining). but even if we ignore that, your argument boils down to “all life is sacred.” and that is a religious position. as a taoist, the whole idea of sacredness isn’t nearly so clear-cut. i hope that i don’t sound like a monster, i’m very polite in real life;p

 

[z0wb13]

there are other established prerequisites for life (like being self-sustaining).

i think maybe this is why we have such wildly different positions. i see the zygote a just another part of the female person. once a foetus grows a face, my opinion starts to change, but i couldn’t pin it down to a specific trimester. but again, i see life as part of a continuum, and not like a threshold that a person’s spirit crosses back and forth from. hope this helps!

 

[Mumbles140]

**1)**i’m struck again. maybe i presume too much, but your assessment seems oblivious to the possibility that woman in all of these hypotheticals might be thinking, rational actors.

this happens a lot. it’s baffling that it hasn’t occurred to.

**3)**anyway, the point is that i don’t see how you get to decide for other people’s families how many children there should be. that seems… crazy! like, crazy invasive. i just think it crosses so many lines of decency to assume that you know how everyone else should raise their families.

i guess if you could empirically prove that catholics raise better children…

at least we can agree on jack mccoy;p

1. I don’t remember you providing facts that a woman could know for certain she will miscarry. Therefore, your hypothetical provides no real-world basis for us to go off of, and is not relevant to the argument.

There are cases (albeit rare ones) where the Church will allow certain types of birth control when the woman has a history of high risk pregnancies. I believe one of the guidelines is something like if the woman has had 3 C-Sections caused by some specific difficulty during pregnancy. The Church respects all life, which means it does not want the mothers to be continually placed in danger by getting pregnant if they have a documented history of dangerous pregnancies. However, no such guidelines exist for miscarriages.

1. Your anecdotal evidence that ‘this happens a lot’ doesn’t really prove anything. If you mean to say that people have abortions for financial reasons, I would accept that. However, your specific example about the mother not having enough money to send 5 kids to college, and so she terminates a pregnancy, seems a bit far fetched.
2. I don’t remember implying that it was my right to decide how families should raise their children. My point is that families do not have the right to take away the lives of their children. It has nothing to do with how people raise children, but the fact that one person shouldn’t be allowed to legally murder (with the full definition of murder, not simply ‘kill’ since legal killings occur in self defense, in war, in the justice system, etc) another living human being.

Also, I noticed you haven’t had the opportunity to address my points about the definition of a human. I think I would prefer you addressing those points rather than these menial points that are only tangental to our real discussion.

 

[Mumbles140]

i don’t think you adequately prove life. it sounds like the underpants gnomes from south park:

dna (steal underpants)=>???=>life (profit)

**1)**there are other established prerequisites for life (like being self-sustaining).

**2)**but even if we ignore that, your argument boils down to “all life is sacred.” and that is a religious position. as a taoist, the whole idea of sacredness isn’t nearly so clear-cut. i hope that i don’t sound like a monster, i’m very polite in real life;p

1. The self-sustenance argument is a joke. You recognize life beginning with the first breath. So a baby is born, takes one breath, and then is abandoned. It cannot sustain itself, yet according to you, is a human. What about someone paralyzed from the neck down? They are unable to sustain themselves, and yet are human beings. The same can be said for people with other severe handicaps, whether mental or physical. And yet these are all humans. So why should this argument be used against fetuses when others unable to sustain themselves are considered human?

Saying you don’t think I adequately proved life isn’t saying much. I built a logical argument. Your attacks must be that a premise is wrong, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the facts. I am not familiar with South Park and the gnomes, so why don’t we avoid this silly allusions and use real facts and points.

If you believe there are other requisites that should be considered necessary in defining what a living human being is, that is fine, but please share them. I contest that for an organism to be a living human being, it must have human DNA, it must be a separate entity than another being (i.e. not part of a human but a different individual), and must have living cells. I think those are the three basic necessities for determining that an organism is a human. Heck, I think the fact that it has human DNA makes it a human - the other two serve to identify fetuses as living human beings distinct from their parents, and not some ‘unknown globule of cells’. But if you think, at the most basic level of defining a human being, I am missing something, please let me know.

1. Whether life is sacred or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The use of the word ‘sacred’ is a religious word. I used it in the sense that our legal system prosecutes those who willfully kill another human being without provocation. If the fetus is recognized as a human being, than the killing of that person is illegal. Plain and simple. You cannot walk up to me and shoot me in the head without being prosecuted because you didn’t think my life was sacred. Murder is illegal. If the fetus is human, than the killing of it is murder.

 

[Mumbles140]

i think maybe this is why we have such wildly different positions. i see the zygote a just another part of the female person. once a foetus grows a face, my opinion starts to change, but i couldn’t pin it down to a specific trimester. but again, i see life as part of a continuum, and not like a threshold that a person’s spirit crosses back and forth from. hope this helps!

But what about when it has a separate heart beat? Surely then, it must be considered a separate being? And by nature that it has DNA separate from the mother’s, wouldn’t this be considered a ‘foreign object’ in the mother’s womb? It is not merely a product of the mother, but it received outside cells from the father as well. Those two joined to create something new (living entity), something independent (unique DNA), and something human (human DNA). Whether it has a face or not shouldn’t be the defining factor of it being a human.

 

[Mumbles140]

But what about when it has a separate heart beat? Surely then, it must be considered a separate being? And by nature that it has DNA separate from the mother’s, wouldn’t this be considered a ‘foreign object’ in the mother’s womb? It is not merely a product of the mother, but it received outside cells from the father as well. Those two joined to create something new (living entity), something independent (unique DNA), and something human (human DNA). Whether it has a face or not shouldn’t be the defining factor of it being a human.

And to continue this further, I just find that, often times, people who refute that fetuses are humans don’t really have any sort of solid definition of what it is then. Calling it a fetus or a zygote is great, but if it is living cells, it must be considered something.

 

[z0wb13]

Your anecdotal evidence that ‘this happens a lot’ doesn’t really prove anything. If you mean to say that people have abortions for financial reasons, I would accept that. However, your specific example about the mother not having enough money to send 5 kids to college, and so she terminates a pregnancy, seems a bit far fetched.

i’m not offering anecdotal evidence. i just think it’s a lot more likely that financial reasons are a more serious consideration than premeditated baby murder. and i find it a bit tiring to debate with someone who just dismisses me out of hand, and obviously doesn’t take the time to study or skim the resources that i provide.

you persist in making arguments from incredulity. just because you didn’t imagine this situation, that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. yes, it’s anecdotal to say that “this woman i know had an abortion for financial reasons,” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

if you want to know WHY women actually have abortions, you could look here

Most respondents to a survey of abortion
patients in 1987 said that more than one
factor had contributed to their decision to
have an abortion; the mean number of rea-
sons was nearly four. Three-quarters said
that having a baby would interfere with
work, school or other responsibilities, about
two-thirds said they could not afford to
have a child and half said they did not want
to be a single parent or had relationship
problems. A multivariate analysis showed…
(Torres and Forrest)

this is my biggest problem, that you don’t seem to see the women or the families or the rights of the people that are already here. but i want to come back to this later.

But if you think, at the most basic level of defining a human being, I am missing something, please let me know… it must have human DNA, it must be a separate entity than another being (i.e. not part of a human but a different individual), and must have living cells, and not some ‘unknown globule of cells’.

first of all, i never said, “unknown globule of cells.” i find that outrageous; i would never say anything so asinine. you are putting words in my mouth. that is the most… i’m flabbergasted. do you want to debate, or not? or are you happy to invent my positions for me?

second, i’m tired and have to go to bed;p i will revisit the topic later.

did you know that in north korea, women that become pregnant with chinese babies are forced to have abortions? this is what can happen when women lose the right to choose.

 

[Mumbles140]

**1)**i’m not offering anecdotal evidence. i just think it’s a lot more likely that financial reasons are a more serious consideration than premeditated baby murder. and i find it a bit tiring to debate with someone who just dismisses me out of hand, and obviously doesn’t take the time to study or skim the resources that i provide.

**2)**you persist in making arguments from incredulity. just because you didn’t imagine this situation, that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. yes, it’s anecdotal to say that “this woman i know had an abortion for financial reasons,” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

**3)**if you want to know WHY women actually have abortions, you could look here

**4)**this is my biggest problem, that you don’t seem to see the women or the families or the rights of the people that are already here. but i want to come back to this later.

**5)**first of all, i never said, “unknown globule of cells.” i find that outrageous; i would never say anything so asinine. you are putting words in my mouth. that is the most… i’m flabbergasted. do you want to debate, or not? or are you happy to invent my positions for me?

**6)**second, i’m tired and have to go to bed;p i will revisit the topic later.

7did you know that in north korea, women that become pregnant with chinese babies are forced to have abortions? this is what can happen when women lose the right to choose.

1. My point was that financial reasons are very likely a frequent factor in why people have abortions. However, just because they have a reason doesn’t mean it isn’t murder. What makes it murder is recognizing it as a human life, and deliberately choosing to end that life. They could have a multitude of reasons why they want to doing, but doing the act itself is murder. Plain and simple.
2. I don’t understand this point. I agree that financial factors often are part of the decision to abort a pregnancy. I was just saying that your example was a bit far-fetched, and crafting one that was more likely would only serve to keep your points easier to imagine since the situations would be more likely to happen.
3. Again, no debate that there are a multitude of reasons why people choose to have abortions. But just because someone has a reason/motive doesn’t mean they aren’t a murderer.
4. I don’t want to come back to this later because this is the root of the argument. A fetus is still a human being. Therefore, they should be afforded the same rights as other human beings. When a mother aborts, she is taking the life of a human being. That is murder, by definition. I would protect the mother from being fatally stabbed just as I would that of her preborn infant because all human life is sacred, and not just in the religious sense, but in the sense that no one has the right to take it away unjustly. And this ‘rights of families’ seems pretty vague, but if you mean for reasons such as finances, comfort, etc, does this supercede the right of a person to live? If it were beneficial for you financially to murder your younger sibling, should it be legal since it is for the good of the family?
5. I never actually credited you with saying this, or even implying it. Many people who are pro-choice do not recognize a fetus as a human, especially before it ‘looks like a human’ (such as your ‘has a face’ example). My point is that they have a hard time identifying what to consider this. Which, by the way, I noticed you didn’t have the opportunity to discuss my ‘basic qualifications for defining a human’. Hopefully, when better rested, we can focus on this area of the conversation, because all else is tangental in my opinion.

But I digress - the ‘globule’ comment was not meant to represent anything you said, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. What I meant by that was those who don’t see human life have a hard time defining that, whereas those who are pro-life look at what defines a human as a human, and see those factors in a preborn child. Anecdotally, I have found it hard getting a firm answer from a pro-choice person as to how the ‘globule of cells’ should be defined in a scientific sense if they feel it isn’t a human.

1. Have a good night’s rest!
2. That is a tragedy, as are the other hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths at the hands of the North Korean government. It is a totalitarian state where a (former) dictator willfully committed genocide against mixed-race children. But this has nothing to do with abortion rights - it is about human rights, about not living in a Communist state, about not having a cruel dictator. If you believe this somehow relates to banning abortions, I would love to see the logical connection.

Just out of curiosity, though, how do they know if it is a Chinese baby? Do you have the report on this, or a news article about it?

 

[z0wb13]

we can argue later, but i was heartened by your curiosity.

Just out of curiosity, though, how do they know if it is a Chinese baby? Do you have the report on this, or a news article about it?

it is again anecdotal;p but news about n korea isn’t exactly readily available:

Consider: Even in the days of communism, there were reports from Eastern Bloc and Cuban diplomats about the paranoid character of the [n koreans] (which had no concept of deterrence and told its own people that it had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in bad faith) and also about its intense hatred of foreigners. A black Cuban diplomat was almost lynched when he tried to show his family the sights of Pyongyang. North Korean women who return pregnant from China—the regime’s main ally and protector—are forced to submit to abortions. Wall posters and banners depicting all Japanese as barbarians are only equaled by the ways in which Americans are caricatured as hook-nosed monsters. (The illustrations in this book are an education in themselves.) The United States and its partners make up in aid for the huge shortfall in North Korea’s food production, but there is not a hint of acknowledgement of this by the authorities, who tell their captive subjects that the bags of grain stenciled with the Stars and Stripes are tribute paid by a frightened America to the Dear Leader. c hitchens

more

 

[z0wb13]

here is even more. but i must impress that this link is disturbing. please don’t link to it, unless you are prepared.

this is from the waffling anglican, and is also for adults.

 

[Mumbles140]

here is even more. but i must impress that this link is disturbing. please don’t link to it, unless you are prepared.

this is from the waffling anglican, and is also for adults.

That is some pretty terrible stuff, but that regime has never been big on ‘human rights’. Still, I don’t see how this can be attributed to a woman not having the right to abort a pregnancy. It is about a dictator who abused power, murdered his own people, and was an overall nut job with the likes of some of the other fallen leaders this year.

As per your advice, though, I did not click on the links. Just to be clear, they related to North Korea’s oppression and murder of its people, correct? I didn’t want to miss if it was realted to another part of our argument.

By the way, have you had a chance to consider the minimal necessities to be considered a human being yet? Not to keep bringing this up, but I believe the whole argument hinges on this very point.

 

[z0wb13]

oh mumbles. i realized that i had said something in ignorance.

months ago, i had claimed that religious fanatics don’t sabotage condoms by poking holes in them. but now, i have come across a paper that reports: 1 in 5 young women in a CA study describe coercion as a factor that led to their unintended pregnancy.

granted, it is a small survey. i don’t have a subscription to the page, so i haven’t read the entire study. but here is the abstract.

Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy

Abstract
Background

Reproductive control including pregnancy coercion (coercion by male partners to become pregnant) and birth control sabotage (partner interference with contraception) may be associated with partner violence and risk for unintended pregnancy among young adult females utilizing family planning clinic services.
Study Design

A cross-sectional survey was administered to females ages 16–29 years seeking care in five family planning clinics in Northern California (N=1278 [this is the number of participants]).
Results

Fifty-three percent of respondents reported physical or sexual partner violence, 19% reported experiencing pregnancy coercion and 15% reported birth control sabotage. One third of respondents reporting partner violence (35%) also reported reproductive control. Both pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage were associated with unintended pregnancy (AOR 1.83 [adjusted odds ratio], 95% CI 1.36–2.46, and AOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14–2.20, respectively). In analyses stratified by partner violence exposure, associations of reproductive control with unintended pregnancy persisted only among women with a history of partner violence. [what this is saying, is that there is an extremely strong correlation between women who become pregnant unintentionally, and women who “date” men that sabotage their birth control.]

Conclusions

Pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage are common among young women utilizing family planning clinics, and in the context of partner violence, are associated with increased risk for unintended pregnancy.

i would ask you, mumbles, to read this twice. also, here is the editorial:

Reproductive coercion is a factor in unintended pregnancies
January 25, 2010 | 8:17 am

It’s sometimes assumed that unmarried teenagers and young women become pregnant because they don’t use contraception or because they want a baby. But the authors of a new study say there’s another reason. Some women are coerced into pregnancy by their boyfriends. Young women even report that their boyfriends sabotage birth control to get them pregnant.

Researchers at UC Davis conducted a survey of [1,278] young women at five reproductive health clinics in Northern California. The women ranged in age from 16 to 29. They were asked questions about birth-control sabotage, pregnancy coercion and partner violence. The study found that one in five women said they had experienced pregnancy coercion and 15% had experienced birth-control sabotage. More than half had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner. The researchers concluded that the rate of unintended pregnancy was double among women who experienced reproductive coercion and partner violence. The study is published online today in the journal Contraception.

“This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners,” Elizabeth Miller, a co-author of the study, said in a news release.

*“What this study shows is that reproductive coercion likely explains why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens,” Jay Silverman, a co-author of the study and a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, said in a news release.

Perhaps we’ve been over-focused on contraceptives. Rates of unintended pregnancy might decline if more young women learned to recognize, avoid or leave abusive relationships or were given the skills and support to do so.* [italics present opinions that i don’t find altogether convincing.]

– Shari Roan

anyways. condoms do not fail 2.5% of the time. try it out. take a hundred condoms and fill them up with water. it was already done once at the condom factory, and any that didn’t hold water were discarded.

 

[z0wb13]

i forgot the pictures!
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/condom1a.jpg
look how fun!

quality assurance also includes an electricity test.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/condom-3.jpg

the entire process is rather interesting. if you want to know more, look here.

WARNING: for those faint of heart;p there is an unprovocative illustration of the proper way to put on a condom on page 7. the link is to page 1, so you have ample warning;p