sons over daughters

[Atreus21]

I doubt that. But, I will know when I meet Him.

Until then, I leave the issue of abortions up to the people who have the proper say and right to decide what they want to do with their bodies - women.

No apologies what so ever, it's the law, women decide. Make the move to reverse the law, if you like. But, you can not stop a woman from deciding what she wants to do with her body.

So, place your efforts on opening up support centers for pregnant women to avoid abortions. Or, since you value life so much, seek out to save those "mistakenly" killed in the pursuit of justice.

It's no surprise that pro-aborts show contempt at people "valuing life so much". It's consistent with what they believe in.

When someone's life is at stake, neither men nor women have absolute authority to do with their bodies as they wish.

It is not incumbent upon me or anyone else to provide alternatives to killing one's own child so that they may suffer less egregiously from being forced to endure another's right to live.

 

[fskimospy]

There is of course the inconvenient fact that the evidence suggests whether or not abortion is legal in a country has no effect as to the actual abortion rate:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

All that ends up happening is that you send the women into back alleys in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Now I personally have no problem with abortion, but even if you do it seems that banning it leads to more death, not less.

 

[Atreus21]

There is of course the inconvenient fact that the evidence suggests whether or not abortion is legal in a country has no effect as to the actual abortion rate:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

All that ends up happening is that you send the women into back alleys in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Now I personally have no problem with abortion, but even if you do it seems that banning it leads to more death, not less.

To that I respond that since 1973, the incidence of abortion in America from 1973 to 1998 has risen from about 0.35% per capita in 1973 to a peak in 1981 of 0.69%, meaning the abortion rate very nearly doubled within 10 years of the enaction of Roe v. Wade.

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Correlation doesn't mean causation, but I'd say that making a previously illegal act legal will spur the increase in the act. How do you prove causation in statistics (an honest question, as I have only a modest understanding)?

Furthermore, maternal deaths from illegal abortion, at least in the US, has been known to be exaggerated.

http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

An example from this link:

An all-too-common example of this mode of attack appeared in an article by Suzanne
Gordon in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine. She stated, "more than
1.2 million women are estimated to have had illegal abortions each year before Roe v.
Wade, and approximately 5,000 died annually as a result."

As for the number of deaths from illegal abortions, in 1960 the total number of all
pregnancy-related deaths (from abortions as well as from childbirth and other problems
during pregnancy) was 1,579 (according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol.
II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77). To believe the pro-abortion argument that over 5,000
illegal abortion deaths occurred, one must believe that the 1,579 officially recorded
maternal deaths were all caused by illegal abortions and an additional 3,421 deaths were
also caused by illegal abortions and the death certificates were falsified to attribute the
death to something such as "heart attack" or "cirrhosis of the liver," and that no woman
died from any other pregnancy-related cause. But in fact, for 1960, Vital Statistics
attributes 289 of those 1,579 deaths to abortion (legal and illegal).

But on another level, we're using the argument that women will kill themselves if they're not allowed to kill their babies and so therefore we must allow them to kill their babies, and that doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Macamus Prime]

It's no surprise that pro-aborts show contempt at people "valuing life so much". It's consistent with what they believe in.

When someone's life is at stake, neither men nor women have absolute authority to do with their bodies as they wish.

,... unless it is an innocent man about to be electrocuted. Thanks for clearing that up.

The law clearly tells you to leave the woman to her decision. But, you don't get that. That is why some of you resort to killing abortion doctors.

Since you don't seem to understand here it is all spelled out and in bold; you do not have a say in what a woman does with her body - as per the the US governemt.

Focus on reversing the laws if you like, but that won't mean shit. You outlaw abortions in the US, they'll go someplace else.

 

[ch33zw1z]

To that I respond that since 1973, the incidence of abortion in America from 1973 to 1998 has risen from about 0.35% per capita in 1973 to a peak in 1981 of 0.69%, meaning the abortion rate very nearly doubled within 10 years of the enaction of Roe v. Wade.

Meaning, more people had the abortion performed "on the books". Doesn't mean the abortion rate went up. When things are underground, there's no way to track it.

 

[Atreus21]

,... unless it is an innocent man about to be electrocuted. Thanks for clearing that up.

The law clearly tells you to leave the woman to her decision. But, you don't get that. That is why some of you resort to killing abortion doctors.

Since you don't seem to understand here it is all spelled out and in bold; you do not have a say in what a woman does with her body - as per the the US governemt.

Focus on reversing the laws if you like, but that won't mean shit. You outlaw abortions in the US, they'll go someplace else.

As I said, if an innocent man is electrocuted accidentally, that is tragic, and the system should be held to task for it. But if you fail to notice the difference between that and state-sanctioned murder of your own offspring in the pursuit of convenience instead of justice, then there's no point in discussing this.

Per the bolded, I do understand that. There was a time when we didn't have a say in what slaveholders did with their slaves - as per the US government. People then said things such as "the slaves themselves don't object to it" and "you can outlaw slavery here; It will just persist elsewhere and they will reap the benefits."

Anyone who bombs and kills to pursue political objectives is a terrorist and a murderer.

 

[JTsyo]

I read that India doesn't allow doctors to tell parents the sex of the baby. China might also have such policy.

 

[Atreus21]

Meaning, more people had the abortion performed "on the books". Doesn't mean the abortion rate went up. When things are underground, there's no way to track it.

True, but that works as much against the pro-abortion argument as against the pro-life argument.

 

[ch33zw1z]

True, but that works as much against the pro-abortion argument as against the pro-life argument.

Elaborate.

 

[fskimospy]

To that I respond that since 1973, the incidence of abortion in America from 1973 to 1998 has risen from about 0.35% per capita in 1973 to a peak in 1981 of 0.69%, meaning the abortion rate very nearly doubled within 10 years of the enaction of Roe v. Wade.

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Correlation doesn't mean causation, but I'd say that making a previously illegal act legal will spur the increase in the act. How do you prove causation in statistics (an honest question, as I have only a modest understanding)?

Furthermore, maternal deaths from illegal abortion, at least in the US, has been known to be exaggerated.

http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

An example from this link:


But on another level, we're using the argument that women will kill themselves if they're not allowed to kill their babies and so therefore we must allow them to kill their babies, and that doesn't seem right to me.

Well there's always the caveat that you can never completely prove causation with statistics, what you can do is establish that there is a correlation between the two that is very unlikely to have occurred by random chance.

The study I linked just compared countries as they exist now, not what the legalization of abortion within a particular country might have done to the rate. (although the implication is certainly that it would do little). I think actually running a good study on the effects of abortion legalization on the abortion rate would be really tough to do. There are so many things that affect it, access to effective contraception, poverty, what abortion technology is available, changing culture, etc, that it might be very hard to account for all the variables. In theory if you were able to identify all these, you could take that info from every country that has legalized abortion, run a regression on all that data, and see if legalizing abortion had an effect on abortion rates.

While the abortion rate increased until 1980, abortion has remained legal in the entire US after that period, yet the abortion rate has declined significantly since then. Clearly there are other factors involved.

 

[Atreus21]

Elaborate.

Well, studies on both sides acknowledge that getting a hard figure on the number of illegal abortions, and therefore the tendency of deaths associated with it, is difficult. You can only go with what's on the books.

 

[Atreus21]

Well there's always the caveat that you can never completely prove causation with statistics, what you can do is establish that there is a correlation between the two that is very unlikely to have occurred by random chance.

The study I linked just compared countries as they exist now, not what the legalization of abortion within a particular country might have done to the rate. (although the implication is certainly that it would do little). I think actually running a good study on the effects of abortion legalization on the abortion rate would be really tough to do. There are so many things that affect it, access to effective contraception, poverty, what abortion technology is available, changing culture, etc, that it might be very hard to account for all the variables. In theory if you were able to identify all these, you could take that info from every country that has legalized abortion, run a regression on all that data, and see if legalizing abortion had an effect on abortion rates.

While the abortion rate increased until 1980, abortion has remained legal in the entire US after that period, yet the abortion rate has declined significantly since then. Clearly there are other factors involved.

I'm not a statistics-oriented person anyway. I much prefer the route of forcing my morals on others, statistically supported or not.

So much easier.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well, studies on both sides acknowledge that getting a hard figure on the number of illegal abortions, and therefore the tendency of deaths associated with it, is difficult. You can only go with what's on the books.

Right, but you can't attribute a doubling of abortions to a court case that makes it legal to have an abortion other than it's not being done off the record any more. It's not like making it legal made all those would be mothers decide to have an abortion instead...