Insane Duck
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 145
Anyone?
Abortion rates higher where procedure is illegal
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abortion issues
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
More a simple statement of fact; those opposing access to legal induced abortion frequently oppose access to contraception, proper sex education, HPV vaccination, et cetera. All part of their agenda.
Given that the majority of people, even in the USA, who identify themselves as "pro-life" do not oppose all abortions this isn't true.
Irrelevant, emotion laden strawman.
Insane Duck
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 145
Yes I have. I don't know how accurate it is though. It doesn't appear to be sourced and it lists the U.S. as able to preform all types of abortions on request. I was under the impression we had a limit as far as the age of the fetus... (I also think that partial birth abortion has been illegal for a decade now...)
Weird Science
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 270
BobtheCoward: my point isn't that abortion is *always* wrong, but that a 40% or 60% abortion rate is very wrong. And to make clear, I am *for* birth control and sex ed, as I said before.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Possibly relevant:
Teen Pregnancy, Abortion Rates at Record Low
They'll learn to swim from their friends. What we need to do is outlaw lifeguards.
Yes. Obviously. The whole point of laws prohibiting murder is to reduce (ideally eliminate) murders. If they're having the opposite effect they should be scrapped.
So "holding fast to values" is more important than actually reducing murder rates?
Teen Pregnancy, Abortion Rates at Record Low
The best way to prevent kids from drowning is to simply tell them not to go into the water. That should be enough, right? I mean, these kids don't need to be taught how to swim... "Just say no" to the water!
They'll learn to swim from their friends. What we need to do is outlaw lifeguards.
Yes. Obviously. The whole point of laws prohibiting murder is to reduce (ideally eliminate) murders. If they're having the opposite effect they should be scrapped.
So "holding fast to values" is more important than actually reducing murder rates?
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
It's only "very wrong" if you've already decided that abortion is wrong in the first place and, if that's the case, then any percentage over zero would be unacceptable.
So, you can keep throwing out the percentages but they're unlikely to have any effect on those of us who have decided that abortion is every pregnant woman's right.
Absolutely.
This is something that I'm with the pro-abortion crowd on -- if making abortion illegal isn't actually preventing abortions, then it doesn't make sense to do so. Laws are about deterring behavior, not about making a point.
Weird Science
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 270
Let me give you an analogy. Self-defense allows you to kill someone with a gun under certain circumstances.
Now, suppose someone advocated a reform in self-defense laws, allowing a wider category of situations to be included under it, since sometimes the old laws were too strict -- but it turned out that this reform led to about half of all New Yorkers dying from gunshot wounds. Facile replies like "it's wrong just if you decided self-defense is wrong, so any percentage of gunshot wounds above zero is unacceptable" are really no reply at all.
If you see nothing wrong with the fact that about half of all fetuses in NY are deliberately killed by their own mothers in the mother's wombs, then you and I are quits, since I cannot convince you. But I think it's obvious it's a great wrong. The difference between a low abortion (or gunshot death) rate and a 40% or 60% rate one is morally very significant: in the latter society, what should be an exception for special circumstances (shooting people, destroying fetuses in the womb) became the normal mode.
Weird Science
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 270
Really? Suppose it was scientifically proven that rape laws -- due to prosecution being difficult, for example -- do not actually reduce rapes. Would you then be in favor of legalizing it?
In facts laws ARE, very often, about "making a point" as well as about changing behavior. The are partially an expression of society's condemnation of something. It is our business then to make sure the laws that forbid things that we think should be forbidden actually work and forbid things, not to throw our hands in the air and say, "oh, well, people still do it, so let's scrap the law and save ourselves the trouble".
Our real concern should be to fit our laws to what we really think should be forbidden -- which is why I am for scrapping most laws on the books against most consensual sexual acts (some acts we still, correctly, consider wrong even if done consensualy -- incest, for instance -- but no longer do we see homosexuality as morally wrong.)
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
"Making a point" is ideology. Biology MUST trump ideology at all times, because biology is real and ideology is in our heads. Not in all of our heads, I might add.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
If you're going to use this as an analogy for abortion under what circumstances is abortion acceptable?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
My point isn't that I am anti-abortion. I am pro choice.
To make clear, I am discussing how the anti-abortion crowd (the institutions, movers and shakers on that side) views the issue and why arguments made on the other side often have no merit to them.
If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who has no question abortion is murder, their obstinate ideas makes sense (though not rational).
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
To many people, yes. Is this not something self-evident from watching people?
It doesn't matter what policy is in Austin when the sub-cultural norm is for teenagers to be sown with male seed, with mind numbing regularity. You might want to check out the demographic and educational level stats south of I-10.
As I said, I am more than passing familiar with the area that has been a national leader, in the US, for teen pregnancy on and off for the past decade.
And SezMe is only partly right.I now make my own pasta sauce most times we cook Italian at the house.
South of I10? Can you be a little bit more specific or do you want me to bring up a map, list all the cities, and look up demographics for each one of them and try to find out your point? As far as I know, the state is still opting out of funding for comprehensive sex ed so my point still stands.
If it could be shown that legalizing rape actually decreases the rate at which men and women are raped, I would absolutely support legalizing it.
The purpose of criminalizing behavior is to deter that behavior. Criminal laws without a deterrent effect are bad laws.
And I care more about protecting and helping people than I care about sending a message.
Weird Science
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 270
In what sense do you mean this statement? It's true if one speaks of biological facts, but not if one speaks of biologically-based desires or actions. It is a biological imperative for male mammals to try and fertilize as many females as possible, but that hardly means serial rapists should get a free pass.
Weird Science
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 270
Abortion is (usually) not murder. But it's still not morally neutral. It can be a moral imperative -- as in cases of rape or incest, for example -- but it can also be morally wrong -- as in cases of abortion for sheer selfish convenience. Naturally there is a whole spectrum in between (e.g., what if the fetus had Down syndrome? At what stage is the pregnancy? Etc.)
The problem with a 40%-60% abortion rate is like the problem with a 40%-60% gunshot wound death would be. While it's logically *possible* all of those abortions (or shootings) are morally justifiable due to incest (say) or to actually stopping an attacker (say), it is very likely most of them are due to convenience, which makes them morally wrong.
P.S.
Abortion is a complicated subject, morally, and I must say that this discussion is quite helpful in challanging me to explain my views, not only to others, but, by articulating them, also for myself.
The problem with a 40%-60% abortion rate is like the problem with a 40%-60% gunshot wound death would be. While it's logically *possible* all of those abortions (or shootings) are morally justifiable due to incest (say) or to actually stopping an attacker (say), it is very likely most of them are due to convenience, which makes them morally wrong.
P.S.
Abortion is a complicated subject, morally, and I must say that this discussion is quite helpful in challanging me to explain my views, not only to others, but, by articulating them, also for myself.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Uh, you're wrong. The live birth rate among blacks is higher than among whites. They just get pregnant more often to begin with.
As far as "mass elimination of people" goes, last time I checked the population was still growing.
Stop and think for a moment about what the consequences of unchecked population growth would eventually be for the world.
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
That's a terrible analogy given that abortion is legally a matter of choice and the laws don't require any justification. I don't believe they should, while it seems you probably do.
I would see "nothing wrong" (meaning I would oppose changing the applicable laws) if the fact was that 100% of fetuses were aborted as long as the abortions were the result of the women's choices.
Now, I think that abortion is a poor substitute for proper use of contraception (it's more expensive and potentially dangerous to the woman), but taking that option off the table brings its own unacceptable dangers. Plus, I like freedom.