No, I do not know of a method of contraception that’s 100% effective. Obviously, to the degree that it’s effective, it’s preventing abortions.
It is also not true that 100% of people who try to have children avoid bringing deformed, terminally ill, or horribly suffering babies into the world. Should people never try to have children?
Merely my opinion- but I think it may be a reasonable division point.
For various reasons, not the least of which being that my immune system has a strong possibility of rejecting it, an IUD is out of the question.
I didn’t imply the U.S. government, but I should have said my state government (California). Boxer and Feinstein should pat themselves on the back for subversively getting into my wallet. What is it like in your home state?
Interesting that all of the Pacific states plus NY, MD & DC are the “abortion by demand” states.
No more “wild guessing” (and my state government at work with tax dollars…)
CA teenagers ended up in the middle of the pack (is abstinence working?), but the 20-24 group was the highest and the rates decreased as the groups got older. I know this is not the country as a whole, but it is a big slice of the overall pie.
What numbers do you have in your province and/or country?
As for dismissing my story as “anecdotal” after toting catsix’s experience in an earlier post, I find it rather amusing. Has it ever occured to you that maybe some of the doctors are getting out of the abortion business because they are burned out (similar to paramedics, except paramedics are trying to save lives) after seeing alot of flesh, bones, blood and destruction over the years? Or do you liken them to mimic robots that can perform a duty when the button is pushed and to mask their feelings for years while providing the service? At least our doctor saved my wife’s life, although he never did crack a smile knowing what had to be done.
Same circular reasoning as before, then. You posit a sentient being, one with intelligent awareness, and have no problem denying that being his civil rights. Why? Because that would infringe on abortion rights.
One more variation on, “Banning abortions would be wrong because that would mean people can’t get abortions.” Indeed it would.
This is interesting. I might be wrong. But I’ll need to do some digging around first. Have to find the stuff that gave me the impression in the first place – other than the people who approach me with clip boards in the street, who usually do combine the two!
IEatFood!'s answer was informative…
I can’t see the circle in a basic syllogism:
[ul][li]Only human beings should have civil rights.[/li][li]A fetus is not a human being.[/li][li]Therefore, a fetus should not have civil rights.[/li][/ul]
The postulation of a sentient fetus was similar, but the results are the same:
[ul][li]There are times when the rights of one human can be in conflict with the rights of another.[/li][li]The rights of the mother who does not wish to remain preganant are in conflict with those of the fetus (assuming the fetus is human and has rights in the first place)[/li][li]Since I take the mother’s civil right to not be forced to incubate another human very seriously, the fetus loses the decision. This is similar, I feel, to the right one has to protect one’s own life and health from an assailant, even if it means killing the assailant.[/li][/ul]
No circles, here, though your statement:
…displays a rather profound ignorance on the subject, implying getting an abortion is some casual fashion choice, and that banning abortion would ultimately hurt no-one. Have you looked into reasons why women get abortions, or are you fixated on the image of some slut who kills her fetus (conceived during wild reckless nights of unprotected sex) because if she got pregnant, none of her designer clothes would fit?
[The reasons why almost all abortions are done…
Nearly all of the 1.3 million abortions a year are done because the woman did not want to be pregnant at that particular time (although 70% say they intend to have children in the future). The majority of women undergoing an abortion give one or more of the following reasons:
a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities (75%)
cannot afford to have a child (66%)
do not want to be a single parent or have problems in the relationship with their husband or partner (50%)
Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest. (Facts in Brief, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)](http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/aborstats.html)
Just thought this would help…
Nice straw man. I tried to extend you the benefit of the doubt, but you’ve proven to me you’re not worth the effort. I’m not wasting any more time responding to your vacuous horseshit, since you almost invariably use it as an opportunity to spout grandstanding nonsense. Have fun.
Ok, lets get some clarification here from the pro-lifers:
Let’s say you were in charge.
Would you ban ALL abortions? Would it just be the late term ones, or would it be prohibited at any time during the pregnancy?
What would the penalty be for carrying out an abortion? Would the penalty be any diferent if the woman killed an unborn that is a month old as opposed to one that is in the last trimester?
OK, I’ll take the bait. I would ban all abortions except when the life of the mother was threatened, or if the pregnancy was the result of sexual assault. (I do not add “incest” as I have never heard of such a case that did not already involve sexual assault.)
And as most state laws are written today, I would penalize only those who would perform the abortion or provide an abortifice, not the mother.
BTW, a ABC News/Washington Post poll (Jan. 22, 2001) found, “Twenty-eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court made abortion legal, although some Americans support abortion in very rare circumstances, most Americans oppose the overwhelming number of abortions.”
“… [A] majority opposes legal abortion if it’s performed solely to end an
unwanted pregnancy, which constitutes most abortions.”
Perhaps those who wish to reduce the freedom of women would talk about how they would see the actual enforcement of their repressive legislation and how they see themselves avoiding a 21st Century version of the ‘success’ of the Volstead Act?
Prohibition was successfull – too successful, which is why it was repealed. By 1934, the first year after Prohibition was repealed, per capita alcohol consumption had been reduced by half from pre-Prohibition levels.
Since most surgeries are done to save or improve the life expectancy of an individual, then I believe that abortion should follow those same guidelines and be only granted based on its original intentions, to save the life of a mother in danger of losing it, or in cases of rape. I would definitely ban all abortion funding except for the above reasons, and move the remainder of funding towards preventative education, conception control improvements, bolstering the ability to chase down deadbeat dads and assisting mothers of newborns with free medical for the nine months of pregnancy plus one year after the birth of the child.
As for the rest of the cases, the right to control one’s body by abortion is paradoxical when one subjects herself to abortion:
Abortion rights…and wrongs.
Punishment? Forfeiture of a doctor’s license for the first occurence, and jail time thereafter. I realize the difficulty in enforcing the ban, but just like any other crime, it takes time to solve it. It took us 30 years to come to this point, it will probably take another 30 years to get back. As for women subjected themselves to abortions, some have already realized that they unknowingly imposed the punishment on themselves.
So this means all, even from the time that the sperm meets the egg?
It may have reduced per capita consumption, but the nation decided that the costs associated with prohibition (the violence of organized crime, police and prison resources used going after alcohol users) did not exceed the benefits.
I don’t think that the costs of banning abortion would ever exceed the benefits. I think it would cause untold devestastion. It would cast into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman in the country who has come to believe that she had the right to reproductive choice. It would be a step backwards 30 years for social equality and civil rights.
I would fear for the future. I would fear for the millions of women in this country who would be forced to bear children against their will. I would fear for the children who were raised by mothers that wanted to abort them but couldn’t because of the law. I would fear for those who risk prison to get control of their bodies and their lives.
How many distraught women will you force into suicide? How many women will you chain to the bed to prevent them from having an abortion? How many houses will raid to find abortion drugs and instruments? How many people will you have to put in prison who perform abortions? How many unwanted children will grow up to be criminals?
Those who say: “Babies are the consequences of sex. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.” It is unreasonable to ask every female who doesn’t want a baby to abstain from sex from her teens into menopause in her forties or fifties.
Prohibition was successful, from the point of view of organized crime that’s for certain!
Meanwhile, Walloon fails to take on the issue of how the removal of women’s rights and the mechanics of repression will work.
Yeticus,
Yes, quite interesting. MD is a relatively conservative state, especially when it comes to marrital issues (having just gone through a two year divorce, I can attest to that!
Yet, we also passed a law in 1992 effectively stating that any woman between the age of 13 & 18 can recieve an abortion without parental notification. Not even consent, but notification. Go figure!
Volitare2b,
Thank you. It is always flattering to have your homework noticed!
Another quote from Abortion rights…and wrongs.
I guess women will be suicidal either way, huh?
Wanted and unwanted children can become criminals…but both can become successful people as well.
Where was all of the “untold devastation” pre-1973?
Yeah, I fear the day too when everyone (men and women alike) become responsible human beings.:rolleyes:
Chain to the bed? Yeah, right…:rolleyes:
There will be less abortion houses than crack houses and meth labs, for sure.
BTW, Control starts before the pregnancy, not after it.
That’s why I push for education of the teenage population, so those women do not perpetuate this cycle of abortion tolerance and the ghastly abortion rate.