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.
"The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement that the overall decrease in births signals that fewer pregnancies were the main cause of the decline in abortions." (my bold)
Okay do you see the part where it says, "fewer pregnancies were the main cause of the decline"? Can you not absorb that, or are you just being on purpose ... ? with the (BC) reasons for a woman to be fertile or infertile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
How is that relevant? Both fertility rate and total fertility rate reflect the number of live births per year. More abortions = fewer live births.
Because it point to the results, that ...
More abortion does equal fewer live births. (birth rate drops)
Contraception/sterilization mean less of both. (fertility rate drops)
I feel like I am trying to have a conversation with someone who has been living on Mars for the past 30 years. Governments all around the globe know these stats associated with population decline, demographers are conducting studies ... why don't you know this and where have you been?
I question the validity of the Guttmacher abortion report for 2017 - 2022, because of the fertility decline ... just leave it at that and move on, I'm done. Go back to bashing women over the head for unintended pregnancies --- you're good at those arguments.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 08-10-2022 at 05:52 PM..
You realize you're posting old data, don't you? The number of abortions has been increasing since 2017. I posted a link to Guttmacher that states exactly such.
Quote:
More abortion does equal fewer live births. (birth rate drops)
Contraception/sterilization mean less of both. (fertility rate drops)
Yes, more abortions = fewer live births AND fewer live births reduces the fertility rate. How do you not know that? Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Quote:
I question the validity of the Guttmacher abortion report for 2017 - 2022, because of the fertility decline ... just leave it at that and move on, I'm done. Go back to bashing women over the head for unintended pregnancies --- you're good at that.
What makes you think the increasing number of abortions isn't contributing to the fertility rate decline? After all, more abortions = fewer live births = lower fertility rate.
And who's bashing? I'm just asking them to NOT kill a baby that results from their own deliberate decision to have unprotected sex. What kind of "civilized" society kills it's most vulnerable members just for the sake of convenience? That's extremely inhumane.
You realize you're posting old data, don't you? The number of abortions has been increasing since 2017. I posted a link to Guttmacher that states exactly such.
Yes, more abortions = fewer live births AND fewer live births reduces the fertility rate. How do you not know that? Are you deliberately being obtuse?
What makes you think the increasing number of abortions isn't contributing to the fertility rate decline? After all, more abortions = fewer live births = lower fertility rate.
And who's bashing? I'm just asking them to NOT kill a baby that results from their own deliberate decision to have unprotected sex. What kind of "civilized" society kills it's most vulnerable members just for the sake of convenience? That's extremely inhumane.
Do you realize you are dodging the sentence that makes the TFR sense? I'll even underline it.
"The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement that the overall decrease in births signals that fewer pregnancies were the main cause of the decline in abortions." (my bold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Yes, more abortions = fewer live births AND fewer live births reduces the fertility rate.
Contraception/sterilization reduces fertility rates. If a woman (is not fertile) can not get pregnant she can't have a live or a dead birth. In some countries fertility rates remain high, but women are having fewer babies and you'd know that if you had read the pdf link. (fertility rates are high --- they are not on BC or sterile)
The 1000 women of age that can get pregnant are of the 1.64% in the u.s.--- that is the percentage of women that you are arguing about that can kill their baby and you don't want them to ... that number continues to decrease as more women use modern contraception. (which is why this thread is an oxymoron)
Because that % of women that can kill their baby continues to decline and did so during the years of the Guttmacher report, I find that a point to question ... and that's it.
Only one is killing the life that results from the consequences of one's own voluntary actions.
Am I then to infer that the life that results from involuntary action is worth less than one that results from voluntary action when it comes to abortion? Because that's how your post reads, and if that's the case, then this argument over abortion (for you) is not at all about sanctity of life, which is a position I can at least respect, but about punishing a woman for her sexual behavior, which is a position I will never respect.
Am I then to infer that the life that results from involuntary action is worth less than one that results from voluntary action when it comes to abortion? Because that's how your post reads, and if that's the case, then this argument over abortion (for you) is not at all about sanctity of life, which is a position I can at least respect, but about punishing a woman for her sexual behavior, which is a position I will never respect.
Nope.
It's a debate tactic because pro abortion supporters often use rape as isn example of why they feel all abortions are necessary.
Abortions by women who were raped are <1% of all rapes. And 30% of those who were raped and got pregnant give birth instead of killing the baby.
When a pro abortioner is faced with the 98.5% of all other abortions .. they literally have no argument as to the killing of healthy babies by moms who didn't use BC while engaging in voluntary sex.
Do you realize you are dodging the sentence that makes the TFR sense? I'll even underline it.
"The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement that the overall decrease in births signals that fewer pregnancies were the main cause of the decline in abortions." (my bold)
Guttmacher said the number of abortions is INCREASING, not declining:
Quote:
"According to new findings from Guttmacher’s latest Abortion Provider Census—the most comprehensive data collection effort on abortion provision in the United States—there were 8% more abortions in 2020 than in 2017."
Am I then to infer that the life that results from involuntary action is worth less than one that results from voluntary action when it comes to abortion? Because that's how your post reads, and if that's the case, then this argument over abortion (for you) is not at all about sanctity of life, which is a position I can at least respect, but about punishing a woman for her sexual behavior, which is a position I will never respect.
You can infer that killing in self-defense is allowed but killing just because you find another to be an inconvenience is not. At least not if we live in a civilized society. A civilized society doesn't allow the killing of its most vulnerable members solely for the sake of convenience. That's beyond depraved.
You can infer that killing in self-defense is allowed but killing just because you find another to be an inconvenience is not. At least not if we live in a civilized society. A civilized society doesn't allow the killing of its most vulnerable members solely for the sake of convenience. That's beyond depraved.
Okay, let's take that a bit further...what did the baby resulting from a violent act against its mother do to warrant its own death? Where is the act of self-defense in this situation? Do you recognize the inconsistency in your argument? It's not about sanctity of life. The baby doesn't even come into it for you except as a punitive measure for what you believe to be the mother's sexual impropriety. You write that it's depraved to end the life of the vulnerable for convenience. How is it not then also depraved to end the life of a child conceived through an act of violence? Why is rape an exception? To be clear, I am pro-choice, but I respect someone who argues against abortion on the basis of the baby's innocence in its conception. In your argument, there's no goal of protecting an innocent life; there's only vengeance against the woman who conceived. To me, that is depraved.
Okay, let's take that a bit further...what did the baby resulting from a violent act against its mother do to warrant its own death? Where is the act of self-defense in this situation? Do you recognize the inconsistency in your argument? It's not about sanctity of life. The baby doesn't even come into it for you except as a punitive measure for what you believe to be the mother's sexual impropriety. You write that it's depraved to end the life of the vulnerable for convenience. How is it not then also depraved to end the life of a child conceived through an act of violence? Why is rape an exception? To be clear, I am pro-choice, but I respect someone who argues against abortion on the basis of the baby's innocence in its conception. In your argument, there's no goal of protecting an innocent life; there's only vengeance against the woman who conceived. To me, that is depraved.
Surely you can see the flaw in your logic. Killing in self-defense would never be allowed if your premise were true. One would just always have to submit to another's aggressive forceful actions against one's will even if it cost one's own life.
Surely you can see the flaw in your logic. Killing in self-defense would never be allowed if your premise were true. One would just always have to submit to another's aggressive forceful actions against one's will even if it cost one's own life.
The baby conceived did not commit an act of violence against its mother, and yet you argue that its death through abortion is an act of self-defense. If self-defense is warranted, surely it should be against the rapist and not the life that resulted from the rape. The justification for self-defense is preserved. My logic stands.
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.
