A Question for "Pro-Life" People... (drug, money, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you define many for us? More than 54% of people obtaining an abortion used birth control.
However, 40% of the people obtaining an abortion are below the poverty level. A further 27% make between 100%-200% of the FPL, so 67% of the people getting an abortion are relatively poor. Additionally, abortion rates have declined among the non poor and risen among the poor. Given that birth control has a cost it stands to reason that the people utilizing BC are well off.
Ummmm......I really don't care about statistics or how you pick apart my wording. "Many" in a nation of 260 million people. There are legitimate reasons for abortion. I'm not a nut case or Bible banger. Stats prove and mean NOTHING to me, your links are worthless to my views. Many women have abortions, who are married, are stable, and could support a child. They just don't want to yet...or at all. Would mess up their "lifestyle". And I roll my eyes at that. So sue me. Link more worthless info. I don't care. I feel the way I feel, statistics or no. I'm not looking to see RoevWade overturned, or tell anyone what to do. I merely said what I feel about certain circumstances involving the use of abortion.
This has already been discussed. I think the recommendation was abstinence training, adoption, and cutting welfare. Maybe someone will chime in if I missed something.
You can teach abstinence all you want but it doesn't mean people will actually do it. And there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting to be adopted. And you want to cut welfare which will only punish these kids. Yeah, that's a great idea
You can teach abstinence all you want but it doesn't mean people will actually do it. And there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting to be adopted. And you want to cut welfare which will only punish these kids. Yeah, that's a great idea
After all, wasn't abortion legal up to quickening in some/many areas until the 1800s?
Of course it isn't accurate.
Attitudes towards abortion have always varied tremendously across cultures and time periods, and even within the same culture, as is the case with the U.S. today.
But you're right. Laws restricting abortion in the U.S. began appearing during the second half of the 19th century. And, if you read what people were writing about the issue at the time, it is pretty clear they were a response to the first women's rights convention, which took place in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848.
Ummmm......I really don't care about statistics or how you pick apart my wording. "Many" in a nation of 260 million people. There are legitimate reasons for abortion. I'm not a nut case or Bible banger. Stats prove and mean NOTHING to me, your links are worthless to my views. Many women have abortions, who are married, are stable, and could support a child. They just don't want to yet...or at all. Would mess up their "lifestyle". And I roll my eyes at that. So sue me. Link more worthless info. I don't care. I feel the way I feel, statistics or no. I'm not looking to see RoevWade overturned, or tell anyone what to do. I merely said what I feel about certain circumstances involving the use of abortion.
Translation: "I am not a rational person. I don't make decision about what to believe based on facts, logic and reason. I am an irrational person. I make decisions about what to believe based on what appeals to my emotions."
Translation: "I am not a rational person. I don't make decision about what to believe based on facts, logic and reason. I am an irrational person. I make decisions about what to believe based on what appeals to my emotions."
Oh GAWWWWWD!!! If you say so. Reading is fundamental. I am looking at ONE part of a complex issue, which I feel a certain way about, in looking at CERTAIN people and the way and the way abortion is used in CERTAIN cases, and I'm irrational and totally governed by emotion? OK Mr.Spock. Or are you actually Sarek himself? Amazing.
Ummmm......I really don't care about statistics or how you pick apart my wording. "Many" in a nation of 260 million people. There are legitimate reasons for abortion. I'm not a nut case or Bible banger. Stats prove and mean NOTHING to me, your links are worthless to my views. Many women have abortions, who are married, are stable, and could support a child. They just don't want to yet...or at all. Would mess up their "lifestyle". And I roll my eyes at that. So sue me. Link more worthless info. I don't care. I feel the way I feel, statistics or no. I'm not looking to see RoevWade overturned, or tell anyone what to do. I merely said what I feel about certain circumstances involving the use of abortion.
Well there you have it...
By the way, 74-83% of the women getting an abortion were unmarried. So out of the approx. 1 million abortions last year, 67% of the women were poor and 73% were unmarried - which does not necessarily mean the non poor were also married.
Oh GAWWWWWD!!! If you say so. Reading is fundamental. I am looking at ONE part of a complex issue, which I feel a certain way about, in looking at CERTAIN people and the way and the way abortion is used in CERTAIN cases, and I'm irrational and totally governed by emotion? OK Mr.Spock. Or are you actually Sarek himself? Amazing.
This person did what people on CD so rarely do--i.e. present evidence to support their claims. And you, as people on CD quite frequently do, dismissed his evidence out of hand just because it didn't support your views. You don't have to be Mr. Spock to see a problem with that.
This person did what people on CD so rarely do--i.e. present evidence to support their claims. And you, as people on CD quite frequently do, dismissed his evidence out of hand just because it didn't support your views. You don't have to be Mr. Spock to see a problem with that.
Good grief! I wasn't disagreeing with any of his views or evidence. It just isn't relevant to the particular area I'm looking at. I'm not discounting any efforts at providing information. It was just a waste of effort used on me. Save it for someone who disagrees and is arguing against you. I'm not. Their is no view I'm trying to support. Just the way I feel about certain people. And I'm not trying to deny those people anything or tell them they can't be the way they are. So, in that vein, my opinion. is no more relevant than those stats. It just is. Are you just slobbering for a confrontational exchange? Seems so.
Interesting. You have a personal issue with me? I owe you money or something? If not, throttle it down. I'm either attacking or disagreeing with you or any other poster on this thread. I just put down how I feel about certain cases where I BELIEVE abortion is misused, abused, if you will, but even so, I did not insult or denigrate the people who do that either. What YOUR problem is, I know not. Just looking to pick a fight? Read the TOS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe someone will chime in if I missed something.
