I have read all of kanicbird’s posts in this thread, and though her (his?) overall position is clear, some of it is baffling. There are circular paths, changes of stance, and ignoring of past posts (including one or two of her own.)
All I can say is kanicbird’s position here is one of faith, not logic. It’s pointless to use logic to argue with faith. Be well, kanicbird.
Personally, I don’t see abortion as a choice.
Actually, in that earlier post, I just gave some data rather than a cite, so I’m supplying the cite now. This 1995 study gives the following numbers for abortion rates and legality in different regions of the world:
South America: 39 abortions per 1000 pre-menopausal women, 100% of them illegal.
North America: 22 abortions per 1000 pre-menopausal women, less than 0.5% of them illegal.
Western Europe: 11 abortions per 1000 pre-menopausal women, less than 0.5% of them illegal.
There isn’t a universal correlation between frequency and illegality of abortions: for example, Eastern Europe had 90 (!) abortions per 1000 pre-menopausal women, of which only (?) 13% were illegal. But the numbers clearly show that there isn’t a reliable inverse correlation between frequency and illegality, either. As I said, you cannot count on reducing abortion rates just by making abortion procedures illegal.
Anti-abortion-rights activists would actually accomplish a much greater reduction in the abortion rate, and run much less risk of provoking a backlash, if they would put more of their efforts into effective strategies for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. The vast majority of abortions are sought by women who didn’t want to conceive in the first place. Prevent unwanted conceptions, and you’ve wiped out almost all abortions.
Not true. Abortion is legal in most South American countries in cases of rape or if the life or health of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy.
Sorry, I should have been more clear about what that “100%” figure meant. It’s explained in the table in my link, but if you only read the excerpt in my post instead of looking at the cite, I can see how you would have been confused.
As you can see from the table, the study considered the incidence of abortion approximately 100% illegal in any region where fewer than 50,000 of the abortions were carried out legally.
So South America, with 3 million abortions of which fewer than 50,000 were legal, had an illegality rate for abortion of at least 98.3%. You’re right that that’s not exactly 100%, but it’s pretty close.
All right, let me clarify. There have been articles in the paper in regards to this house, since as I mentioned the pictures are occasionally quite graphic, and I have seen the police there at least twice. And one individual attempted to “retaliate” by placing his own signs in front of HIS house which attacked the Church. Therefore the idea that it was bringing down property values was an assumption. I’ll admit that it may well have been a poor assumption and simply say that I’m sure that the people around them probably don’t care for the pictures.
I really was only curious about the apparent connection between pedophiles and Planned Parenthood as suggested by the poster, and didn’t intend to start this debate. However, given the electric nature of this topic, I should have seen it coming. As for the “accusation” that I’m pro-life…that’s really not your business, though I am pro-choice, or whatever you folks decide the correct term to be. 
I think you’d be surprised how many of us hold this view or a variation on it. I know of three of us on this board.
I’ve always felt that abortion was more justified if you believe that a fetus is a person than not, so count me in.
Hypothetical #1: A person has sex not intending to have a child, something goes wrong through carelessness or accident and pregnancy occurs. The fetus is a person who requires resources of the mother to survive and was put in this situation resulting from the direct actions of the mother. Does this entitle that person to the mother’s resources against her current wishes? No. The moment the mother no longer wishes to provide her bodily resources to this person, the person loses their claim to them. It is their own problem (although through no fault of their own) that they are unable to survive ex-utero (is that a word?)
Hypothetical #2: You get distracted while driving and accidentally hit your own child. You chose to drive, and it was your behavior that caused the accident, however it is ruled an accident and not negligent so you do not have criminal liability. However, it turns out that the child is in the hospital and will not live without a kidney transplant, the child also has a rare condition making the only compatible kidney yours. Yes, giving up one of your kidneys for your own kid, especially if you’re the one who put him there in the first place is probably the right thing to do. Does that entitle your child to your kidney? Hell no! You have a choice not to donate, and while some people might find that to be morally wrong, you can keep your kidney and watch your kid die because of it, and that would not be murder.
This rings true throughout every element of our society, mothers are not obligated to breast feed their children (although they are obligated to do their best to care for the child to the best of their abilities, this does not extend to entitling their child to any of their bodily resources), attackers do not owe blood transfusions to their victims, spouses are not entitled to engage in intercourse with each other without consent, etc.
Just speaking personally, I strongly disagree with everyone that thinks that anit-abortion has to mean anti-choice. I’m fully in favour of choice, every woman should have the right to choose what they do, forcing someone to have a baby they really didn’t want could be very stupid and dangerous (in case they try to take things into their own hands) and remove their free will. However I’m against abortion, I think every foetus has a right to a full life and that no-one should make the choice to kill them.
Just because I’m against abortion doesn’t mean I think woman should be stopped from having them. I think the service should be kept legally available so that there’s as few backstreet abortions as possible. But I think they should be made less of a ‘come in and have one if you’re dropping by’ prospect. There should be far better counselling (maybe about 6 hours worth) beforehand for the woman to discuss her feelings (not to be persuaded against abortion but to give the woman chance to really make an informed decision for herself). There should be far better sex education for young people that would prevent many abortions even being needed in the first place and much better emotional support for single/young/distressed mothers to help them cope if they decide to bring up a baby.
In short my ‘anti-abortion’ stance is not that abortions should be taken away but that things should be changed so that as few women as possible CHOOSE abortions. So as such I definitely AM pro-choice AND anti-abortion!
Am I a rare species now?