Why, on Page 1 of this thread:
(emphasis mine)
No.
"The number of women who remain silent about rape and incest dwarfs the infintesimal minority of those who fabricate such things.
Cite?"
Underreporting of rape and sexual abuse to police and other institututions is well known as an issue and I find it hard to believe you’re unaware of this in this day and age. If you want to find some sources, go to google and do a search on rape or sexual assault and underreporting, theres tons of articles on the subject.
Whether its been done specifically in regards to reasons for abortion I dont know, but theres no obvious reasons why the rates should change markedly there unless the abortions were happening in a jurisdiction where this would be needed as a justification to wllow the abortion to occur, in which one would expect an increase in false reporting rates.
Otara
Undecided.
Oh in regards to false reporting rates, it is a bit of a non issue in this context.
For instance, say you’re talking 1 in 5 victims of rape publically admitting to it for instance (from memory its considered more like 1 in 10 or worse). Then say we have 100 people saying they were raped publically. Then lets say as many as 50% of those public claims are in fact false (this is much higher than I see generally reported, from memory the FBI estimate is 15% or so, and thats fairly conservative).
You still end up with 250 real victims vs the 100 that actually turn up, even with these conservative figures.
The only way you can have false claimants outnumbering the true rate is if the reporting rate is close to 1 to 1, and/or the false reporting rate is extremely high. To seriously claim that false reporting rates could actually outnumber real rates would need some pretty extraordinary evidence Id think.
Otara
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen. I’m merely challenging the claim that underreporting outnumbers the incidence of false reports in this case. It could very well be so, but that remains to be proven.
Apples and oranges. You’re talking about the populace in general, whereas this thread is talking about the women interviewed by Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute. You can’t take statistics for the populace at large and apply them to the Guttmacher Institute’s findings, especially without considering the methodology which they employed. (In fact, given Planned Parenthood’s agenda, they would have plenty of reason to tailor their methodology so as to prevent underreporting of pregnancies due to rape and incest.
THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO ANSWERS TO BE CHOSEN FROM.
My own opinion? If the protestors on both sides of the issue would donate their energy towards fetal transplant technology (and the prolife women put their wombs where their mouth is) no woman would ever have to involuntarily carry a child to term AND no abortions would have to be performed either.
Now someone can completely ignore my point and make an obvious joke about wombs being put near mouths are. Bastards.
"Apples and oranges. You’re talking about the populace in general’.
No Im talking about a consistent and reliable effect found in regards to reporting rates on rape and sexual assult. There are exceptions but they’re gnerally pretty obvious eg sexual abusers and their rates of reporting experiencing sexual abuse themselves both pre and post trial.
"whereas this thread is talking about the women interviewed by Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute. You can’t take statistics for the populace at large and apply them to the Guttmacher Institute’s findings, especially without considering the methodology which they employed. "
Yes you can at least in regards to deciding the face validity of a proposed hypothesis, ie that false victims might mean the true number of victims is being inflated.
“(In fact, given Planned Parenthood’s agenda, they would have plenty of reason to tailor their methodology so as to prevent underreporting of pregnancies due to rape and incest.”"
Im sure they did, but theresa big difference between reducing something and virtually eliminating it, which they’d have to do for your hypothesis to have any chance at all . Thats because theres the the other side of the issue - the need for the false report rate to be extremely high as well as very low underreporting rates.
The equivalent counter claim after all is that its possible that all people asking for abortions are really rape victims, and only a tiny proportion had the courage to say it publically. And there are zero people making false claims.
Face validitywise I wouldnt give much credence to that one either without a lot more supporting data, but using your criteria it has to be kept as an equal possibility statistically, when we know that this claim too is likely to be almost certainly bogus.
Otara
FWIW, your use of quote marks to indicate previous posts instead of quote TAGS (or the handy dandy quote button at the bottom of the screen) makes it difficult to read your posts.
Let’s see, Yes or No?
I’ll vote for this one,. whoops… A hanging chad. Perhaps if I push harder? Oh no, I tore the ballot.
I know, I’ll just write my vote in here and,. whoops, wrong box. I’ll just XXX over that.
Damn, I just spilled my coffee on the ballot. That mocha is going to make a mess of things.
I know, I’ll just write “see other side” and handwrite my answer in.
See Other Side
No, its wrong. I think that people who have an unplanned parency and turn out to not want to baby should be punished, somehow, for bringing a life into this world while while being in no circumstance to support a child. They should be put up for adoption and the parents who give up their child sould be sent to jail or fined heavily.
I think that might be a tad short sighted.
Yeah, that’s all we need. More people in jail… for having sex.
Even though I think that comment is baited, could you think of what a screwed up country that would be to live in?
Thats a definite No for me …I’m a guy
I’m NOT Pregnant! Thats my gut!!! get me off these stirrups!
I am fine with women deciding to have abortions if they feel the must.
I think it’s wrong in the circumstances provided in the OP. I’m pro-choice, but I believe abortion is morally wrong unless it involves cases of rape, incest, or serious/fatal harm to the mother or baby. In the case where the unborn child has a severe, life-threatening disease or disability, the situation becomes murky.
Don’t be disingenuous. The penalty isn’t for having sex. It’s for taking a human life.
Mind you, I only favor imprisonment for the actual abortion providers, and not for the mothers, who may very well be distraught and acting out of panic. Either way though, Panis clearly was not advocating imprisoning women merely for engaging in sexual intercourse, and it’s intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
Slight hijack
Just curious, JThunder, as to what you think of the few, like myself (and catsix, I think) who have already made the decision to abort any pregnancy, in an undistraught and panic-free mental state, before having sex ? Because we’ve made that choice prior to any possible panicked state, would you favour imprisonment in that case ? I’m talking, theoretically, because both of us know full well it wouldn’t be practical to have a “non-distraught choice” legal loophole.
Absolutely right, Goo, that I have already made in a clear headed, panic free state the decision to abort any pregnancy that might occur despite my efforts at preventing one from ever happening.
Having read your posts on the board, I think you and I both have the same attitude towards getting pregnant and having a kid, which is that no matter what kind of stable relationship existed with another adult, it would be completely and entirely unwelcome.
I’m not sure if you’d agree on this point, which is that I really don’t see being threatened with any kind of consequence as relevant. JThunder’s belief that he has any right to tell me what decisions I have to make or that I am obligated to carry a pregnancy to term is absolutley meaningless no matter how many times he says he’d want to invoke some kind of legal punishment.
Put me in a situation where I think being dead is a better alternative, and you’re going to have a hard time preventing me from aborting by threatening to put me in jail. You’ll never succeed in removing my ability to live my life as I see fit (without children), no matter what lengths (or countries) I have to go to in order to make it happen. Give it up, JThunder. It’s not your place, your business, your right, or even your privilege to make those decisions for others. You’re not the one who has to suffer the rest of your life because you’d choose wrongly for me.
In answer to the OP, no, it’s not morally wrong in any way at all. If someone, or two someones, do not want children and are willing to abort to keep it that way, it’s their business.
To answer the OP: No, it’s not immoral.
Even given the loaded nature of the way the question was asked, it’s still the woman’s choice.