# What does this anti-abortion poster mean? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265 "2006-05-10T20:14:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/81 "2006-05-11T23:23:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Maybe. Abortion is illegal in most of Latin America, for example, and yet the abortion rate (37 per 1000 premenopausal women) there is higher than in the US where abortion is legal (21 per thousand). In turn, the rate in the US is much higher than in the Netherlands and Belgium (7 per thousand), where abortion laws are much more liberal. Thanks for putting the final nail in DtC coffin, the issue is not choice but the gov’t acceptance of the proedure, the choice is still there. > [@](#): > > =AsknotAs long as many pro-life people refer to me as “pro-abortion” and “anti-life” and even “baby-killer,” I feel entitled to say that they are “pro-mandatory childbirth” for every pregnant woman. They would prefer the term anti killing their own offspring for evey mom, but whatever floats your boat. > [@](#): > > Considering that prohibition will not stop abortions Again confirmation that the issue of ‘choice’ is really a non-issue, abortions will happen the choice is there. The only issus on the table isif the gov’t will allow it or not. > [@](#): > > I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Every child a wanted child. While to some extent every child is wanted (thank religon for this), you are wishing for a paradox, either it is safe and legal or rare, almost like the NASA moto of cheaper, faster, better, choose 2. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/82 "2006-05-11T23:25:11Z")
The issue is whether women should be able to legally CHOOSE to terminate pregnancies. Soame people want to deprive women of that choice, therefore they are anti-choice. The argument that they would still be able to choose _illegal_ abortions is disingenuous at best. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/83 "2006-05-11T23:43:45Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > They would prefer the term anti killing their own offspring for evey mom, but whatever floats your boat. Yes, they would prefer that all people bought into their own religious belief that an embryo is exactly the same as a real live baby but its better if our terminology is rooted in some kind of objective reality. There are animal rights activists who would like other people to join them in imagining that killing a chicken is the same as killing a person. The contention that terminating a pregnancy is “killing one’s offspring” is grounded in no more objective reality than that. Pointing out that they want to remove the right of women to make reproductive choices, however, IS an objective statement about reality. > [@](#): > > Again confirmation that the issue of ‘choice’ is really a non-issue, abortions will happen the choice is there. The only issus on the table isif the gov’t will allow it or not. Again, this is a distinction without a difference. If you want the government to punish people for making a particular choice, then you are “anti” that choice. Why can’t you just admit that? > [@](#): > > While to some extent every child is wanted Cite? > [@](#): > > (thank religon for this) What is this supposed to mean? What does religion have to do with whether people want their children? I would guess that if anything, religion helps to drive abortion rates _up_ since religion is responsible for the social stigmas faced by unwed mothers. > [@](#): > > you are wishing for a paradox, either it is safe and legal or rare, almost like the NASA moto of cheaper, faster, better, choose 2. I’ll just settle for safe and legal. I don’t care how frequent it is. 100 safe, legal abortions are preferrable to a single unsafe, illegal one. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/84 "2006-05-11T23:46:15Z")
> [@DtC](#): > > The issue is whether women should be able to legally CHOOSE to terminate pregnancies. Soame people want to deprive women of that choice, therefore they are anti-choice. The argument that they would still be able to choose illegal abortions is disingenuous at best. Lets be honest here - the issus is if the gov’t should allow it or not - nothing inbetween. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/85 "2006-05-11T23:49:43Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Lets be honest here - the issus is if the gov’t should allow it or not - nothing inbetween. The government doesn’t actually have the power to disallow it. All it can do is punish people for doing it. In other words, the issue is whether the government should punish women for making a particular reproductive choice. ---
**Author:** ![vpriest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/49beb7/32.png) [@vpriest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vpriest)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/86 "2006-05-12T00:01:00Z")
> [@Love Rhombus](#): > > I was driving past a certain house on the way home from work yesterday. This hosue usually has a pro-abortion sign out front, where you can’t help but see it. Sometimes it has graphic pictures of dead babies. It’s driven the property values down, houses across the way are empty, ect. I usually put it out of my mind, even when it says stuff like “Boscov’s supports killing babies.” However, the other day they had a new one: “Planned Parenthood supported by Pedophiles.” Huh? I’m curious as to what the reasoning behind this poster could be in their minds. I doubt very much that your agenda (and your question) has been proven to drive this house’s property values down. I think your question was meant to be very provocative and not very honest. You sound as if you’re pro-life??? i.e. opposed to abortion under any circumstance??? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/87 "2006-05-12T00:10:02Z")
> [@DtC](#): > > Yes, they would prefer that all people bought into their own religious belief that an embryo is exactly the same as a real live baby but its better if our terminology is rooted in some kind of objective reality. There are animal rights OK Lets put this to the test, lats say you (DtC) have to decide if a fetus or a spotted owl have to be saved so the other may live, given no other information, which one would you _chose_? > [@](#): > > The contention that **intentionally** terminating a pregnancy is “killing one’s offspring” is grounded in no more objective reality than that. Bold mine, and if it isn’t killing ones’ offspring you don’t live on the same planet as I do (which I suspected for some time). > [@](#): > > Again, this is a distinction without a difference. Again a difference without a distinction - your talking points don’t earn you any. > [@](#): > > While to some extent every child is wanted > Cite? > > Quote: > (thank religon for this) note composit Kanicbird and DtC posts you have to be kidding me. > [@](#): > > What does religion have to do with whether people want their children? Where did I EVER address if a mom wants her offspring, in my 7000+ posts on this board??? again you are on your own planet with no connection to real life. > [@](#): > > I’ll just settle for safe and legal. I don’t care how frequent it is. 100 safe, legal abortions are preferrable to a single unsafe, illegal one. I can accept it from a pro abort POV - from a anti-abort POV I can’t see a safe abortion except if it failed and we have a health child. But I must say I was content to call the sides pro life/ anti abortion and Pro life till this thread, now I am pretty firm that the options are pro/anti abortion.\* - Note some time ago I did use the term anti abortion for pro choice, but I changed it to pro choice due to my own POV change. \*\* Further note due to this thread I now revert to pro/anti abortion as the preferd terms. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/88 "2006-05-12T00:13:20Z")
> [@](#): > > -DtCThe government doesn’t actually have the power to disallow it. All it can do is punish people for doing it. In other words, the issue is whether the government should punish women for making a particular reproductive choice. Be careful you don’t strain yourself on that streach, in otherwords, which I can infer from your own post, the choice stilll exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/89 "2006-05-12T00:26:57Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Be careful you don’t strain yourself on that streach, in otherwords, which I can infer from your own post, the choice stilll exists. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/90 "2006-05-12T00:39:07Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > OK Lets put this to the test, lats say you (DtC) have to decide if a fetus or a spotted owl have to be saved so the other may live, given no other information, which one would you _chose_? If it’s not my fetus, it’s not my choice. Personally, I would have no preference. I wouldn’t give a crap about either one (if we’re talking about a single fetus vs. a single owl). > [@](#): > > Bold mine, and if it isn’t killing ones’ offspring you don’t live on the same planet as I do (which I suspected for some time). I just don’t share your religious opinion that a blastocyst is exactly the same as a full grown adult. There’s absolutely no objective reason I should believe that. > [@](#): > > note composit Kanicbird and DtC posts > > you have to be kidding me. > > Where did I EVER address if a mom wants her offspring, in my 7000+ posts on this board??? again you are on your own planet with no connection to real life. I’m confused. You just said that “every child is wanted,” did you not? is that not a comment on whether women want their offspring? If notm then what are you saying. What do you mean when you say “every child is wanted?” There are lots and lots of unwanted children in the world, I assure you. > [@](#): > > I can accept it from a pro abort POV - from a anti-abort POV I can’t see a safe abortion except if it failed and we have a health child. There is no “child” involved with an abortion unless you’re talking about a pregnant minor. > [@](#): > > Further note due to this thread I now revert to pro/anti abortion as the preferd terms. My wife thinks abortion is wrong but also thinks it should be legal. What side is she on? ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/91 "2006-05-12T01:37:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Kanicbird: > Be careful you don’t strain yourself on that streach, in otherwords, which I can infer from your own post, the choice stilll exists. I think you are the one who is reaching here. Yes the choice exists…you can either have an illegal, unsafe abortion, very possibly resulting in death for the person seeking the abortion because of an untrained professional, or you could have a, legal, sanitary, safe abortion performed. If you make it illegal to go to a doctor to have your appendix removed, sure you can still have your appendix removed, you just might die as a result…some choice. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/92 "2006-05-12T05:23:00Z")
> [@pool](#): > > very possibly resulting in death for the person seeking the abortion because of an untrained professional Very not possibly. Even in the 1950s, most illegal abortions were done by licensed physicians. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/93 "2006-05-12T06:31:53Z")
First Cite to the statement you made and second you can’t deny that the number of fatalities resulting from abortions would go up if it was made illegal because of women trying to do it themselves and those seeking help of people without the proper medical training. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/94 "2006-05-12T06:53:39Z")
Mary Steichen Calderone, M.D., M.S.P.H., F.A.P.H.A., “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” _American Journal of Public Health_ 50:948-954 (July 1960). > [@](#): > > However, in 1955 [abortion] was exhaustively contemplated by 43 men and women from the various disciplines of obstetrics, psychiatry, public health, sociology, forensic medicine, and law and demography, who were uneasy enough about this dis-ease [sic] to sit down for eight, three-hour sessions to bring it into realistic focus. The proceedings and conclusions of this conference were published in book form in 1958. Here are some of the facts established. . . : > > Fact No. 3 — Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15, and while the abortion death rate was going down strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 per cent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Another corollary fact: physicians of impeccable standing are referring their patients for these illegal abortions to the colleagues whom they know are willing to perform them, or they are sending their patients to certain sources outside of this country where abortion is performed under excellent medical conditions. The acceptance of these facts was such that one outstanding gynecologist at the conference declared: “From the ethical standpoint, I see no difference between recommending an abortion and performing it. The moral responsibility is equal.” So remember fact number three: abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. \*Dr. Calderone is medical director, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., New York, N. Y. This paper was presented before the Maternal and Child Health Section of the American Public Health Association at the Eighty-Seventh Annual Meeting in Atlantic City, N. J., October 19, 1959.\* ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/95 "2006-05-12T06:58:12Z")
From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Coat hangers have been a form of back alley abortions, also, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1960 printing of the American Journal of Public Health, that 90% of abortions were done by physicians in good medical standing, and that abortion was overall safe. Ok so I’ll grant you your point on this though if only 10% of abortions are not done by a physician thats still above 100,000 people at today’s rates if abortion were made illegal. or what about victims of rape or incest? From here: [http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html](http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) > [@](#): > > 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child What is the point of making it illegal for these groups to seek abortions? As the law stands the government neither endorses or opposes abortion because noone is forced into getting one, but no one is kept from getting one either. Isn’t that good enough? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/96 "2006-05-12T08:55:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Not true. Some abortions terminate pregnancies in which the fetus is **never** going to reach a point that is inarguably “life”: namely, fetuses with such serious birth defects that they can’t survive outside the womb at all. I personally would view that kind of abortion as “taking sugar on its porridge” 🙂 and much more like the ERPC (Evacuation of Remaining Products of Conception) that Mrs M had when our first-conceived died intrauterine at six weeks. > [@Kimstu](#): > > And some abortions kill a fetus in order to save the life of the mother. I don’t think anyone could call the net effect in such cases “definitely” anti-life. Broadly agreed, but we are getting into the realms of arguing that some elephants may have had a leg amputated and/or their tusks removed, and so we should abandon the definition “large tusked quadrupedal pachyderm”. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, barrier contraception methods are used with the intent of preventing a sperm from fertilizing an ovum, which also prevents the development of something that becomes inarguably “life”. Would you call such contraception “anti-life” too? I personally wouldn’t, although I know there is disagreement on this. Something still has to happen to a sperm or an ovum before it will develop into a human being. A foetus need only be left where it is. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/97 "2006-05-12T09:08:06Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > I believe that abortion should be **safe, legal, and rare.** Every child a wanted child. I believe that’s two mighty fine pieces of rhetoric, but we can surely put some meat on the bones: a) Cite for countries where abortions became rare when they became safe and legal. AFAIK making abortions safe and legal in the UK and USA alike has served to make them - or at any rate, been correlated with their becoming - a sight more common. b) Cite for countries where children have become more cherished and better treated as a resulting of abortion ensuring that “every child is a wanted child”. Presumably there are stats showing that in the states where abortion is most widely available, child cruelty and neglect is at its lowest. :dubious: > [@AskNott](#): > > Oh, and **Malacandra,** did you stop beating her? 😉 Har-de-har. Since my question was not of the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife type, it probably deserved to be answered, not mocked. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/98 "2006-05-12T13:28:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Am I starting to make sense yet? I wasn’t saying “morality is irrelevant” to belittle moral positions but to say that it isn’t the factor that decides what side of the line you’re on. You are crystal clear to me at least, and well argued as well. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/99 "2006-05-12T16:00:10Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > either it is safe and legal or rare Not necessarily, as I explained above. Sometimes abortions are **more rare** in places where there are **fewer legal restrictions on them**. Abortions are legally easier to get in the Netherlands than in the USA, but they are less common in the Netherlands. Abortions are legally easier to get in the USA than in most of Latin America, but they are less common in the USA. You cannot assume that making abortions illegal will necessarily reduce their frequency. Abortion rates appear to depend much more on other factors, such as the availability of effective birth control and the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, than on the legality of abortion procedures. > [@Malacandra](#): > > we are getting into the realms of arguing that some elephants may have had a leg amputated and/or their tusks removed, and so we should abandon the definition “large tusked quadrupedal pachyderm”. Well, you can avoid that kind of argument by making factually defensible statements about “many abortions” or “most abortions”, instead of excessively sweeping ones about “100% of abortions”. And I’m not sure it’s such a trivial nitpick as you suggest, either. AFAICT, between 10 and 100 out of every 10,000 abortions (based on [these numbers](http://wcco.com/local/local_story_082194928.html)) are performed due to “fetal anomalies incompatible with life”: in other words, they **aren’t** killing a fetus that would eventually become a living human being. That’s somewhere between 0.01% and 0.1% of all abortions, which is a small percentage but non-negligible in terms of absolute numbers. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Something still has to happen to a sperm or an ovum before it will develop into a human being. A foetus need only be left where it is. This sounds pretty arbitrary to me, though. Plenty of stuff “still has to happen” to an embryo or fetus before it will develop into a human being. (And very often, something crucial doesn’t happen and the fetus never does develop.) And a fertile ovum in a fallopian tube with sperm swimming through the cervix “need only be left where they are” for fertilization to occur. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265/100 "2006-05-12T16:20:12Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I believe that’s two mighty fine pieces of rhetoric, but we can surely put some meat on the bones: > > a) Cite for countries where abortions became rare when they became safe and legal. AFAIK making abortions safe and legal in the UK and USA alike has served to make them - or at any rate, been correlated with their becoming - a sight more common. > > b) Cite for countries where children have become more cherished and better treated as a resulting of abortion ensuring that “every child is a wanted child”. Presumably there are stats showing that in the states where abortion is most widely available, child cruelty and neglect is at its lowest. :dubious: > > Har-de-har. Since my question was not of the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife type, it probably deserved to be answered, not mocked. a) **Kimstu** already gave you a cite for that. Scroll back up, and you’ll find that the highest rates of abortion are in the places where it is completely forbidden. Here in the US, where state laws of restrictions and harrassment of clinics and doctors make abortion expensive, time-consuming, and (for clinic workers) dangerous, the rate of abortion is a bit more than half of that in countries where it is prohibited. In the more enlightened countries, where a woman is truly free to make her own reproductive decisions, abortion is rarer still. b) My statement was, “I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Every child a wanted child.” I made no claims that you are demanding I provide cites for. My goal of “Every child a wanted child” goes farther than just abortion rights. The goal is not just reproductive freedom, but sexual responsibility and full availability of birth control options (so that few abortions will be needed) and realistic sex education programs that include full information about contraception instead of “abstinence only” programs. Even the adoption of children given up by the birth parents is restricted by irrational laws. Now, about the wife-beating joke. **Malacandra,** you dragged wife beating into a discussion that had nothing to do with domestic violence. That was absurd, and it genuinely deserved to be mocked. It had already been answered by another poster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-anti-abortion-poster-mean/356265.md?page=6)