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.
If you follow the link and look at the abortion rates listed by country, you will see that the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate of all the countries on the list. Germany is second. I've been to the Netherlands and Germany. They are two of the most sexually liberal countries on the planet. So, if empirical data means anything, the implication might be that if you are genuinely trying to lower abortion rates, then the most efficient approach might be to encourage more sexually liberal attitudes. I'm sure this will seem paradoxical to you, but in addition to the empirical evidence, there are also a variety of good theoretical reasons to think that sexually liberal social attitudes can be beneficial, including lower abortion rates, less unwanted pregnancies, and lower rates of violent crime.
Yes fully see.... and thought of this concept in the liberty thread you headed up.
The effect through government indifference , would force absolute individual choice.
The individual becomes entirely responsible . The numbers show, without surprise a marked reduction in abortion.
Through the generations , individual perceptions of morality change. My parents beat me, I shall not beat my children, and many others.
Its a circle of perceived , right behavior vrs wrong behavior. Leadership provides for a general objective model towards ease in existence , extending ease in a constructive society.
Abortion, in my view should not be left out of this objective and constant model. It would be most expected that over many generations the decline would steadily
decrease in incidence... abortion....in drastic contrast to government indifference.
In short, theres no hope in any further "significant" decline. (Government indifference)
Theres simply no reason for it. Theres no objective direction. There is...no interest.
Because the plan is without a model, in leadership towards this behavior the numbers will budge little. The effect is accomplished. Theres no template in leadership towards dismay, in issue. (abortion)
Over time, 3-5 generations, the amount of abortions in a society that showed a stability in dismay, would not only consistently reduce, but
display a drastic line of demarcation relative to examples you provided.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
I've always felt that the simplest test to determine if something is a natural/human right or not, is whether or not it requires that this "right" means you must infringe on the rights of others, someone else is required to sacrifice something of theirs, that other people are required to give up some of their property, or to perform some service, in order for you to obtain that "right".
There is a difference between a right, a privilege, a need or a desire. I think that many times people confuse a person’s right to pursue something in life, and believing that they are owed what they want. I might want a car, or a house, or some other product or service, but if I cannot get any of these on my own, and I require to benefit from the property, hard work or charity of others in order to obtain any of these, then they are not "rights" they are desires, wants or needs.
Finally someone else admits that our choices and rights do not exist in a vacuum.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Someone asked for it. But I'm not going to force you to get an abortion.
Yes, but the cumulative evidence of opinion is that most people think abortion should be legal, with restrictions. Many, including yourself, have advocated no abortions at all, or severely restricted.
My personal rule for myself would be an abortion only in the first three months, and/or if I found out that the baby was a threat to its mother or going to be born with a severe birth defect. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make someone else abide by those rules.
This is what worries me. Many of the hard line pro-abortion people don't know when to stop. Granted most people don't want fully unrestricted access to abortion, but when 40% of whatever of the population say it's okay to abort a 9 month old baby I shake my head in disbelief.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmycat
Couldn't rep you again, but this post is right on !
This is what it really boils down to for the handful of nazi pro-lifers who continue to argue in this thread...to them, women are a man's responsibility
and indeed a man's property, her body belongs to him, and so all decisions pertaining to her body should be HIS.
Time for them to come out of the dark ages and realize that women are individual entities, we have just as much of a right to think and do for ourselves as any other creature on this planet...we are not mere extensions of man, and to treat us in that manner is condescending, ignorant, and backward.
Stop your slander, it's getting old. You sound like a broken record. If you can't at least see where we're coming from then you're not intelligent enough to argue. Or you're so insanely emotional about it you think we have some secret agenda. I can see where you're all coming from, you want choice, simple at that. Why is it so hard to get into that thick skull of yours that all we want to do is protect the Life of the baby? And just because you disagree about it being a living human being, can you not at least acknowledge that WE believe it is? It's not an either/or thing. It's not like we're calling it something it's not.
You claim we're anti-abortion because deep down we're all patriachal sexists but that is a strawman made up entirely by YOU. You see, you can't get into somebody elses shoes. You pretend that deep down we agree with you. So the only reason we could POSSIBLY be 'anti-choice', 'anti-abortion' is because of other reasons than Life. Since you SAY it's not Life, we CAN'T EVEN DISAGREE WITH YOU! And you say pro-lifers are narrow minded!
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
What I see mostly is an ethical inconsistency. No one has yet proven to me that a fetus is not a human being. To me, if a fetus contains 100% of the DNA, all the body parts, organs, and has some sentient awareness then it's a human being. Why can't we at least respect that? The problem is we humans want to control everything and we don't truly respect anything anymore. We say we do, but only when it benefits US. We should respect sex, that doesn't mean not having sex, but we should respect their are natural actions and reactions.
For me I see more the philosophical side to it, and I see it as part of a larger paradigm shift which is probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's the first sign of our increased desire for the power over life and death. If you want to play the abortion game, you're going to accept certain other 'sacred' things will be eroded away. Don't like the idea of sex-selective abortions? Too bad. It's too easy to get around the law. Mark my words abortion has already opened up the door to eugenics in the United States. Say you respect genetically disabled people? Well abortion will get rid of them. If there's such a thing as a 'gay gene' abortion will be there to make sure little Timmy rocks to heavy metal instead of dancing to showtunes. You see, abortion is far more than an isolated exercising of choice. It is and can certainly be abused.
This is what worries me. Many of the hard line pro-abortion people don't know when to stop. Granted most people don't want fully unrestricted access to abortion, but when 40% of whatever of the population say it's okay to abort a 9 month old baby I shake my head in disbelief.
you have a habit of making statements like the one above. all are equally exaggerated statements that have no real verifiable truth to them. just biased opinion based on gossip. using fact is one thing however bold, biased based over the top will only be believed by the gullible.
What I see mostly is an ethical inconsistency. No one has yet proven to me that a fetus is not a human being. To me, if a fetus contains 100% of the DNA, all the body parts, organs, and has some sentient awareness then it's a human being. Why can't we at least respect that? The problem is we humans want to control everything and we don't truly respect anything anymore. We say we do, but only when it benefits US. We should respect sex, that doesn't mean not having sex, but we should respect their are natural actions and reactions.
For me I see more the philosophical side to it, and I see it as part of a larger paradigm shift which is probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's the first sign of our increased desire for the power over life and death. If you want to play the abortion game, you're going to accept certain other 'sacred' things will be eroded away. Don't like the idea of sex-selective abortions? Too bad. It's too easy to get around the law. Mark my words abortion has already opened up the door to eugenics in the United States. Say you respect genetically disabled people? Well abortion will get rid of them. If there's such a thing as a 'gay gene' abortion will be there to make sure little Timmy rocks to heavy metal instead of dancing to showtunes. You see, abortion is far more than an isolated exercising of choice. It is and can certainly be abused.
trim pro CHOICE leaves the choice, the conclusion on if it is a life or not, if it is murder or not, to the woman who has the choice to make. no one else.
what I think, you think is all else is irrelevant.
This is what worries me. Many of the hard line pro-abortion people don't know when to stop. Granted most people don't want fully unrestricted access to abortion, but when 40% of whatever of the population say it's okay to abort a 9 month old baby I shake my head in disbelief.
Who said it's ok to abort a 9 month old baby and where is that being done?
Keep shaking your head, maybe something will dislodge and you will see how facts and fictions differ.
This is what worries me. Many of the hard line pro-abortion people don't know when to stop. Granted most people don't want fully unrestricted access to abortion, but when 40% of whatever of the population say it's okay to abort a 9 month old baby I shake my head in disbelief.
I have never, and I mean never heard anyone suggest that abortion at 6,7,8, or 9 months should be done, unless medically necessary.
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.
Nevertheless, I am either right or I am wrong.
!