Heartbeat-Abortion Bill Ohio

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Welfare is problematic because it promotes people to not get employed

 

Childcare would promote people to have more kids, or atleast be less reluctant to have children

 

They're not the same vla1ne

 

I'm suggesting a temporary fix, maybe Trump and Pence can clean up adoption, but ectogeneis is alteast 10 year away. You'll have more fetuses murdered in the US along before that cure comes than Jews killed in the Holocaust

 

We're gonna be pretty close to a post scarcity world, and tolerating a racial holocaust (which is really what it is when you look at the races that get abortion) isn't ok IMO

 

I'm not saying stop giving out contraception or trying to fix nuclear families, I'm saying just doing that isn't enough

 

---

 

Giga, correct, but they claim (falsely) that only 3% of their revenue is from abortions (it's closer to 10% when you dig into the numbers). If they're really only that dependent on abortion, they can surely survive without it

 

The # of women getting illegal abortions will drop the minute the first few get charged and tried for 1st degree murder

[Delibirb]

Regarding the fetus is alive portion. 10 years ago, we would have been unable to save the fetus at the stage of development we can today. 50 years ago it would have been even starker. As we inch closer and closer to ectogenesis, the limits of viability have become pushed. So did fetuses get more human as science progressed?

 

-snip-

 

At which point did this child become human? When we can save it outside the mother? Because that's a variable. Not a constant

 

I think you misunderstood my point on cocaine (or any drug for that matter). I was attempting to propose a method to keep track of fetuses. You can attempt to track every fetus conceived, which is likely quite difficult. Similarly it's very difficult to keep track over every gram of cocaine trafficked through the United States. Instead of chasing after the problem, you can be waiting for it, which is personified in drug-busts during trade, and the government restricting the period in which an abortion can be performed.

 

I reject the premise that you need a paper trail when you can pass blanket legislation to protect organisms with a innate potential to become human in a reasonable period of time. 

 

Illegal immigrants technically don't exist in America under the laws, but don't you think a police officer would stop me from murdering one on the street if he saw the conformation? The illegal won't have any papers on him suggesting he was american or human at that point.

 

The government hinders LLH when the father has little say in the matter, can we acknowledge at the very least he is in fact a person? And I would argue that with the ever receding limits on what we can state as viable, that a fetus too should in large portion be considered a human.

 

If you reject the notion that humanity should be tied to viability, then we have a case of a wrongly convicted man.

 

Dr. Kermit Gosnell and now convicted murdered preformed third trimester abortions, of individuals like this baby girl (asked Nai permission to post this)

 

[spoiler=aborted Fetus]

-snip-

 

 

 

 

He was convicted of murder. If fetus aren't human, should his conviction be overturned?

Ignoring all the hot air that doesn't actually address my point nor acknowledge that I've already made clear it doesn't matter whether a fetus is considered a human or not. Pay attention.

 

I see your claim that blanket legislation declaring at what point abortion is illegal will be sufficient. You are wrong. There is no contesting this; if your goal is to prevent as many abortions as possible, no matter what stage you declare them to be illegal, you would need to keep record of pregnancies. Not doing so would be a gross oversight of your now lawful duty to protect fetuses.

 

Your murder of illegal immigrant argument is irrelevant. This is not a subject of the individual, it isn't decided case-by-case. You want to eliminate all abortions (or as many as possible), you need to show me how all abortions are problems. A police officer will stop you from murdering an illegal immigrant for a number of reasons. Technically, at the government level, they don't care about that immigrant, as he isn't a citizen. But a police officer is personally charged with maintaining peace, and regardless of whether that immigrant is his responsibility, the preservation of the relative peace that exists while he is alive as opposed to after you kill him is.

 

For the record, yes, I think Dr. Gosnell's conviction should be overturned. I also think he should be ostracized from his community, have his medical license revoked (as I imagine performing such late abortions is not medically practical nor honorable), and generally should be considered a cruel person, regardless of the nobility his intentions (might) have carried. But he did not commit murder. And this does nothing to prove or disprove my point. Once again, it is entirely irrelevant and seems to simply be a tangential tool you're using to justify a law based on morality, not governance.

 

So, let me simplify my question for you, since you seem to excel at skirting around it entirely. Why are abortions a hindrance to the government or its ability to govern, to the point they should be remotely concerned about and recognize fetuses as existing and being citizens that they are responsible for?

[Slinky]

Have only read the first couple pages here, but isn't the point of a free country to /not/ have the government up in your face or trying to regulate your personal business? Yet the government here is doing exactly that.

 

Like, this entire issue is hogwash. Pro-life or pro-choice doesn't even matter. What you have as your morals is restricted to you, and you alone. Don't shove them down other people's throats. Things being shoved down our throats were why we left England in the first place.

 

If I had to take a side though, I'd go pro-choice, because again, the government shouldn't have the right to interfere with its own people's personal business.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Have only read the first couple pages here, but isn't the point of a free country to /not/ have the government up in your face or trying to regulate your personal business? Yet the government here is doing exactly that.

 

Like, this entire issue is hogwash. Pro-life or pro-choice doesn't even matter. What you have as your morals is restricted to you, and you alone. Don't shove them down other people's throats. Things being shoved down our throats were why we left England in the first place.

 

If I had to take a side though, I'd go pro-choice, because again, the government shouldn't have the right to interfere with its own people's personal business.

 

It's not hogwash, because the common argument in Pro-Life is that Abortion is murder, and thus falls within the duty of government to try and restrict, prevent and punish for.

 

Thus the issues arises from the fact we can't draw a simple line there as to whether it is or it isn't, so it remains and issue, so even if one is against government interference it becomes a thing the government has to address. And thus why a debate around 'when does the feutus count as a human' begins.

 

Because even a free country would have a criminal justice system in place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, let me simplify my question for you, since you seem to excel at skirting around it entirely. Why are abortions a hindrance to the government or its ability to govern, to the point they should be remotely concerned about and recognize fetuses as existing and being citizens that they are responsible for?

Because I'm saying the line between human and fetus is a gray one that ever recedes (abortion is defined as the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus Val1ne, so removing a viable child is not abortion)

 

In that regard, using current science to justify termination of "inferior" life forms is going against the principles this country was built on. Val1ne brought up the point that slaves were removed from their home and relocated here, but the fact still remains that individuals in that period used "science" of that era to justify (falsely) the right to treat Blacks however they wanted as they owned the blacks

 

The "my body, my choice" is similarly built on that fallacy. Just because you own something based on the current set of laws does not make it correct. 

 

You might say that the government isn't hindered by it, as in the existence of abortion isn't harming the running of the government, but I would argue that the government not holding the equal protection clause to strict scrutiny is a hindrance 

 

Atleast you're consistent on Kermit

[Aerion Brightflame]

My Body, My Choice isn't based on ownership, it's about personal liberty. Which I assume you regard as one of the principles of the nation given the slavery comment. And it is an important distinction.

 

If everyone has a right to individual freedom, part of that freedom is the freedom over there own body. Which would include taking part in a voluntary medical procedure.

 

The issue then becomes a case of whose rights take preference, and what rights an unborn child is entitled to. It is usually the case that until the age of 18, the rights of the parents outweight the rights of the child, but that's a really iffy application to apply here. So there is existing legal basis to render the childs rights as being less than the mothers. Likewise there are existing legal basis's for the argument that ones individual rights outrank someone elses 'freedom to live', as represented by the organ donation presented in RoevsWave. Again it's iffy, but there are multiple legal ways to justify priority upon the mothers right to personal liberty here.

 

Either way, since we can't outright classify abortion as murder as there's an ethical gray area about life there, no matter what you do regarding abortion you technically violate someones rights.

 

You basically just choose whose rights you give greater priority to in this case.

[Delibirb]

You might say that the government isn't hindered by it, as in the existence of abortion isn't harming the running of the government, but I would argue that the government not holding the equal protection clause to strict scrutiny is a hindrance

 

Atleast you're consistent on Kermit

If you would argue that, then do so. Don't tell me that you believe that is the case, tell me why it is.

[a bad post]

Because I'm saying the line between human and fetus is a gray one that ever recedes (abortion is defined as the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus Val1ne, so removing a viable child is not abortion)

 

In that regard, using current science to justify termination of "inferior" life forms is going against the principles this country was built on. Val1ne brought up the point that slaves were removed from their home and relocated here, but the fact still remains that individuals in that period used "science" of that era to justify (falsely) the right to treat Blacks however they wanted as they owned the blacks

 

The "my body, my choice" is similarly built on that fallacy. Just because you own something based on the current set of laws does not make it correct. 

 

You might say that the government isn't hindered by it, as in the existence of abortion isn't harming the running of the government, but I would argue that the government not holding the equal protection clause to strict scrutiny is a hindrance 

 

Atleast you're consistent on Kermit

Except the science used to justify abortion isn't false. You said it yourself the baby is removed before it can survive outside the womb. There are an infinite number of factors in life that you nor any lawmaker cannot plan for in a case that isn't rape, incest, or a health complication. In fact, this bill doesn't even want to cover the first two. Besides how what right should you or anyone else that isn't the mother or the father of that baby to decide what happens to it. What right do you have to judge their reasoning or their circumstances? You are trying to boil this down to a black and white issue to serve your purposes when it is anything but.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except the science used to justify abortion isn't false. You said it yourself the baby is removed before it can survive outside the womb. There are an infinite number of factors in life that you nor any lawmaker cannot plan for in a case that isn't rape, incest, or a health complication. In fact, this bill doesn't even want to cover the first two. Besides how what right should you or anyone else that isn't the mother or the father of that baby to decide what happens to it. What right do you have to judge their reasoning or their circumstances? You are trying to boil this down to a black and white issue to serve your purposes when it is anything but.

The science wasn't wrong for slaves back then either. They even came up with skull cavities to "prove" slaves were meant to be submissive

 

The science isn't set lol. That's the entire point. Back in the age of Roe, we couldn't save babies as early as we can now. They didn't magically become human now that we can. And you can't say they're fetuses outside the womb either because those babies can now grow entirely without the mother. The fetus->baby barrier is conception. Life begins at conception. 

 

Incest is a stupid thing to restrict. And while I disagree, there is a case to be made for rape that two wrongs don't make a right

 

The same right I would use to judge any parent who willingly murders their child for convenience actually. But how about the left put their actions where their mouth is, and actually get the father some rights w/ regards to the matter before acting all high and mighty to the right. Clearly it seems like you think I shouldn't judge the parents

[Aerion Brightflame]

But advancements in medicine alone don't overturn Roe vs Wade. It's a strength to the ammendent made in Planned Parenthood vs Casey which changed the timeframe specifically to viability instead of being by trimesters. Because one of things at the heart of Roe Vs Wade was the argument that the Fetuses right to live oes not hold as much weight as the mothers right to privacy and there personal liberty.

 

And even then, Casey, in 1992 which restriced abortion to fit within the medical options at the time by changing it such that the woman retained the right to abortion pre viability, and that it was within the states option to restrict it previability. But it maintained that the right to an abortion was part of the 14th Ammendment, and thus prevent from restriction except for heavy due process.

 

And there is a reason as to why the majority argument is made with regards to the woman here, because it's her rights that anti-abortion laws infringe upon. She has a right to personal privacy and liberty, the father does not have a right to liberty over her body. It's the exact same argument made against the state. There isn't actually a simple solution there, because giving the father 'equal rights' infringes upon the mother's rights. It's again, like everything to do with abortion, a complex issue.

 

Essentially if your argument is one based around viability; that law already exists within Planned Parenthood vs Casey, you shouldn't need to advocate for it. It then leaves the judgement up to each state once viability reached, which I think you have expressed agrement for.

 

Technically that means the issue worth debating here is one of viability over anything else. So that's kinda interesting at least.

[Yui]

In every era, there's been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

 

A: The fact remains, people want those kids. Which is why people should equally push for easier adoption, and better coverage of mothers.

 

B: Malthusianism has been proven incorrect many times over, not entirely sure why you're bringing that up now. At the very least, Malthusian logic won't catch up with the world before we start exploring other planets and finding better ways to use space on earth

 

C: I'm not entirely sure what you problem is, and I don't /really/ interact with you, so you're gonna have to fill me in on the meaning of the euphemisms you have created for the sake of humor (?) such as the "Wank to Trump-cave"

For some reason I didn't get a notification that you quoted me, so I'm showing up a bit late. The first paragraph I can't really bother addressing with anything more than "So you're okay with making abortions illegal while we have an even worse adoption system than we did a few decades back?" so I'll just quickly cover the rest of this before posting in a more current fashion regarding this thread.

 

A: Wouldn't better coverage of mothers include the option of a big red button for "I don't want this thing in my body for 9 months giving me mood swings, cravings, etc"? Covering the mother before the baby's popped out is just as important as after, even if that means hitting the quit button and aborting the lil' guy/girl.

 

B: Because you wanted to take this to "abortion is murder". I'm just responding in a similar fashion from the pro-choice perspective :)

 

C: I mean I mentioned this at least once before iirc, but the only real beef I've got with you is how balls-in you get with all the political stuff. Somewhere back in time in the First Crusade, there are crusaders less zealous about their beliefs than you. My humorous euphemism was created because most of what you appear to talk about in there (and the status bar for that matter, much to seemingly everyone's dismay) is Trump's policies and how anyone who disagrees with them is wrong because Winter/Trump said so.

 

Anywho, to keep up-to-date, the science back then to prove slaves were inferior was wrong; people just didn't know that at the time. Science is knowing how the thing works then putting that knowledge into practice. Before we realized otherwise back in ancient Greece, people thought the sun orbited the earth, and well if they called that science they were wrong. Pre-Columbus, the same could be said about the planet being flat instead of round. To make a bit of an extreme example, we could discover some snow-white planet out there with a soft surface and a gooey core, then I could say it tastes like marshmallows. Odds are I'm wrong, but we don't know that yet. It wasn't that the slave owners and their science was actually science so much as taking one little thing and using it as proof that they must be right. On which note, I know I'm a bit late to this particular part, but did you not even read what you wrote last page? Slave owners were slave owners literally because they chose to have slaves. I doubt there were people back then running around in the South with wagons of slaves they forced upon others.

 

And you can't say they're fetuses outside the womb either because those babies can now grow entirely without the mother. The fetus->baby barrier is conception. Life begins at conception.

To wrap up this post with a pretty little bow, if life begins at conception, would that not mean the fetus is not alive? Or does that just mean it's not a life form of its own? In the former case, no point getting so upset over someone wanting to kill what isn't even alive yet. In the latter, that just means it's all the more the mother's choice to have an abortion or not if it's just an extension of herself. Not the government's, not the church's, and not yours either.

 

EDIT: I suddenly realized I've mistaken conception and delivery. I'll see myself to the door ._.

[a bad post]

The science wasn't wrong for slaves back then either. They even came up with skull cavities to "prove" slaves were meant to be submissive

 

The science isn't set lol. That's the entire point. Back in the age of Roe, we couldn't save babies as early as we can now. They didn't magically become human now that we can. And you can't say they're fetuses outside the womb either because those babies can now grow entirely without the mother. The fetus->baby barrier is conception. Life begins at conception. 

 

Incest is a stupid thing to restrict. And while I disagree, there is a case to be made for rape that two wrongs don't make a right

 

The same right I would use to judge any parent who willingly murders their child for convenience actually. But how about the left put their actions where their mouth is, and actually get the father some rights w/ regards to the matter before acting all high and mighty to the right. Clearly it seems like you think I shouldn't judge the parents

Disprove the science then, until then I will just ignore it every time you bring up the "science" behind justifying slavery as an analogous example.

 

Again you continue to say "murders their child for convenience" yet have no statistics to back this statement up, and every time I bring this up you ignore those parts of my post in your response. So back that up or please shut the funk up about it. The word's you are using ridiculously loaded when the are being based on an extremely subjective viewpoint.

 

Also what rights do you want for the father that he doesn't already have, seriously? Like the father has plenty of rights to the child, and has just as much say in whether or not the baby gets aborted or not. 

 

Winter do you have a child? Will you ever have to carry a child to term? If either of the answers to these questions is not 'yes' then no you don't have the right to judge any parents. You have no idea how hard it is, and you are making judgements and assumptions on your own preconceived notions.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

http://www.actionlife.org/index.php/life-issues/abortion/item/124-the-real-reason-women-choose-abortion

 

"Ninety-two % of women said social or "other" factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent said physical problems or possible health problems with the baby were the reason, and only 0.5% said they were seeking an abortion because they had been raped.

 

Bad timing was the most common reason women gave for having an abortion-they weren't ready to have another child. Not being able to afford a child, (or another child) was the second most important reason given."

 

"The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now"

 

So that's 48% of the women surveyed who were having an abortion because it was inconvenient. That's from 2004, this one has surveys from other years:

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

"Unready for responsibility" and "can't afford baby now" can certainly be categorised under inconvenience, so let's say this is 42%. The 2004 survey is in here as well, it's just the same information as the first article but in a table like the image above. Now it goes onto the part I find most interesting, there are state-by-state breakdowns compiled over 10+ years (the years used vary by chart). A few examples of this;

98.3% personal choice, wew says I. There's no further detail on what these reasons are, but going by the information otherwise available it's reasonably fair to assume that it'd line up with the ~45% figure for "inconvenient" pregnancies.

Now this one, as it notes, allowed multiple reasons to be given. Thus "can't afford" and "doesn't want" combined go beyond 100% and this does make the interpretation difficult but with such high figures for both I think the point is established, the majority of births are on the grounds of either not wanting or not feeling able to afford to keep the child rather than anything, which can be argued as "killing for convenience" (note: I don't care if you consider fetuses people, doesn't matter, Winter does and that's the context in which his claim is made).

 

I'm going to just sidetrack myself if I post anymore, but you can just look at this one and the first article is less important. There are charts showing the number of abortions done in cases of rape, incest, threat to maternal life (in no case does this exceed 0.04% of the total number), and fatal fetal abnormality, and they're all miniscule in the overall context. This does substantiate the claim that the majority, or more accurately, the most common reason for abortions, is that the child cannot be kept/is not wanted, which could lead one to conclude that they are being "killed" due to being an inconvenience.

 

Owait I missed this delicious bit of spice right at the end, a conclusion thing:

 

98.3% elective. If we take "avoid adjusting life", "economic", and "too young/immature/not ready" as being fair to interpret as "the child would be an inconvenience", then the estimated % of abortions done for such reasons is about 78%. You could argue to cut out economic and bring it down to 48%, but the other two I don't really see as disputable. So there are the statistics ye've been wanting.

[Dad]

If we're making abortions illegal because "more people need to accept responsibility for kids", then we should all start with men getting more vasectomies.  Iirc, it's reversible, so until you're ready for a kid, go get nicked.  Cuz Lord knows none of you are responsible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How Well It Works

Chances of a successful vasectomy reversal decline over time. Reversals are more successful during the first 10 years after vasectomy.1

 

In general, vasectomy reversal:2

 

Leads to overall pregnancy rates of greater than 50%.

Has the greatest chance of success within 3 years of the vasectomy.

Leads to pregnancy only about 30% of the time if the reversal is done 10 years after vasectomy.

[Dad]

We're talking equal rights here.  If you screw her without a vasectomy or a condom and she gets pregnant before you want another child, that's your fault.  Chances of success be damned, you're responsible.  So man up and give your kid away, or pretend everything is okay for eighteen years.  So you would only get the reversal done if you want kids.  Which means you're accepting responsibility for the kid.  Otherwise you have no reason to moan and groan when you have a kid by some jabroni you don't love.

 

Man up or don't complain.  That's the goal, ain't it?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

We're talking equal rights here.  If you screw her without a vasectomy or a condom and she gets pregnant before you want another child, that's your fault.  Chances of success be damned, you're responsible.  So man up and give your kid away, or pretend everything is okay for eighteen years.  So you would only get the reversal done if you want kids.  Which means you're accepting responsibility for the kid.  Otherwise you have no reason to moan and groan when you have a kid by some jabroni you don't love.

 

Man up or don't complain.  That's the goal, ain't it?

Oh I'm fine with it, I've always wanted to adopt

[VCR_CAT]

I haven't read all of this, but I've read a few pages and haven't seen it come up and I'm wondering why nobody's brought this point up:

 

The law is no substitute for morality.

 

Legality has goals towards the construction and maintenance of a society and has a variety of reasons to contribute to doing so. I understand why abortion is not an easy topic to talk about because whether they're classified as humans or not, fetuses grow into children; people. These are lives we're talking about and it's not a light subject to bring up in terms of whether or not abortions should be allowed, but to make something like this illegal in a blanket coverage isn't what the law should be doing. For one, as those charts and statistics should most clearly tell you, people aren't getting abortions for one reason; not many people (please I hope not many, or nobody at all at best) are getting knocked up thinking "Well howdy doody I'll just have the fetus aborted and be on with my life". As far as contraceptives go, there aren't many that are more inconvenient and potentially traumatizing than that.

 

Actually, let's hop on that point a little, the idea of reasons to get an abortion. Making abortions illegal isn't going to stop people from getting abortions; it means that there are no longer going to be professional, trained, and sanitary locations to do the job in a safe manner. There's a wide variety of reasons that people will get an abortion, and if someone is going to have a baby that they never wanted, can't support, or any number of reasons and they find themselves at their wits end because the list of options to help them out in this situation is running out, a lot of them aren't going to think of anything else they can do than to do it themselves, or better yet abandon the child and hope for the best. Neither option is very good, is it.

 

This isn't a problem that's as simple as "Murder is bad and this is murder so let's make it illegal". No, absolutely not. Even if there's that big percentage for "elective" or "personal convenience" or whatever blanket statement you feel is best for it, that could still be a huge variety of reasons and life situations that this decision is being made in. I understand completely that this is still a human life we're talking about and it's not something that should be taken lightly, nor do I think the people resorting to abortions are taking them lightly. But I absolutely do not think that just defaulting and making abortions outright illegal is going to fix anything. If anything, it's going to make things significantly worse for a lot of people, just so another group of people can feel good that their country looks morally sound on the outside.

 

I think abortion should be legal, although I don't think people should be resorting to it willingly at all. I think there also needs to be better education on contraception, as well a stronger support network for adoption with that presented as an equal or even more viable option. The life of an unborn child shouldn't be taken lightly by any means in my opinion, and even if it means stricter measures on for what reason someone is allowed to have an abortion instead of putting the child up for adoption or whatever other reason are made stricter based on health, social, financial or whatever other reasons, then it should remain legal and supported. I strongly support adoption and a better education on contraception, but for the sake of those that may need it it should remain legal. Making abortion illegal does nothing for society but risk lives because now there isn't that professional clinic to helps that may not have any other option and have others feel good about how morally good their nation appears now.

 

And, once again

 

The law is no substitute for morality.

 

Please understand that this issue isn't so cut and dry that it can just be declared illegal and be done with; this isn't black and white, not every person and situation is the same and there's so much more going on than what one decision can do to just make it instantly the correct course of action.

[a bad post]

http://www.actionlife.org/index.php/life-issues/abortion/item/124-the-real-reason-women-choose-abortion

 

"Ninety-two % of women said social or "other" factors were the reason behind their abortion. Only seven percent said physical problems or possible health problems with the baby were the reason, and only 0.5% said they were seeking an abortion because they had been raped.

 

Bad timing was the most common reason women gave for having an abortion-they weren't ready to have another child. Not being able to afford a child, (or another child) was the second most important reason given."

 

"The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now"

 

So that's 48% of the women surveyed who were having an abortion because it was inconvenient. That's from 2004, this one has surveys from other years:

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

"Unready for responsibility" and "can't afford baby now" can certainly be categorised under inconvenience, so let's say this is 42%. The 2004 survey is in here as well, it's just the same information as the first article but in a table like the image above. Now it goes onto the part I find most interesting, there are state-by-state breakdowns compiled over 10+ years (the years used vary by chart). A few examples of this;

98.3% personal choice, wew says I. There's no further detail on what these reasons are, but going by the information otherwise available it's reasonably fair to assume that it'd line up with the ~45% figure for "inconvenient" pregnancies.

Now this one, as it notes, allowed multiple reasons to be given. Thus "can't afford" and "doesn't want" combined go beyond 100% and this does make the interpretation difficult but with such high figures for both I think the point is established, the majority of births are on the grounds of either not wanting or not feeling able to afford to keep the child rather than anything, which can be argued as "killing for convenience" (note: I don't care if you consider fetuses people, doesn't matter, Winter does and that's the context in which his claim is made).

 

I'm going to just sidetrack myself if I post anymore, but you can just look at this one and the first article is less important. There are charts showing the number of abortions done in cases of rape, incest, threat to maternal life (in no case does this exceed 0.04% of the total number), and fatal fetal abnormality, and they're all miniscule in the overall context. This does substantiate the claim that the majority, or more accurately, the most common reason for abortions, is that the child cannot be kept/is not wanted, which could lead one to conclude that they are being "killed" due to being an inconvenience.

 

Owait I missed this delicious bit of spice right at the end, a conclusion thing:

 

98.3% elective. If we take "avoid adjusting life", "economic", and "too young/immature/not ready" as being fair to interpret as "the child would be an inconvenience", then the estimated % of abortions done for such reasons is about 78%. You could argue to cut out economic and bring it down to 48%, but the other two I don't really see as disputable. So there are the statistics ye've been wanting.

Good to know that your sources are a physics phd and a pro-life website because those are accurate and non-biased, yeah ok. Not only that, but the amount of rapes that occur in this country that don't get recorded is ridiculous so these stats are more than likely skewed anyways. You would not believe the amount of women who would rather lie than say they are aborting their rapists baby.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

Good to know that your sources are a physics phd and a pro-life website because those are accurate and non-biased, yeah ok. Not only that, but the amount of rapes that occur in this country that don't get recorded is ridiculous so these stats are more than likely skewed anyways. You would not believe the amount of women who would rather lie than say they are aborting their rapists baby.

 

El em ay oh no fuck off. You do not get to ask for statistics numerous times only to then handwave them when they are provided and actually turn out to support the opposition. The first one is literally just parroting one of the stats from the second, I just found it first and it led to me the second one so I included it. The second lists 42 sources including the UN, congressional records, and the health departments of the various states for which data is given so if you want to go discredit all of them be my guest, at least you'd have a leg to stand on then.

 

Sure you can claim they're skewed, but how many secret rape abortions do you think there are? You'd need millions to make any meaningful difference to the distribution, so I'd ask that you 

show statistics for it or stop trying to push a false narrative. 

 

From this basis, can't I just say that people are claiming to be economically unable to raise a child to make themselves look better than admitting they just don't want to have one? I haven't substantiated that claim at all but neither have you, so both statements are equally valid and would essentially negate each other if they were both applied.

 

This isn't a problem that's as simple as "Murder is bad and this is murder so let's make it illegal". No, absolutely not. Even if there's that big percentage for "elective" or "personal convenience" or whatever blanket statement you feel is best for it, that could still be a huge variety of reasons and life situations that this decision is being made in.

 

Yes that's why at the end the chart breaks it down into 7 sub-categories which, while still encompassing a lot, establish that most are done on the basis of feeling unready, not being economically capable, or not being willing to adjust their life. Sure you don't get the backstory of every single statistic but you never will unless you have a sample size of about 4, so that doesn't discredit the numbers in any way.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Good to know that your sources are a physics phd and a pro-life website because those are accurate and non-biased, yeah ok. Not only that, but the amount of rapes that occur in this country that don't get recorded is ridiculous so these stats are more than likely skewed anyways. You would not believe the amount of women who would rather lie than say they are aborting their rapists baby.

 

Why on earth are you deriding a phd paper?

 

PhD's require legitimate research that get peer reviewed, especially if they are then published. If you are reading one it's probably not bollocks.

 

The pro-life site might shift the data a little, but the PhD will be as accurate as you'd expect any given research paper to be. Particularly since it's just recording data instead of making judgments on it.

 

If you can legitimately discredit that paper that's fine, but don't just go 'It's a PhD paper, ha'. That's s simply bad form.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's also very similar stats to the study I linked earlier (which was ignored).

 

Enguin's numbers are corroborated

 

Elly, the answer to your earlier question is no, I can't undergo labor. Having a penis complicates that endevor. But neither can you afaik. So isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to tell me I don't have a right to comment on the topic

[Delibirb]

I haven't read all of this, but I've read a few pages and haven't seen it come up and I'm wondering why nobody's brought this point up:

 

The law is no substitute for morality.

 

Legality has goals towards the construction and maintenance of a society and has a variety of reasons to contribute to doing so. I understand why abortion is not an easy topic to talk about because whether they're classified as humans or not, fetuses grow into children; people. These are lives we're talking about and it's not a light subject to bring up in terms of whether or not abortions should be allowed, but to make something like this illegal in a blanket coverage isn't what the law should be doing. For one, as those charts and statistics should most clearly tell you, people aren't getting abortions for one reason; not many people (please I hope not many, or nobody at all at best) are getting knocked up thinking "Well howdy doody I'll just have the fetus aborted and be on with my life". As far as contraceptives go, there aren't many that are more inconvenient and potentially traumatizing than that.

 

Actually, let's hop on that point a little, the idea of reasons to get an abortion. Making abortions illegal isn't going to stop people from getting abortions; it means that there are no longer going to be professional, trained, and sanitary locations to do the job in a safe manner. There's a wide variety of reasons that people will get an abortion, and if someone is going to have a baby that they never wanted, can't support, or any number of reasons and they find themselves at their wits end because the list of options to help them out in this situation is running out, a lot of them aren't going to think of anything else they can do than to do it themselves, or better yet abandon the child and hope for the best. Neither option is very good, is it.

 

This isn't a problem that's as simple as "Murder is bad and this is murder so let's make it illegal". No, absolutely not. Even if there's that big percentage for "elective" or "personal convenience" or whatever blanket statement you feel is best for it, that could still be a huge variety of reasons and life situations that this decision is being made in. I understand completely that this is still a human life we're talking about and it's not something that should be taken lightly, nor do I think the people resorting to abortions are taking them lightly. But I absolutely do not think that just defaulting and making abortions outright illegal is going to fix anything. If anything, it's going to make things significantly worse for a lot of people, just so another group of people can feel good that their country looks morally sound on the outside.

 

I think abortion should be legal, although I don't think people should be resorting to it willingly at all. I think there also needs to be better education on contraception, as well a stronger support network for adoption with that presented as an equal or even more viable option. The life of an unborn child shouldn't be taken lightly by any means in my opinion, and even if it means stricter measures on for what reason someone is allowed to have an abortion instead of putting the child up for adoption or whatever other reason are made stricter based on health, social, financial or whatever other reasons, then it should remain legal and supported. I strongly support adoption and a better education on contraception, but for the sake of those that may need it it should remain legal. Making abortion illegal does nothing for society but risk lives because now there isn't that professional clinic to helps that may not have any other option and have others feel good about how morally good their nation appears now.

 

And, once again

 

The law is no substitute for morality.

 

Please understand that this issue isn't so cut and dry that it can just be declared illegal and be done with; this isn't black and white, not every person and situation is the same and there's so much more going on than what one decision can do to just make it instantly the correct course of action.

All true. I only elected to not bring this idea up because I was trying to keep morality out and focus on efficiency and reason, as those are harder to be twisted into grey areas than morality. Cold areas, but less grey.

 

But yes, morality is of the individual, law is of the grand scheme. Morality should not, and in large part does not, affect law, and law doesn't have to affect morality. Like I said before, I don't personally agree with abortion, and if it were declared legal I would still try to (respectfully) talk people out and offer alternatives wherever possible, but I cannot and should not be able to use law - or in this case, repeal a law - to force my morality upon others.

[a bad post]

It's also very similar stats to the study I linked earlier (which was ignored).

 

Enguin's numbers are corroborated

 

Elly, the answer to your earlier question is no, I can't undergo labor. Having a penis complicates that endevor. But neither can you afaik. So isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to tell me I don't have a right to comment on the topic

I didn't say you didn't have a right to comment on the topic, I said you didn't have the right to judge the actions of parents when you aren't one.

 

Why on earth are you deriding a phd paper?

 

PhD's require legitimate research that get peer reviewed, especially if they are then published. If you are reading one it's probably not bollocks.

 

The pro-life site might shift the data a little, but the PhD will be as accurate as you'd expect any given research paper to be. Particularly since it's just recording data instead of making judgments on it.

 

If you can legitimately discredit that paper that's fine, but don't just go 'It's a PhD paper, ha'. That's s simply bad form.

Perhaps not my best moment, I admit.

[Dad]

I didn't say you didn't have a right to comment on the topic, I said you didn't have the right to judge the actions of parents when you aren't one.

 

Perhaps not my best moment, I admit.

 

Iirc, and unfortunately for her, Winter has a daughter.