An so onto Rush Limbaugh..
There is no argument, as the irresponsible behavior is supported by science (
hint, this is called supporting your claim, try it sometime):
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.
• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.
• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.
-
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
What a shame you don't apply this standard to your religious lackeys.
Access to birth control is not always easy or even possible.
- Funding for the U.S. government's Title X program, which funds low-cost, confidential family planning services, is 61% lower today in constant dollars than it was in 1980.
- Some state governments have enacted refusal clauses (or so-called "conscience clauses") that permit pharmacists and healthcare providers to refuse to dispense medication, including contraception, when the use of it conflicts with the provider's religious or moral beliefs.
- The U.S. government has placed obstacles in the path of minors and immigrants seeking emergency contraception ("EC"), despite the scientific evidence supporting the safety and benefits of easy access.
- Some employers that provide otherwise comprehensive health insurance benefits have refused to provide benefits for certain contraception and related services.
[Source]
In fact, amongst women who live in poverty, that becomes even harder:
Even though the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States has remained relatively constant, they are becoming increasingly concentrated among low-income women, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.
Between 1994 and 2006, the number of unintended pregnancies among women whose incomes fall below the national poverty line rose by 50 percent. At the same time, however, unintended pregnancies dropped among more economically privileged women.
What is the difference between women who are 'economically privileged' and those who live on or below the poverty line?
Guttmacher’s most recent data, the unintended pregnancy rate for women living below the poverty level is more than five times as high than the rate for the women in the highest income level. In addition to tracking with wealth, higher rates of unintended pregnancy also correlate with lower levels of education.
It’s also clearly a matter of lacking access to or information about effective forms of birth control. Of all of the women in the U.S. who are at risk for an unintended pregnancy, 35 percent say they either inconsistently use contraception or don’t use any form of contraception at all. And that group accounts for 95 percent of all unintended pregnancies each year.
Guttmacher notes that publicly-funded family planning services, like the Planned Parenthood clinics that often partner with states’ Medicaid programs, go a long way toward helping low-income women avoid pregnancy. The large proportion of poorer women who experience unintended pregnancy means that about two-thirds of unintended births are paid for by Medicaid, an estimated $11.1 billion cost in 2006. But without those family planning services, Guttmacher projects that figure would balloon by 60 percent to an estimated $18 billion expense.
Despite the essential role that family planning clinics play, they’re under attack in states across the country. States are slashing their family planning budgets and working hard to defund Planned Parenthood — while simultaneously cutting off low-income women’s abortion access by driving up the cost of the procedure and preventing public insurance programs from paying for it. Most recently, conservatives are even attacking the fact that public insurance programs provide maternity care for single mothers who unintentionally become pregnant outside of marriage, suggesting Medicaid dollars shouldn’t go toward that expense.
Studies have repeatedly shown that, even though easily accessible contraception is essential for helping women manage their reproductive health and stay out of poverty, many women still face barriers to getting it. About 30 percent of U.S. women who don’t currently use a reliable form of birth control say they would start if the pill were available over the counter.
Oh gee, what a surprise.
Right to lifer's are also denying women the ability to access birth control, especially in the more at risk group of women who are poor and unable to access proper education about birth control.
Who said "a few days after she ovulates"?
Some at home pregnancy tests are able to detect even the most minute traces of hCG a couple of days after conception. Even before implantation. Implantation is usually within a week or so and sometimes later... So.. what does that tell you?
Quantitative blood tests and the most sensitive urine tests usually begin to detect hCG shortly after implantation, which can occur anywhere from 8 to 10 days after ovulation.
...It could take up to 12 further days for implantation to occur, meaning even the most sensitive pregnancy tests may give false negatives up to 17 days after the act that caused the pregnancy. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_test#Timing_of_test
"Could", not, does. Not every woman is the same. Not every woman has the same menstrual cycle. Some are shorter and some are longer.
Urine (Home HPT) Pregnancy Test: The urine pregnancy test will usually not become positive in most women until a missed period or about a week after implantation. Many manufacturers of urine pregnancy tests want you to believe that the urine test is usually positive before a missed period, but only about 25% of pregnant women will test positive with the HPT 2 days before a missed period, and about 40% the day before the missed period. On average, a pregnancy will be positive 13.5 days after ovulation, or about the time you expect your menstrual period. -
http://www.babymed.com/pregnancy-tests/pregnancy-test-when-does-it-get-positive
Some home pregnancy tests are more sensitive than others. The more sensitive tests may be able to detect low levels of hCG as early as four days before your period is due, or seven days after conception.
A test may be negative for several reasons. You may not be pregnant. Or, you may have ovulated later than you thought, and not be as far along in pregnancy as you thought.
One in 10 women can have very low levels of hCG levels at the time of a missed period. If you have a negative result, but still don’t get your period, test again three days later. If you are pregnant, the levels of hormone may build up enough by then to be picked up by the test.
A blood test can also detect hCG. Blood tests are more sensitive than urine tests and can detect pregnancy from about six to eight days after ovulation. However you will not be offered a blood test for pregnancy until after your period is due, and even then only if there is a medical need.
[
Source]
Not every woman is the same.
Demanding women pee on a stick every month is impractical and frankly, stupid and stressful.
And I believe women are capable of being educated about what can contribute to
false positives. And if women can be educated and are responsible enough to make the decision to abort an unintended pregnancy (your assertion, mind you), why should having earlier warning cause any additional stress or grief?
Are you saying women cannot be educated about pregnancy tests or that they are too sensitive and delicate to be expected to be responsible for such things?
As I said, expecting anyone to live on edge each time they have sex and each time their period is due just in case, so they can fit into
your criteria of when you think women can access an abortion based solely on what you deem to be brain activity, since it was pointed out to you that most women find out they are pregnant well after 8 weeks (which is the criteria you applied) instead of allowing women to do what is right for them...
As I pointed out earlier, you are the one who has issues with women making decisions for themselves as they see fit. Not I. Applying your standard to me and trying to lie and say this is what I am saying is not going to fly here. If women choose to live as you demand they do and have pregnancy tests every month once they have figured out their ovulation cycle and keep a chart to monitor when they ovulate so they know exactly when to take pregnancy tests if they have sex during that time, then that is their
choice. You are free do take your temperature for months on end to determine your ovulation cycle, that is your choice. Not every woman wishes to live that way. Most women have better things to do with their time and in the event they do get pregnant and find they are unable to have a child for whatever reason, then it is their choice to get an abortion.
Again:
So it appears this argument suffers from advertising hype.
And again, not every woman's menstrual cycle is the same and not every woman will have the exact same menstrual cycle every month. Many things affect a woman's menstrual cycle, from stress, illness, travel, or nothing at all. Demanding that women, as you put it, pee on a stick every month, is impractical and frankly stupid. Not every woman even has access to those "sticks", let alone birth control due to where they live and also their financial and economic circumstances.
So a sexually active woman cannot possibly be expected to have already decided on what she would do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. You would rather them wait until there is actual pressure to make a decision before even contemplating it, huh?
Yes Syne, women decide if they are going to have an abortion each time they have sex in the event of falling pregnant from that sexual activity.
Do you even know any women?
Many women know when they want to start a family and in the event of finding themselves pregnant before then, some opt for an abortion. Most women, as was pointed out earlier, find out they are pregnant after the 8 week mark and many of those then spend some time deciding what they are going to do. Some, especially women with irregular periods for whatever reasons, do not find out until much later. Demanding every single woman pees on a stick every month, which as even you pointed out, is not always accurate, will cause undue stress (emotional and financial) because you personally have issues with women being allowed to have any control over their own bodies.
Why do you seem to think women cannot be educated and make informed and responsible decisions in advance?
Many women do make the decision of when they want to have a baby you lying and dishonest dolt.
But as has been pointed out, many do not find out until well past
your 'brain activity' margin. Women have the right to decide for themselves. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less. You have no rights or say in the matter. Is that clear enough for you?
You seem to be arguing that women are not "smart and responsible enough" without any help from me. Since you do not seem to have any rational arguments at all, do not foist your man-hating views on others.
Let me remind you Syne, that you are not the first, nor the last misogynist who has tried to use this ridiculous way of debate on this site.
The only person who has been demanding that women are simply incapable of being responsible enough with decisions about their reproductive rights has been you and your lackeys in this thread. No one else has. Do you think you are smart enough to trip me up because I disagree with your ridiculous proposition that women
be made to "pee on a stick" every month?
Really?
Is there no end to your desire to control women's reproductive cycles, so much so that you want to force them to decide early on when to get an abortion?
Pro-choice is about allowing women to make the choice
as they see fit. Not to fit into your misogynistic views of women's rights.
No, these women have made a decision beforehand and are responsible to accept the consequences of that decision. So only women allowing men to control them would be against contraceptives and abortion? Now you sound misogynistic.
And some women's circumstances change later on, after your arbitrary 8 week period, and decide to get an abortion. That is their choice. Not yours.
Demanding women pee on a stick and forcing women to make such decisions to fit into your timeline is misogynistic and shows just how ridiculous your proposition is, because you do not think women can be responsible enough to make such a decision afterwards. How about this, how about you tell your female other half that she has to pee on a stick every month because
you want to make sure that if she aborts your offspring, she does it before 8 weeks, because you aren't comfortable with her aborting it when there are brain waves, and see if you ever get sex from her again.
Understand how this is yet another attempt for misogynists to control the reproductive organs and even the reproductive cycle of women? What of women who refuse to pee on the stick every month? Deny them the right to access abortions because it doesn't fit into your ideal of what women are meant to be doing?
First, look up the definition of brain-death:
Brain death is the irreversible end of brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
But even brain-death, defined as "a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem", is less activity than that of an 8 week fetus:
As opposed to:
A brain-dead individual has no clinical evidence of brain function upon physical examination. This includes no response to pain and no cranial nerve reflexes. Reflexes include pupillary response (fixed pupils), oculocephalic reflex, corneal reflex, no response to the caloric reflex test, and no spontaneous respirations. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death#Medical_criteria
So since brain-death is irreversible, there would be no hope in keeping such a person alive. You may be confusing it with a
persistent vegetative state.
Did I say 40 days? 8 weeks time 7 days in a week equals 56 days. You are using "brain dead" very loosely and completely ignoring its irreversibility. Conscious?
Reflexes are evidence of the "ability to perceive, to feel... sensory patterns", hence consciousness. You have even made the argument that the brain is equivalent to the mind:
So by your own argument, brain activity is qualifies.
Just as the "baby" surviving the 40 weeks is not guaranteed...
Primitive reflexes and the types of neural activity that exists "when there are brainwaves" (which is your criteria for life) also exists in people in a persistent vegetative state. The article I linked above used the term "clinically brain dead".
I get that you deliberately chose to ignore that point for your own reasons, but I'd suggest you stop dodging and weaving actually face up to the arguments you are trying to make here.
The 8 week period or the 'brain waves' period you have destined as being the cut off point is not a foetus or embryo having conscious thoughts. But it's just the neurons firing.
As I asked earlier, and you did not answer, how do you feel about keeping people on life support because there is brain activity? What about people in permanent vegetative state, as also pointed out by ElectricFetus?