Advertisement

Archive for Friday, October 12, 2007

Experts: Abortion just as common where it’s not legal as where it is

October 12, 2007

Advertisement

— Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.

The study was done by Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in the United States and colleagues from the World Health Organization. It was published in an edition of The Lancet medical journal devoted to maternal health.

"The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy," Beth Fredrick of the International Women's Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.

"The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity," Fredrick wrote.

The number of worldwide abortions has dipped from about 46 million in 1995 to just under 42 million in 2003. But there was no change in the rate of unsafe abortions; nearly half the procedures are still performed illegally in potentially dangerous conditions.

"The only way to decrease unsafe abortion is to increase contraception," said Sharon Camp, president and chief executive officer of the Guttmacher Institute.

Camp said that more countries are allowing women to have abortions legally, but many women only receive medical attention after a procedure has gone wrong. "I don't think women should have to hurt themselves before they get medical treatment," she said.

The vast majority of abortions - 35 million - were in the developing world. And nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. Worldwide, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion, and nine out of 10 women will have an abortion before age 45.

The study defined unsafe abortions as those performed either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards.

In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found. In western Europe, there are 23 abortions for every 100 live births.

In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.

Improving women's health, experts said, means improving access to safe abortions. Some experts criticized the restrictions that often come with donor money. Funds from the U.S. government, for example, cannot be used in any health services associated with abortion.

Because providing safe abortions depends on a working health care system, experts said tackling the problem is difficult.

Comments

badger 6 years, 6 months ago

marshacollins says:

"Yes that is just what we need more Government regulation. Tychoman please don't defend my right to my body."

Um, no, seriously, abortion does need regulations. It's outpatient surgery. So the people performing it ought to be doctors and subject to malpractice law, and the equipment should be sterile, and the records should be protected by privacy laws, and patients should have the same rights people getting tonsillectomies have to consultation, address of grievances, and expectation of privacy. It should not be performed if consent has not been obtained, and the patient should be fully informed of the details of the procedure, necessary aftercare, and potential risks.

That's what 'safe and regulated' means to most of the pro-choice folks I know, including me. That abortion to be safe must be governed by the same rules as any other outpatient procedure. Luckily, that won't require any 'more government regulations', but there was still no need to jump down tycho's throat and assume he was trying to legislate away women's rights.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

so, you claim tychoman was dancing for abortion, and that was not true, but now you are rejoicing in being a liar in the name of your faith.

Thank you, I appreciate your honestly.

Be prepared to explain your lies in his name when you meet with ST. Peter you two faced false Christian.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

americorps says: "tangent changed it to mean something else that more suited him.her"

... that more suited him.her? I take it that you would be referring to a pantsuit?

"They are called liars."

So, I've finally made the "liars" list?! I can't tell you how honored I am. I'd like to thank the corps... my parents, who opted not to abort... my publicist, LJW....

0

jonas 6 years, 6 months ago

It's fine, marshacollins, I'm sure that we can find plenty of useless regulation to kill. Anyway, the regs are already in place, so there wouldn't actually be any more of them. So you can relax.

0

marshacollins 6 years, 6 months ago

Tychoman (Anonymous) says:

Of course I was misunderstood. My whole argument for choice is that whether it's legal or not, women will have abortions. This article proves my point. I'd rather a woman not get one but if she's going to (since it is HER body, after all), it should be safe and regulated.

Yes that is just what we need more Government regulation. Tychoman please don't defend my right to my body.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

Tychoman, you were not misunderstood, tangent knew perfectly well what you meant, but it did not suit the purpose, so tangent changed it to mean something else that more suited him.her...

It is a common tactic of those who have the innate need to right, they twist or make up or change facts as they need to to make a point.

They are called liars.

0

Captain_Obvious 6 years, 6 months ago

Abortion is a religious act. The church of climatology sees abortion as a sacrifice to itself and to the earth. Had all the people lived instead of being aborted we would be living in an apocolyptic world, one with no resources and mass starvation. The entire purpose of abortion is not a womans right to choose, it is to protect us all from ourselves. The high priest of climatology was just awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. When are you all going to open your eyes and minds and follow the teachings of Albert Gore Sr.? The high priest says abortion is good. To stop global warming the high priest may ask us to extend the abortion age to 18 years of age. Eventually, he may ask us to self abort. For our own good. Praise be to Al Gore.

0

Tychoman 6 years, 6 months ago

Of course I was misunderstood. My whole argument for choice is that whether it's legal or not, women will have abortions. This article proves my point. I'd rather a woman not get one but if she's going to (since it is HER body, after all), it should be safe and regulated.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

Tychoman says: "Reading the headline and the article gives me the irresistible urge to... dance."

Hmm... abortion evokes an altogether different response from me....

0

Tychoman 6 years, 6 months ago

Reading the headline and the article gives me the irresistible urge to do the "Told You So" dance.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

  1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
  2. Islam: 1.5 billion
  3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
  4. Hinduism: 900 million
  5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
  6. Buddhism: 376 million
  7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
  8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
  9. Sikhism: 23 million
  10. Juche: 19 million
  11. Spiritism: 15 million
  12. Judaism: 14 million
  13. Baha'i: 7 million
  14. Jainism: 4.2 million
  15. Shinto: 4 million
  16. Cao Dai: 4 million
  17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
  18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
  19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
  20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
  21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
  22. Scientology: 500 thousand

However, Christianity includes Catholics and Protestants, and the Pope just said they are different and since there are just over 1.2 billion Catholics, that would make the top rankings change like this...

  1. Islam
  2. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist
  3. Catholicism
  4. Hinduism 5 Christianity

The numbers of Christians could go lower if you remove Mormons and some of the other skirting sects, but not enough to drop Christianity another ranking.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

0

sdinges 6 years, 6 months ago

Until you've been a woman who has been in a position so desperate that she felt abortion was her only choice, you have no right to judge her choice.

Until you've been a woman who was then forced to seek out an illegal back-alley abortion that was dangerous to her health, you have no right to assert that it is "better" that abortion was illegal there. Have you also considered that women and doctors in countries where abortion is illegal are far less likely to report their abortion rates correctly? If the data is skewed, then it is skewed toward underreporting.

I feel blessed that I will likely never be in the position of women like this. That does not give me, you, or anyone, the right to make their choice for them. That is what being pro-choice means.

0

pace 6 years, 6 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight said "You are unqualified to support abortion considering that you were once a fetus."

Which is neither an argument or even an emotional appeal. it is just a plain stupid statement. lol lol. Following his reasoning srs would be unqualified to oppose abortion since he was not aborted. lol.
I sometimes think that men should not be allowed to have a say until they can account for all their spent sperm. Or that any person who skips out on child support or tolerated the buddy skipping child support. There are a lot more fatherless children than should be tolerated. Where is the protection of children activist when a woman shoulders it all against a cad. Why does anyone in this town do business with any of the known numerous dead beat dads.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

Can so-called American "Christians" be said to be Christian?

Wouldn't it be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than to defend American "Christianity?"

( Of course, if one holds that loophole very close to the eye:. )

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

Can so-called American "Christians" be said to be Christian?

Would it be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than to defend American "Christianity?"

( Of course, if one holds that loophole very close to the eye.... )

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

Actually, I found it:

Now, let's really get the battle going...who amongst the holy that are posting here considers Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons to be Christians?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

"Please understand my skepticism, but where in FSM's name did you get that number?"

It's the Internet; we're permitted to make these things up.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

"the percent of the worlds population that are christian is a little more than 33%,"

Please understand my skepticism, but where in FSM's name did you get that number?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

"If you want to reduce abortion ruduce theocratic cultures that oppress and marginalize people."

Hey, I'm lookin' for simple answers, here, ok?

0

Jason Bowers-Chaika 6 years, 6 months ago

No, it is the faulty arguments of the right wing crispians that is prompting the wider acceptance of gay people.

If you want to reduce abortion ruduce theocratic cultures that oppress and marginalize people. One of the countries that has the highest abortion rates is Italy--where one would think that Roman Catholic influences would reduce abortion. Actually it is the opposite.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

"Hetero anti-abortion right wing crispians can choose to be gay enter into polygamous and or beastial marriages. They will not reproduce. They will adopt unwanted children and stray dogs and cats. Those children and pets will then in turn be gay, not reproduce and adopt what ever children and pets that are left and then turn them gay. There then will not be any more unwanted pregenacies or strays."

This is just the sort of thinking which is impeding acceptance of gays, ok?

0

Jason Bowers-Chaika 6 years, 6 months ago

Right wing crispians say:

Gay people can't reproduce so they shouldn't have marriage equality. Gay marriage will lead to beastality and polygamy. Gay people can change so homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic deserving protection from discrimination.
Being gay is a choice. Gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children because they will turn the children gay.

Answer to the abortion problem: Legalize same sex marriage, protect gay people from discrimination, and allow gay people to adopt.

Hetero anti-abortion right wing crispians can choose to be gay enter into polygamous and or beastial marriages. They will not reproduce. They will adopt unwanted children and stray dogs and cats. Those children and pets will then in turn be gay, not reproduce and adopt what ever children and pets that are left and then turn them gay. There then will not be any more unwanted pregenacies or strays.

Problem solved.

Now we can move on to bigger issues.

0

badger 6 years, 6 months ago

Waydownsouth, I'll requote the sentence I already quoted:

"The vast majority of abortions - 35 million - were in the developing world."

You. Are. Just. Plain. Wrong.

That's what the sentence says. It's very clear and unambiguous. Now, if you have real stats from a reliable source that dispute it, I'll take a look at them, but for you to say that (I'll quote it again) "The vast majority of abortions - 35 million - were in the developing world," somehow means that there are more abortions outside the developing world is completely incorrect.

It's basic reading comprehension.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

ThatGirl says: " As a former fetus, I'll go on record saying I wouldn't have minded being aborted. Since I have absolutely no recollection of my time in the womb, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been aware of what was going on.

If anyone can tell me more about their womb experience, I'm dying to hear about it. "

Unlike ThatGirl, some of us had a womb with a view.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

Bubbles likes to force women to breed, how Christian of you.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 6 months ago

csgblaw (Anonymous) says:


ThatGirl (Anonymous) says:

As a former fetus, I'll go on record saying I wouldn't have minded being aborted. Since I have absolutely no recollection of my time in the womb, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been aware of what was going on.

If anyone can tell me more about their womb experience, I'm dying to hear about it


agnostik,

you must have missed this part: = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

No, csgblaw, I actually got that part.

And apparently, unlike you, I also bothered to read the rest of ThatGirl's 10:46am post. You know, the last sentence? This one:

"I guess this means that I'm allowed to speak my mind?? (Such warped logic!)"

Clearly, the implication here is simple: Sarcasm.

--Ag

0

Bubbles 6 years, 6 months ago

What's really funny is that the women screaming for abortions think they are in charge of their bodies. One would think that if they were in charge of their bodies they wouldn't need to be screaming for an abortion.

What a bunch of phonies.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

Whoa, Rational... taking the long view?

The myopia characteristic of "choosers" permits one to see only as far as the mirror.

0

Rationalanimal 6 years, 6 months ago

What is an abstract match of "rhetoric" to someone like logicsound, abortion in the empirical world ends a human life in gestation. Focusing on life in the womb miscalculates the origin of human life. Human life goes beyond the immediate biological union that conceives. Human life is a chain of endless generations. Conception is the result of the choices of generations before it. Those choices conditions precedent and indispensable to the existence of the current generation. It is generation after generation of unions that sacrificed, risked, nurtured, loved, and denied self so that every human now living could have the gift of life. For someone to say they have a right to abort a member of the class of the next generation of humans simply because they can choose to do so is the absolute heigth of narciscistic self centrism. It overlooks the chain of prior generations and in grand selfish fashion holds that only the living are entitled to life. Women who have abortions appropriately suffer from guilt and depression because what they have done betrays the species. Male humans who support abortion in "rhetoric" as logicsound, do so because it is a means to rationalizing their abdication of responsibilty to the next generation in the chain. Reducing the matter to an argument on choice is really a means of quenching the guilt and emotional trauma that is a natural consequence of an action unnatural to the species.

0

sourpuss 6 years, 6 months ago

Why do people care? People will do what they want. I don't care if some Bosnian or Kenyan gets an abortion any more than I care if my neighbor does. None of my business.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

Africa has 250% more miscarrages.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 6 months ago

"In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births."

Apparently, Africa not only has fewer abortion clinics but also fewer "back alleys."

0

cynical 6 years, 6 months ago

parkay, most of the lies and gross exaggerations are coming from people like you. Why don't you rant and rave about all the other wrongs in the world? Could it be you simply can't handle more than one thought at a time? Or doesn't your christian beliefs allow it?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps I'm being a little presumptuous about whether or not anti-choice voters are inherently single-issue voters. However, the main goal of my comment was to point out that abortion gets so much attention, and for all the controversy it inspires, is likely to be a influential factor in how one votes. I think Republican candidates in large part use that to get people's lead people away from the real issues.

Yes, I think abortion is pretty bad, but rather than demanding it be outlawed, why can't we work on alternative ways to reduce the main causes of abortion--unwanted pregnancies. If the same people that want abortion outlawed were willing to talk about cheap and available contraception, sex education (not abstinence education), and the MALE role in the cause of abortions, we'd be a lot closer to reaching a solution to curtail the frequency of abortions. However, due to the inherent conflict between the "rights" of a fetus (assuming it IS a life) and the rights of the person in whom it develops, you cannot outlaw abortion.

It should not be a reasonable part of any debate in a country that supposedly values the rights of all its inhabitants. Abortion cannot be outlawed without subverting the value and rights of women.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 6 months ago

"In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births....."

That's good. Keeping up with that ingenius reputation. Us Americans know how to run the race.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

That Girl,

I understand your statement now about "remembering the womb", I misinterpreted it originally.

As to "who's life." I refer to life in general, as in assume that both mother and fetus have an equal right to their own life. Don't take away fetus' life unncessarily, likewise don't take away mother's life unnecessarily. And just to be clear, by "life" I don't mean "lifestyle."

As to my question I keep posing, you have either mischaracterized it or misunderstood it much as I did your earlier statement. The question begins "if a fetus is a life" not "if a fetus is alive." Since it seems that you are an ethical relativist, I would like to point out to you that all cultures assign intrinsic value to human "life" evident by the general prohibition on murder. You may believe that right and wrong is 100% subjective, if that is the case then there is a fundamental difference in the way that we understand things. From my experience, most people who hold that view (complete individual ethical relativism) appear to equate what is "right" with what it is that they "want" to do and how best they can concsciencely accomplish those objectives. I am as guilty as the next guy of slipping in to this sort of thinking time and again. I believe that if you truly thought about it, there would be some things that are universal maxims as to right and wrong.

As to the death penalty in its current form, I believe that it is flawed and I do not presently support it. As to the death penalty in theory, I am uncertain and I think we as a society need more intellectual discourse on the topic. The same is true of abortion. I believe the present free market system for abortion is flawed. In theory I am still uncertain on the issue. Which brings me finally to your question of "which circumstances?". The reason I include that as part of the question is to try to weed through peoples innate sense that there could be a plausible situation in which abortion is morally acceptable. I do not have a ready made list of those situations. I don't think that you can make a ready made list of them. Rather, I feel that it can better be resolved as a justification issue decided by a jury in an individual matter. For instance, a jury decides whether self-defense is applicable to the crime of murder or if there are other mitigating circumstances. The human side of the issue is not best resolved by policy. In the case of self-defense, we as a people have decided that while a murder is morally wrong, it may not be right to punish a person for his moral wrong-doing under that limited circumstance and we let a jury decide if such is the case.

0

Ray Parker 6 years, 6 months ago

This bogus, biased Guttmacher "study" is mainly a thinly veiled plea for legalization and liberalization of abortion on demand, and a ploy to fund the abortion lobby. Actual numbers and circumstances of abortions are usually shrouded in secrecy, even in "civilized" nations like the USofA, to cover up abortion crimes driven by the ruthless greed of abortionist quacks. The abortion lobby has always told lies and gross exaggerations about the number of illegal and unsafe abortions. In Kansas, abortions are illegal (because abortion mills are uninspected and law enforcement has broken down, and more profit comes from breaking the laws and medical regulations), unsafe, and rampant. Let's get those grand juries impaneled and get the abortionist quacks and their killing staff behind bars for good.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

logicsound,

In retrospect I did not give rewriting your statement as much thought as I would have liked too, it was only intended to be satire and I clearly failed horribly. There was no intent for any of it to be logically sound, just as I didn't find yours to be logically sound or persuasive in the first instance. I really didn't mind your post, in fact I agree with much of it. I just hoped to illustrate that the same hot-button voting goes on for both sides.

You write as if all people who would vote for a pro-life candidate are voting for he or she for that reason alone. I know many people who have voted for such candidates with that being merely one of many reasons why they like the candidate for the office. I have no way of knowing, but I would guess that there are equally as many people out there who would vote against a candidate solely because the candidate is pro-life as the number that would support the candidate for the same reason. I guess its just that you seem to assume that everyone who would argue against abortion is in the same camp and only cares about that issue. You would be wrong if that were your assumption.

I don't know many "conservatives" for which abortion is the sole reason for their vote either. I hear about them only in posts such as yours.

0

kugrad 6 years, 6 months ago

This was well-known 25 years ago and one of the primary arguments made for years against making abortion illegal, and, thus, unsafe.

0

ThatGirl 6 years, 6 months ago

I'll clarify--I didn't say that abortion was "okay because I don't remember the womb." I was just responding to someone else's absurd comments about who can and cannot comment on abortion based on previous "fetus" status. My only point was this: certainly easy as an adult to comment on things so abstract--i.e., if I had been aborted, I certainly wouldn't have known it.....

As to your comment: "However, if we are to pick a side as a society without knowing all of the facts (i.e. when life begins) isn't it better to err on the side of life..." My question would be--"who's life?"

And to answer the question you like to keep posing about "if a fetus is alive is abortion wrong?" I would point out that you say "in most circumstances..." In which circumstances would it be okay? Is the death penalty okay? Personally, I feel no need to answer this question because 1) it hasn't been shown that a fetus is "alive" and 2) what might be "wrong" for me may not be for someone else--that's a completely subjective thing.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

Agnostick (Anonymous) says:

Abortion-legal or not-will be common anywhere that unwanted pregnancies are abundant.

The unwanted pregnancy is the #1 cause of abortion.

Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and you greatly reduce the number of abortions. There is no other viable solution to this problem.

Other nations, especially in Europe, have teen pregnancy rates that are a fraction of the rate in the United States. Here's an example of one nation that has greatly reduced both their teen pregnancy rate, and their number of abortions:


I happen to agree strongly with your point in that post... nothing that I have said was intentionally directed at you or your point.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

ThatGirl (Anonymous) says:

As a former fetus, I'll go on record saying I wouldn't have minded being aborted. Since I have absolutely no recollection of my time in the womb, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been aware of what was going on.

If anyone can tell me more about their womb experience, I'm dying to hear about it


agnostik,

you must have missed this part...

I will address the rest of your post in a second.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

That Girl,

I don't presume to know when life begins. My instinct and my religion and my understanding of human existence within the grand scheme of things under any view of creation/evolution may push me towards one side or another. However, if we are to pick a side as a society without knowing all of the facts (i.e. when life begins) isn't it better to err on the side of life with an allowance for those situations which might justify an abortion even if life starts sometime in the womb?

By the way, if a fetus is a "life" is abortion wrong in most circumstances?

0

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

Thatgirl:

"What might qualify as unreasonable is presuming you know the answer to when life begins when you are coming from a moral perspective, as opposed to a scientific (factual) one:.."

I actually think that most scientific definitions of "life" support my case. The following definitions were the first few that I could find that had a definition of "life." A fetus fit all of these. I didn't disregard any because they didn't fit my theory.

Further, a fetus (IMHO) is a seperate life because of a distinct genetic pattern. You can call these religious principles, but I believe them to be well grounded in science.

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-19-life_N.htm

0

logicsound04 6 years, 6 months ago

"When will you pro-aborts figure out that the abortion debate is a tool of the political machine to capture your tunnel-visioned vote? Every year, the ultrafeminazi's promise to work to keep abortions going in the U.S., and every year, you don't hear so much as a peep towards such an initiative. Maybe if you started voting with your heart (if you have one) instead of your blind moral indignation about people who will now never be born, you might get a better return on your vote. And the rest of us can be free of the save-the-trees but forever let-mothers-have-the-right-to-kill their-babies rhetoric.""


Wow, there is a lot of logical fallacy in your post....

First of all, the fundamental difference here is that I am satisfied with the status quo. I don't listen to promises of "keeping abortion going in the U.S." because that makes no sense. The only way the status quo would cease is if the Supreme Court all of a sudden decided to overturn 30 years of precedent from it's own ruling.

Second, I don't know many liberals for whom abortion is the sole reason for their vote. Again, part of this has to do with the fact that most liberals are not demanding a change.

Third, I have no moral indignation over the fetuses that are not born. I find it ludicrous that people see an non-conscious mass of cells and tissues as more worthy of personal rights than a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, percieving human being. However, that is not moral indignation. Moral indignation is reserved for people who feel that they are the sole arbiters of all that is moral and good, and that the only reasonable solution is for everyone else to adhere to THEIR moral values. While I view the anti-choicers as wrong, you are welcome to believe what you wish. I am not actively working to make you live by my opinion, whereas you ARE working to make me live by yours.

Fourth, and finally, the "save the trees....kill their babies" rhetoric that you recited doesn't exist. I have never ONCE heard a pro-choicer say those words. Yet on the other side, I have specifically heard anti-choicers use the words "baby killer". Hell, you even included it in your assertion of what you believe the pro-choice rhetoric to be.

So while you were trying to be clever and turn my post back on me, you only succeeded in accentuating the differences.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 6 months ago

csgblaw writes:

"Some posters on this board have implied that abortion is ok because nobody can remember being in the womb. Couldn't the same argument be used to say that killing infants is ok, because noone can remember being an infant? I do not think that having a memory of a particular time is what gives a person her value."


I've been active on these forums for a little more than two years. Abortion arguments, articles, threads etc. blow through here about once a week. And yes, the battle lines are always the same... the combatants for each side are the same... the arguments for/against abortion are the same.

In watching this stuff go on for these many months, I have NEVER seen anyone either say or imply, that abortion was okay "because nobody can remember being in the womb."

Extremist claptrap doesn't go very far around here.

Outright lies and fabrications, like yours, stall at the gate.

You're a newcomer here (well, at least your username--which might be one of several--is new). You can search topics, stories... you can even click on a username and find an archive of that user's posts.

I challenge you to back up your assertion with a quote, csgblaw. Just one, please.

I also notice that you daintily skipped over my previous post in this thread, in which I addressed the leading cause of abortion, and how abortion can be reduced. It's pretty tough to argue with ironclad logic, but be my guest. :)

If you can't prove your earlier assertion, I'll kindly ask you to retract it.

In other words... put up or shut up.

Thanks...

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

Storm,

I completely agree that people would still "make the choice" even if a fetus is proven to be a life. I also agree that many of those same people would employ their own situational ethics in order to cope with their decision or justify it to others if they are not themselves burdened with a conscience. However, it seems like there are still many people out there who simply opt for an abortion out of convenience. If it turns out that a fetus is both not a life and without value then a conveneince abortion is suddenly not as big of an issue. However, if a fetus is a life or does have intrinsic value nearing or equal to that of its mother and father, laws and or the actions of society can help to prevent conveneince abortions, etc.

Just because some instances of a behaviour can be morally acceptable, does not mean that all instances of that behaviour must be accepted. Stealing is generally viewed as wrong. Stealing is also illegal. Under our laws a person on trial for stealing can in most instances obtain a trial by jury. The facts of the individual circumstance of a particular act of stealing can mitigate or aggregate the moral turpitude of an alleged crime and entailingly the requisite punishment in the minds of the jury.

0

ThatGirl 6 years, 6 months ago

Imastinker said:

Some people refuse to have an intelligent discussion o the matter. The fundamental disagreement seems to be right there, whether a fetus is a life. The way I see it is that if it is a life, then it is our duty to protect it, at the expense of the convenience of the mother. Pro-choice folks don't see it as a life, and see the rights of the mother as more important.

Of course, reasonable folks should at least be able to concede that if it is a life, it should be protected, and if it's not a life it should not be. That said, we're not dealing with reasonable folks here. We are dealing with people who think that abortion should be legal no matter what.

That Girl wrote: Shockingly, I partially agree with what you said. The fact of the matter is (and I am strongly pro-choice, but damn reasonable enough to admit this) it is rhetoric on both sides of the issue. At the end of the day, no matter how much mud slinging happens, NO ONE is anti-choice or pro-abortion. What people are, is divided on the issue of "when life begins." And quite frankly, if the world's most talented scientists can't answer that question, surely no one on this forum will. I don't think that in turn makes pro-choicers "unreasonable" however. it just makes us pragmatic. What might qualify as unreasonable is presuming you know the answer to when life begins when you are coming from a moral perspective, as opposed to a scientific (factual) one.....

0

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

csgblaw,

You are exactly right. Many of the arguments made (to some extent by both sides) are just emotional arguemnts that have nothing to do with the real issue. Rape, incest, and so on are bad, but are diversions. Reasonable people don't think that it's OK to to kill someone because they were raped. Neither side is saying it is, but there sure is a lot of discussion of this topic.

Personally, I think that people use smokescreens like this because they are uncomfortable with the real discussion, which centers on whether that baby/fetus is a life or not.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

That saddens me. I agree with you completely (obviously) that this debate centers on that fundamental question. It saddens me that so many in this forum would rather use emotive arguments to try and win the debate rather than attempt to actually conduct a real inquiry and discover the morally correct answer. I for one am not 100% either way on the issue. I lean towards pro-life, because I would prefer to err in favor of preserving life. Perhaps if more of these conversations could be conducted intellectually, more people could actually be persuaded one way or another. Instead, it seems like people prefer to just throw out their favorite little gimmicky argument that has nothing to do with the real issue. Perhaps that is how the majority of people (at least as represented by this forum) prefer to be persuaded...by irrelevant and illogical gimmicky arguments slung down to the masses as 10lbs of crap in a 5lb bag.

As their saying goes,

Whatever, I guess...

0

storm 6 years, 6 months ago

csgblaw...if proven...it would not be wrong in the eyes of people in despair because they must do what they have to do....rape...incest...a catholic unwed girl will be found out if she is pregnant and subjected to judgmental thinking...a prostitute must continue to work...a couple with four children and not enough money for a fifth...newlyweds finishing college...a woman who had to pay the taxi-driver in order to ride to the hospital...and saving the life of the mother... These scenarios require a choice be made. (Yes, even rape, incest and saving the life of the mother are circumstances that require a choice, therefore if one believes abortion for those circumstances then they are PRO-CHOICE.) The despair is only known to the people involved. Pictures and videos won't keep people in despair from doing what they feel they must do.

0

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

cgsblaw - I have asked that question on this forum before, and the answer was a "no."

Some people refuse to have an intelligent discussion o the matter. The fundamental disagreement seems to be right there, whether a fetus is a life. The way I see it is that if it is a life, then it is our duty to protect it, at the expense of the convenience of the mother. Pro-choice folks don't see it as a life, and see the rights of the mother as more important.

Of course, reasonable folks should at least be able to concede that if it is a life, it should be protected, and if it's not a life it should not be. That said, we're not dealing with reasonable folks here. We are dealing with people who think that abortion should be legal no matter what.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

I do not assign a portion of a person's value to the fact that he/she has been born.
Accordingly, when someone is pregnant, I do not discount the value of the life inside of them due to the fact that she/he is yet to be born.

Some posters on this board have implied that abortion is ok because nobody can remember being in the womb. Couldn't the same argument be used to say that killing infants is ok, because noone can remember being an infant? I do not think that having a memory of a particular time is what gives a person her value.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

Does everyone at least agree that if it was a proven fact that a fetus is a "life" abortion would be wrong in most circumstances?

0

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

heysoos -

If the abortion rate among christians is somewhat less than 33% and the percent of the worlds population that are christian is a little more than 33%, then 9 out of 10 women can not have had an abortion by age 45. Therefore this study is biased or wong.

How's that?

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

Confrontation,

Your notion of who is "qualified" would also make me unqualified to argue against you shooting someone because I don't own a gun...

That being said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that someone who has been a fetus is "unqualified" to argue in favor of abortion. The same argument could be used to say that a person who was once a in jail is unqualified as a death penalty advocate.

0

Confrontation 6 years, 6 months ago

So, if we are "unqualified to support abortion considering that" we were once a fetuses, does that mean that men are unqualified to argue against abortion because they don't have a uterus? Sounds about right.

0

csgblaw 6 years, 6 months ago

"When will you anti-choicers figure out that the abortion debate is a tool of the political machine to capture your tunnel-visioned vote? Every year, the ubercons promise to work to stop abortion in the U.S., and every year, you don't hear so much as a peep towards this initiative. Maybe if you started voting with your heads instead of your blind moral indignation about people you will never meet, you might get a better return on your vote. And the rest of us can be free of "baby killer" rhetoric."


Logicsound,

When will you pro-aborts figure out that the abortion debate is a tool of the political machine to capture your tunnel-visioned vote? Every year, the ultrafeminazi's promise to work to keep abortions going in the U.S., and every year, you don't hear so much as a peep towards such an initiative. Maybe if you started voting with your heart (if you have one) instead of your blind moral indignation about people who will now never be born, you might get a better return on your vote. And the rest of us can be free of the save-the-trees but forever let-mothers-have-the-right-to-kill their-babies rhetoric."

0

Agnostick 6 years, 6 months ago

Abortion--legal or not--will be common anywhere that unwanted pregnancies are abundant.

The unwanted pregnancy is the #1 cause of abortion.

Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and you greatly reduce the number of abortions. There is no other viable solution to this problem.

Other nations, especially in Europe, have teen pregnancy rates that are a fraction of the rate in the United States. Here's an example of one nation that has greatly reduced both their teen pregnancy rate, and their number of abortions:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

75x55 6 years, 6 months ago

"Maybe if you started voting with your heads instead of your blind moral indignation about people you will never meet, you might get a better return on your vote."

So, we have your permission to try and elect candidates that will enforce our morality upon you and others that might oppose it?

Thanks, LS04, thanks for that helpful advice!

0

logicsound04 6 years, 6 months ago

I don't know how anyone has the patience to go back and forth with these buffoons on a Friday.

More power to you.

It's just a good thing that abortion will not be outlawed anytime soon--they can keep blowing their hot air without anything to show for it.

When will you anti-choicers figure out that the abortion debate is a tool of the political machine to capture your tunnel-visioned vote? Every year, the ubercons promise to work to stop abortion in the U.S., and every year, you don't hear so much as a peep towards this initiative. Maybe if you started voting with your heads instead of your blind moral indignation about people you will never meet, you might get a better return on your vote. And the rest of us can be free of "baby killer" rhetoric.

0

waydownsouth 6 years, 6 months ago

badger it says nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. That is where they are illegal. Unsafe being the key word there. Not that they have more. Read again all the way to the end.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

workin2hard...

Tell it to your pals that are pro-death penalty.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

"Sounds like you've convinced yourself, Jesus (heysoos)."

That hypocrites are fair game? I convinced myself of that a loooooong time ago.

0

workin2hard 6 years, 6 months ago

You people make me sick. You want to save the whales, the bald eagles, even the white rinos. Lets even breed them so they don't die out. You want to save energy and go green.You want to hang the pro ball player who abused his dogs. But you don't want to save the unborn.Because its a womans right and legal. You want to have free sex without the responsibality. Yes some women get pregnant on birth control most don't use it like they should. So willing to kill another but by all means save yourself. You use rape and insest as an example but that is a small number to the woman who go because they just don't want to. No reason except that its not the right time. Maybe some of you need to read exactly how an abortion is performed in each trimester and look at the pictures. You do your research on why a woman should get one but refuse to even look at why she should not. They don't tell you all the details when you go to get an abortion just a general idea of whats going on. But if you go to get a heart transplant they tell you about every snip and cut with pictures showing you a good heart from a bad one. Why is that? So make your snide remarks just shows how educated you people are on this topic.

0

situveux1 6 years, 6 months ago

I've never understood why liberals are against abortion. Why would you be against having more people to tax and put on welfare?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 6 months ago

Sounds like you've convinced yourself, Jesus (heysoos).

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

STRS, when conservative Republicans hijacked religion and recruited the flocks to crusade for them, it all became fair game.

0

ThatGirl 6 years, 6 months ago

I've never met anyone who is "pro-abortion." Anyone else?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 6 months ago

You liberals keep injecting religion into this conversation. Why? Who on this post is using religion to defend their pro-life position? No one. Who's quoting the Bible? No one.

The only posters using God as a their crutch are the pro-aborts.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

heysoo,

Christians who describe themselves as fundementalist and born-again also have a higher domestic violence rate, divorce rate and suicide rate than other Christians and other faiths...in fact the lowest divorce rate by faith is Pagans.

Family values my hiney...bold faced hipocritical liars trying to control others so they do not have to look at how pathetic their empty lives are. The fake Christians give my faith a bad name.

0

Confrontation 6 years, 6 months ago

"You are unqualified to support abortion considering that you were once a fetus."

This is hilarious!

0

smitty 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, once i had a tarot reading that verified my father raped my mother while he was intoxicated. It felt like the truth so I'll verify a womb memory as a sixth sense. This also explains my adversion to rape and violence according to the cards! But please, there is no reason to dy(i)e over this revelation.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

Love this gem:

"More abortions = less Liberals."

As no one has yet proven the Guttmacher Institute's reports to be factually incorrect, I'll post this excerpt, from a study they published in the mid 90's:

"Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women; one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians"

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html

Burn!!!

0

ThatGirl 6 years, 6 months ago

As a former fetus, I'll go on record saying I wouldn't have minded being aborted. Since I have absolutely no recollection of my time in the womb, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been aware of what was going on.

If anyone can tell me more about their womb experience, I'm dying to hear about it.

I guess this means that I'm allowed to speak my mind?? (Such warped logic!)

0

lelly 6 years, 6 months ago

In the interest of full disclosure, I believe abortion is wrong.

Until the conservative wing in politics supports funding for true family planning in this country and in others (abstinence-only campaigns as a requirement to receive AIDS funding in Africa...really? Abstinence only DOES NOT WORK in this country, why would it work in others?), abortion will still be used as birth control everywhere, regardless of legality or personal feelings.

On another note, abortion is the first wave of an ever-widening campaign. evangelicals/christian conservatives/neo-cons, etc believe than ANY form of birth control is against literal readings of the bible. Please be aware of this when you vote.

0

badger 6 years, 6 months ago

waydownsouth, did you read the part of the article that said, "The vast majority of abortions - 35 million - were in the developing world. And nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. Worldwide, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion, and nine out of 10 women will have an abortion before age 45."

They have more abortions in the third world, not less. And it's not 'not so easy' to get birth control, it's impossible. Doctors in parts of the third world get death threats and beatings for teaching women about birth control, whether it's because they're encouraging promiscuity, or because some people label it as 'bloodless genocide' to teach about birth control - because they see getting people to use condoms by telling them about AIDS as an attempt to eradicate their population by attrition with bogus threats about a disease they don't believe in.

You know, it's funny how the incidence of abortions and STD's can be decreased by the same two things: education and eradicating poverty. Women all over the world work as prostitutes because there is no other way to make a living and no handy welfare program. And when you're working to survive, and your trick tells you that if you make him wear a condom he'll spend his money on a woman who won't (and a dozen other women are happy to oblige), do you force the issue if it means you and your children both starve to death? When you were sold to a brothel at ten because your parents couldn't feed you, and you're starved and the soles of your feet are beaten so you won't run away, you don't really have the option of standing up for yourself about much of anything.

There's a lot of information out there about the challenges presented by sex education in the developing world, and also about the problems women and children face of rape, exploitation, and sexual slavery. It's pretty appalling to contemplate what's going on in places like Thailand and Darfur.

0

jonas 6 years, 6 months ago

"SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

Fomer fetuses should oppose abortion, just as any former slave would oppose slavery."

Why? If we were aborted we simply wouldn't have existed, and someone else would have just taken our place. It would have been all the same to us.

0

jonas 6 years, 6 months ago

"More abortions = less Liberals. A win win."

If you think only liberals have abortions, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

0

jonas 6 years, 6 months ago

"In other words, there is 50% less abortions per 100 in countries where it is illegal, or 100% more abortions per 100 in countries where it is legal. That simply doesn't comport with the assertion that abortion is just as common in countries where it is illegal as countries where it is legal."

If the only two continents were North America and Africa, then you'd be right, wouldn't you.

0

J Good Good 6 years, 6 months ago

I can't help but say this AGAIN. Six out of ten women in this country who get an abortion were using birth control. I have known women who got pregnant on the pill, the patch, the shot, and the iud. It happens.

And plenty of religious conservatives have changed their mind about abortion when their teenage daughters came home pregnant....

0

waydownsouth 6 years, 6 months ago

Funny when prochoice comes up with research its fact. When prolife come up with research its twisted. Women in this day in age know better. Unprotected sex=babies. Birth control is available. The health department gives it out for free. In third world countries where birth control is limited its not so easy but they have a less abortion rate. If womens health is such a consern then std's should be at the top of the list. Justifying the abortion and the way they are preformed is putting your head in the sand to get rid of a "problem". All in the name of womens health.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 6 months ago

Fomer fetuses should oppose abortion, just as any former slave would oppose slavery. Having escaped the perils of possible abortion at the hands of your mother and her doctor means you should be fighting to save the lives of future generations, not kill them.

0

Bubbles 6 years, 6 months ago

If liberals want to abort their young, I'm all for it.

I'm tired of religious folk messing with abortion. You people need to wake up!! We should be promoting and financing the abortion of liberals!!

What the heck are you people thinking?

More abortions = less Liberals. A win win.

0

ThatGirl 6 years, 6 months ago

Heysoos: Give up now. I tried to get facts out of some of these folks on the last "abortion debate" article. They can't produce. They either state an opinion, make a snide comment, or try and kick it back to you to "disprove" what they are saying (love it when people try and make you prove a negative!) You just have to accept that the blindly ignorant prefer things that way. Sucks, but I am constantly being proved right about that!

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 6 months ago

americorps,

You are unqualified to support abortion considering that you were once a fetus.

0

badger 6 years, 6 months ago

I do have a hard time with the 9 out of 10 assertion, unless we're talking about multiple abortions. I know that I was getting some statistics out of Eastern Europe that suggested the average for women over there was between three and five abortions in her lifetime, depending onthe study you read. There was no birth control, rape was common, and unlicensed back-alley 'doctors' would perform abortions cheaply. I know that abortion rates are a lot higher in places like Bosnia, where a woman who has had sex (even if she was raped) is stigmatized and unable to find someone to marry or hire her, so a secret abortion is the only way for some women to have any sort of future (given that soldiers would often rape the women of a village to 'shame' their men).

I think the most telling statistic is that 97 percent of unsafe abortions happen in poor countries, where the combination of a lack of education, a lack of support for women trying to raise children, and a lack of good medical care put a lot of women in dangerous positions. Programs that refuse aid to clinics that perform safe abortions but provide it to those that claim they don't perform abortions (I'd recommend checking their back rooms, frankly...it wouldn't be the first time someone lied to the US to get our aid...) contribute to this problem.

While it's easy to sit back and say, "Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex," girls living in a refugee camp in the Sudan where roving gangs rape any female they can find or women in Thailand faced with the choice between prostitution and starving children don't quite have the luxury of it. And when you live in a culture where unwed pregnancy (whether the sex was your choice or not) means being beaten or cast out of your community with nowhere to go, or another mouth to feed might mean you and the kids you already have starve, abortion can seem like the only option. Why do you think people in other countries are so eager to sell their babies to the US? They can't feed them, and since we only take a very small percentage of the children offered for international adoption, math tells me that a lot more probably starve.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

Someday, little one, someday...you'll understand and be able to distinguish between facts and opinions. I've done all I can. The rest is up to you.

0

americorps 6 years, 6 months ago

Women always have and always will have abortions, it is a sad fact that for whatever reasons they feel there is no alternative. The only debate is will we make it safe and legal or push it into back alleys. The Christian Supremecists want to push it to the back alleys. A very hateful agenda.

0

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

I like the 9 out of 10 women will have had an abortion by 45. I sincerely doubt that. I find it much more likely that some women will have had multiple abortions, and more than 10% will have had none.

I have a very hard time believing a lot of this story.

0

OUTSPOKEN_BRUNETTE 6 years, 6 months ago

I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT WHILE ABORTION IS LEGAL IN MANY PLACES, IT SHOULD'NT BE A WOMAN'S FIRST AND ONLY OPTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. IT'S A DECISION YOU'LL REGRET.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 6 years, 6 months ago

Geezus, you're getting closer, but still missing much.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

Or, if you can show some kind of statistical analysis of the Guttmacher Institute's research being "skewed," outside of your or some anti-choice organization's opinion of it, that would suffice. Until then, you are legless in this discussion...

I don't know about you, but I learned in...I think 2nd grade...the difference between a fact and opinion.

Now, if you wanted to avoid getting beaten up by someone smarter than you in a battle of words, here's what you should have said:

"Dr. Alan Guttmacher, for which the Guttmacher Institute is named, is former president of Planned Parenthood, a known abortion rights advocate. Given this FACT, it is my OPINION that this study is skewed."

If you had said this, I would have left you alone, but your emotion got the best of you and you mistook the definitional difference between fact and opinion.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

"Fact: Research the connection between GI and PP."

I won't even begin on the clumsiness of this line...is Informed supposed to be some kind of ironic screenname?

To the point--it doesn't take any research, moron, as Guttmacher was a former president of PP.

Now, if you will kindly point to any factual inaccuracies in either the article or the study itself...

0

Norma Jeane Baker 6 years, 6 months ago

Wow, heysoos, you sure told me.

Fact: Research the connection between GI and PP.

0

heysoos 6 years, 6 months ago

Informed, if you can't refute the information in the study other than to say that the findings are "skewed," then can it.

Facts win arguments, not opinions.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 6 years, 6 months ago

Findings from the Guttmacher Institute will always be skewed to support abortion.

Nowhere in this article does it mention the connection between the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood.

0

Rationalanimal 6 years, 6 months ago

"In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births."

In other words, there is 50% less abortions per 100 in countries where it is illegal, or 100% more abortions per 100 in countries where it is legal. That simply doesn't comport with the assertion that abortion is just as common in countries where it is illegal as countries where it is legal.

0

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 6 months ago

Five will getcha ten the next comment will be an incoherent, antiabortion rant from packrat. Although settingtherecordstraight may beat him/her to it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.