No, we can't agree on that. Since the parents are not the ones having sex, I fail to see any logic in your reasoning, other than that of moral conservatism. We ARE talking about preventing abortions right?
unfortunately many of the same people who oppose abortion come from religious/conservative background and they don't even want to deal with the topic of sex education and contraceptive devices.
I on the other hand, am against abortion because I have two kids of my own and I'd never want to see any children lose their right to live just because their mother or society decided that giving birth to the kid is against their interest.
I am all for doing everything to decrease unwanted pregnancy, but I do believe once a wowen is pregant, the baby has the right to live. If the women doesn't want the baby, the government/society should have a system to take the baby in and provide them a good home. And there should be consequence for those women/men who made the baby but decide not to be responsible for them, unless it is justified. I am sure there are situation that warrants giving away the baby, but I don't want to hear becuase they don't want their family or friend know they had sex and had a baby.
Finally I am not against all abortion. If there is a medical reason for abortion, if the mother's life is at stake, it is the doctor's call on what's the right thing to do.
The fact is that there have been countless studies that've linked lack of sex education with the likelyhood of an unwanted pregnancy... NOT the other way around. So are you comfortable with perpetuating a moral philosophy that has been proven to lead to abortions?
That doesn't make sense either. Let's assume you're right, and the vast majority of women who use protection, but get pregnant anyways, would have an abortion. Let's make it easy and assume ALL of them would do so. Let's further assume a 99% pregnancy prevention rate for properly used birth control pills, or let's make it even easier as say 95% for typical use (not everyone knows what they are doing after all). I'm basing this on "study after study", by the way.
Now, in order for your assumption to be true, this means that more than 95% of the women who have sex and use birth control would NOT have sex if they didn't use birth control. That is the ONLY way not using birth control would result in fewer abortions, and it seems rather unlikely to me.
As I've said before, morality and ethics are not the same thing. Ethics should be legislated, while morality should not be. Your repeated use of the above-mentioned red herring indicates that you obviously don't agree that things can be right or wrong. I can't abide your moral relativism. While I personally take issue with birth control for a variety of reasons, I wouldn't legislate against it. However, I see abortion for what it is: an excuse for irresponsible people to relieve themselves of the responsibilities associated with their sexual actions. Since I see a fetus as a person, ignoring the completely arbitrary guidelines set by the USSC in Roe v Wade, abortion is essentially murder. As such, I have a very hard time sitting back while it is carried out hundreds of times per day in this country. Sure, I'd love to decrease the number of abortions, but that's neither here nor there. We don't allow murder simply because we can decrease the number of murders that will occur every year. We don't legalize bank robbery simply because bank security systems are very good and prevent most bank robberies. Ergo, we should not legalize abortion and rely on contraception to pick up our own ethical slack. Is this what you consider a moral crusade? Then so be it.
Actually, the rate of lifetime abortion in the U.S. is about 1/3. As in, ~30% of women will have an abortion in their lifetime.
If we assume that there are 150 million women in the U.S., and ALL of them are using contraception with 99% efficacy, and ALL of those who'd get pregnant would have an abortion, it only comes out to a total of 1.5 million abortions, over the next 25-30 years (length of a woman's reproductive cycle).
Since obviously not EVERY woman is on birth control and having sex 100% of the time, and not ALL pregnancies would result in abortions, we can safely reduce that number at least 2-fold.
This brings us to 750'000 abortions over the next 30 years. Compare that to 40+ million abortions in the past 30 years... and tell me that you now understand the ridiculousness of your argument. (Addressed to CycloWizard).
good, 42million less mouths to feed. why is it that nobody complains about the millions that have died from starvation around the world, and yet americans waste more food than any other society. what we throw out on a daily basis could feed entire countries for a month.
Find a way to get my food I throw away to that country and I will give you the food I throw away
Fetus at 12 weeks' gestation
Funny, I always thought that liquids took the form of their container. Either this ultrasound image is wrong, science is wrong, or you are wrong. Which is it?
So what are you really looking for here - decreasing the number of abortions or allowing unlimited, completely unfettered sexual promiscuity? I have indeed read studies linking the distribution of free condoms to an increase in both sexual activity and abortion rates. Not unexpectedly, this has become a favored tactic of Planned Parenthood, the leading supplier of both commodities. Free condoms, then they charge for an abortion. What about those who can't pay? No worries - my tax dollars go to fund PP to account for these folks who can't keep their pants on.
It's about moral reletivism, it's about being a member of the reality based community. I personally don't view abortion the same way you do. I don't consider this moral reletivism, but maybe that's just me. I feel this is determined by a fairly consisent set of moral standards, but obviously since mine don't line up with your's, I'm some sort of evil person, eh?
But let's assume for a moment that I agree that abortion is murder. It seems like my method of fighting abortion would be to make it illegal, and do everything I can to make sure to take away the things that made it common in the first place. Sort of a defense in depth, if you will. You keep using the murder analogy, so let's go with it. If we REALLY want to stop murders, we outlaw them AND try and take away the motivation and opportunity in the first place. We don't make it illegal and then take all the cops off the street. This is what I don't understand, you "have a very hard time sitting back while [abortions] are carried out hundreds of times per day in this country", yet you don't seem to care enough to try every possible approach to stop it. To use your other analogy, you are making bank robbery illegal, but not supporting installing security systems.
I am not suggesting you should support legalizing abortion and relying on contraception to pick up the ethical slack. I'm suggesting you, if you were really pro-life, should support outlawing abortion AND relying on contraception to take away the desire for abortion in the first place. The fact that you seem opposed to this seems very strange to me.
Take that out and out it in a container, I would bet its bones are mendable enough to take the shape. As well, it is not alive, it is still a bunch of cells living off the existance of a host, much like a virus or parasite. Until it is born that is all it is.
Show me any study that supports this, which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Mega-church-sponsored quack-fests don't count.
You are full of it, but go ahead, show me those studies. I will be VERY surprised if scientific studies show contraception use is a cause of a rise in abortion rates.
Look, I realize you think it's out job to be the sex police, but it's not. I have personal views on sex, but they are just that, personal. People are going to do what they are going to do, I think it's a lot smarter to make sure they are doing is safely rather than pointlessly trying to promote a sexual ideology that is NEVER going to work.
I doubt even the churches would be involved in an idea of such staggering stupidity. There are reasons, I suppose, to be against birth control. But "because they cause abortions" does not seem like it would be one of them.
Like I said, if you want to give everyone sex education or birth control devices, as long as it can prevent unwanted pregancy, I am all for it. People need to learn the consequence of sex and need to be responsible for their action. If they want to have sex and not have baby, they better learn how to do it right. I understand where religion and conservative group come from, but we have to face it, not everyone is religeous or follow the same beliefs. What's important is doing the practical thing, as long as it doesn't interfer with someone's right to live.
I also want to add that even with sex education and birth control device, there will be a small chance to get pregnant. I believe everyone should know this possible exists and need to be reponsible if that happens. I don't know why everyone thinks it is thier god given right to have sex, but when it comes to the baby's right to live, the pro-choice people just say screw the baby.
All of you pushing a pro-life view are resorting to purely emotional arguments, if you're going to attempt to debate use logic, not emotion.
Not so good at math, huh? You can't even calculate the number of abortions using your supplied information. However, even if we assume what you have assumed and add the additional assumption that each woman has sex one time per year when she is fertile, then we arrive at your 1.5 million abortions/year, which is quite close to the current abortion rate (actually slightly high based on reported abortions, ~1.33 million/year).
Wrong because your math above is absurd. I will submit these calculations instead.
Assumptions:
1. 75 million women are in the age range that pregnancy is a viable outcome of sexual activity.
2. Women can become pregnant 50% of the time when they have sex (fertility, etc...).
3. These women have sex once a week (4 times a month, 52 times a year).
4. All of these women are using contraception with 99% effectiveness.
Given these numbers, the number of resulting pregnancies would be 19,500,000/year (75,000,000 women * (52 sex/woman/year) * (0.01 contraceptive failures/sex) * (0.50 pregnancies/contraceptive failure) = 19.5 million pregnancies/year). Thus, if only 5% of pregnancies resulted in abortion, it would still be 975,000/year. This is much, much higher than your completely and obviously wrong 750,000/30 years (=25,000/year). So, I think we can all see who is being ridiculous.
Maybe you missed the part where I specifically said I would NOT legislate against contraception. Or, maybe you're ignoring it. In either case, I expected more from you. Sorry for wasting my time.
Cyclowizard - firstly you lack even the basic understanding of female physiology. It takes A LOT to get a woman pregnant. With an average of 2 cases of intercourse per week, the chances of a woman becoming pregnant are about 87% per year... or about 0.9% per each instance of intercourse.
From the same figure, the contraception data are derived. So a 99% effective method of contraception means that a woman has a 1% a year chance of getting pregnant while utilizing this method of birth control.
From the same figure, the contraception data are derived. So a 99% effective method of contraception means that a woman has a 1% a year chance of getting pregnant while utilizing this method of birth control.
By saying someone you imply that the fetus is a person which allows you to portray pro-choice people as "baby-killers." What scientific evidence is there that a fetus is a person like you and me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter