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.
I'm not sure of your point. Except for Ireland, all the countries you mentioned now have legal abortion. And they are likely to remain that way. The U.S. is about the only developed country with legal abortion that has a majority of the population opposed to it and actively attempting to return to an earlier paradigm.
It really isn't about the number of abortions! My husband had a vasectomy after our fourth child was born. That decision was made because we did not want nor could afford any more. 5 years later the vasectomy failed but original doctor wouldn't admit it. I had an induced miscarriage at 7 weeks with pill from PP.
Not even a year later, I found out I was pregnant again and again induced miscarriage at 7 weeks. New doctor redid the vasectomy and now, 10 years later no pregnancies.
My husband and I made the decision to abort because it was better for our family but we didn't make the decision that it was better for our family at the time of the pregnancy... we made it when we decided to get the vasectomy.
If we had only 1 abortion allotted to us then the 5th child would have cost their siblings some of the things we've been able to provide. My situation is not on your list of "acceptable situations." We made a choice not to have any more kids and we took steps to ensure that was what happened... as is and should be our right.
Out of curiosity--do you support giving male-bodied people a unilateral opt-out from paying child support?
Also, though, your husband could have tried getting both his entire vas deferens and his entire epididymis removed instead of simply getting a regular vasectomy.
Again, are you advocating complete sexual abstinence from married couples who choose to not have children? And if so, do you really think that's going to work in real life? And what's with this "she"? Men have no say in having sex? They can't keep their zippers up, but women are supposed to be the ones to be responsible? What fairy tale world is that?
Out of curiosity--do you support giving male-bodied people a unilateral opt-out from paying child support? Or do your complaints about abstinence only apply to women?
I spent the first 1/3 of my life living in a very poor Brooklyn ghetto, and all my contacts, relatives and lovers were poor and marginalized. Although poor, my family is quite upwardly mobile. The church I attended was exactly the same way. One way or another I have been witness to or heard first hand of dozens of abortion procedures of friends, lovers and close acquaintances.
During the second third of my life I moved to the Midwest and because of an interracial relationship, lived in a wealthy suburb with an exclusively upscale population. It had never occurred to me to think that any other kind but the poor women who looked like me back in the ghetto, might need to have abortions. I met several women who had had at least one, and in one case two. These are women with degrees from Universities you have heard of. Women that went right from college into jobs paying $80K/yr. Smart. Pretty. Successful. One very close friend had an abortion during the first year of her marriage. It was just too soon in their married life to start on parenting. They have four children today. They have been married at least 25 years. Had they kept that first child it is an open question as to whether their marriage would have survived. We are talking about people whose parents are in the 1% here.
Abortion will never go away for the wealthy. The hypocrites in this thread talk about "hookers and tramps" but hookers and tramps don't have huge numbers of children OR abortions. Hypocrites want to force poor women into serving life sentences for the crime of fornication. Seems fair on its face, but... is it? But more to the point, if there were no safe and legal abortion and no State welfare, these poor, unloved children WOULD wind up in State criminal custody ($$$) or as military conscripts where they can participate in America's program of International Dominance. And best of all, with the dismantlement of all Social Programs there would be no tax revenue needed by the IRS. All the money hypocrites make would go into their investment portfolios.
There are words to the effect of "heaping up wrath against the day of anger". Hypocrites should know those words well even if they do not acknowledge that this is what they are doing with regards to people that do not look like them. When hypocrites mob the small private clinics that provide abortions to the nice young women that just had an unfortunate circumstance, instead of the downtown Planned Parenthood Center, I will take back what I have said. When hypocrites start hiring Americans that do not look like them in proportion to their percent of the U.S. population I will take back what I have said.
Couldn't your rationale here also be used to legalize painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of qualified adoptive parents, though?
Oh, don't worry! After all, while I myself am pro-choice, if I accepted your view of responsibility in regards to this child, then I would likewise apply this view of responsibility to bodily autonomy as well (indeed, unlike many/most other pro-choicers, I certainly don't consider bodily autonomy to be a "holy cow"). Thus, if I accepted your view of responsibility, then I would likewise support legally coercing parents to donate their body parts to their already born children as well.
And I asked you a question that seems to be confusing you. Let me rephrase that question because maybe you didn't understand it in the context of your statements: If a woman isn't supposed to have an abortion, and she can't take the risk of getting pregnant, then according to you, in order to avoid an abortion, she needs to practice abstinence (since there is ALWAYS a risk of pregnancy when having sex even if using birth control, since all birth control has a failure rate), so my question to you was: Are you advocating abstinence then for every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, including married women?
How exactly is this meaningfully different from telling male-bodied people who never want to risk being forced to pay child support to "keep it in their pants," though?
Also, though, isn't surgical removal of the ovaries 100% effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies?
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.
