Which is why we need to keep this medical procedure safe.
The Guttmacher Institute’s survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.
It did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate over the last decade.
But unsafe abortions, primarily illegal, have remained almost static.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Maybe millions and millions of dollars on “Abstinence Only Education” is the answer.
@Indeed
Say it like Carl Sagan: “BILL-YUNS and BILL-YUNS”
But if you outlaw abortions, then only outlaws will get abortions. And who cares what happens to outlaws?
(practicing my compassionate conservative logic)
Gun control doesn’t stop shootings; policeman don’t stop theft, burglary, assault, rape, drunk driving, or any other crime, unless they catch someone in the act. Firemen don’t prevent fires. Sanitation men only take out garbage after there are bags full of it all over turn.
When has the Guttmacher Institute ever had an unkind word to say about abortion?
I will say it again, as I have many times: Since no woman has ever given birth to a ping pong paddle, a railroad train, or a Lego, there is no doubt that a pregnant woman will give birth to a child — I repeat, a child.
That being the case, who are we, man or woman, to deny that child a right to be born?
I will say it again, as I have many times: Since no woman has ever given birth to a ping pong paddle, a railroad train, or a Lego, there is no doubt that a pregnant woman will give birth to a child — I repeat, a child.
Frank, this is nonsense. Just because a pregnant woman will give birth to a human child has no bearing on whether abortion should be legal or not. Whether there is a possibility that she could give birth to a “ping pong paddle” is completely unimportant.
That being the case, who are we, man or woman, to deny that child a right to be born?
Who says that it does have a right to be born, Frank? In virtue of what? What gives it this “right”? Does the fetus’s “right” trump the woman’s right for control over her own body? Why? And finally, is the fulfillment of this “right” on a legislative level worth the deaths that it will cost, in both unborn fetuses as well as living, adult human women?
And don’t answer in terms of God or religion, under any terms. That argument is a loser. Because I am going to pre-emptively call on the separation of Church and State.
Looking forward to a rational, well-thought out response from you. Heh.
Does the fetus’s “right” trump the woman’s right for control over her own body?
Yes, it does… Because nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for a woman to have an abortion. At least, the Declaration of Independence suggests that governments are instituted among men to protect their inalienable right to life.
Because I am going to pre-emptively call on the separation of Church and State.
That is irrelevant. I am not asking anyone to practice any religion, nor am am I asking any government to establish, sponsor or support any religion.
My opposition to abortion is based on one thing and one thing only: To interfere with a pregnancy arbitrarily or capriciously is to prevent a person from being born. You can call it a “clump of tissue” at 2 weeks, or a disorganized clump of cells two hours after conception. But, left alone, there will be a spontaneous abortion — a miscarriage — or a birth. Preventing a child from being born, denying that child the simplest, barest, opportunity to breathe oxygen and see the sky, is , in my view , a far greater crime — far greater — than informing a woman, “You have become pregnant, now you must await the natural course of the pregnancy.”
If anyone should expect an irrational , poorly thought out response at this point, it is me.
You couldn’t even get to the end of your comment without being a wiseass. Let’s see what your response looks like.
Frank, if abortion was illegal and a woman had one, what penalty should she suffer? Execution or life imprisonment?
Yes, it does… Because nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for a woman to have an abortion.
Now who can argue with that? That is authentic Blog Comment Gibberish.
“That being the case, who are we, man or woman, to deny that child a right to be born?”
I say it’s up to the woman who has the fetus inside her because it’s HER BODY and she has the right to decide if she wants to take the fetus full term or not.
This why we have women’s rights so that we can have a say so in what happens to our bodies, minds, etc and that we are protected under law to do so.
Let me be a wiseass.
@Frank- Every time you jerk off you prevent a child from being born.
Miscarriages are quite common within the first trimester, even before a woman realizes she’s pregnant. By Frank’s logic, these women should all be arrested and/or executed.
Yes, it does… Because nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for a woman to have an abortion. At least, the Declaration of Independence suggests that governments are instituted among men to protect their inalienable right to life.
Nonsense. Again. Jesus Christ. First – the Declaration of Independence is not a piece of legislation or legal document in any way. Second, a man’s right to life is significantly different from a fetus’s “right to life.” While one is a person, another is merely a potential person. This is a key distinction.
And I will note that you failed to answer a bunch of my questions, each of which is important. Are you looking forward to the preventable deaths of many, many women? I know I am.
Frank, if abortion was illegal and a woman had one, what penalty should she suffer? Execution or life imprisonment?
Neither would be mandatory.
I am not arguing that a life has been taken; I am arguing that the right to life was taken, The penalty for that could be anything from a fine, community service or probation to decapitation. “That’s above my pay grade.”
Now who can argue with that? That is authentic Blog Comment Gibberish.
I could say that if anyone knows gibberish, it’s you, but I won’t. Instead, I will say that “nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for a woman to have an abortion”. That is correct, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary, or for that matter, no evidence of anything.
This why we have women’s rights so that we can have a say so in what happens to our bodies, minds, etc and that we are protected under law to do so.
CJ, this may surprise you, but laws were not written to protect the rights of women. There are no men’s laws and women’s laws. Laws are designed to protect everyone from being harmed in any way by any one else. If you could somehow persuade me that it would be worse for a woman to be pregnant for nine months, than it would be for a child to be denied the right to live, then I might favor abortion, too. But until the day comes that women die when they don’t have abortions , and children are born without women being pregnant, you will never convince me that abortions should be legal.
And save the “we can do whatever we want with our bodies” argument — don’t even bother, Fill your body with alcohol, jump in your car, and see how far you get weaving all over the highway, before a Trooper decides you’ve done enough with your body for one night.
Frank the misogynist writes: “The penalty for that could be anything from a fine, community service or probation to decapitation.”
Wow, you’re a real friend of women.
Republican family planning:
No sex until you get married
Have sex until you have as many children as you can afford
Never have sex again, until the kids have jobs elsewhere
Flawless.
Nah, the rich will always have access to abortion one way or another. Frank just wants to screw poor people.
Typical Republican.
Fill your body with alcohol
Good point Frank. How about we outlaw abortions. Women could probably easily get rid of an unwanted pregnancy by drinking copious amounts of alcohol over a period of time. Maybe mix it with some other legal drugs. Make her body completely inhospitable to a developing fetus. This, in turn, will make her miscarry, and she can go on with her life without having the kid.
Would you be in favor of this? Why or why not? Serious question.
I hate these stupid arguments… I said that nowhere in the Constitution did it say that a woman had a right to an abortion, but it did at least infer in the Declaration of Independence that there was an inalienable right to life … Are you denying that? Are are you throwing up a straw man?
A child is a child, if and when it survives childbirth. If it is not permitted to reach term, and be delivered , you have prevented a child from acquiring its right to life — pretty much like saying, “You can vote, but you can’t enter a voting booth.”
cj : You were being neither wise nor an ass. You’re just being nonsensical. The production of sperm does not result in conception.
You want to be a clown? Join the circus. I don’t think abortion is either fun or funny.
Jaim, do you have any idea what is going on around you?
A child is a child, if and when it survives childbirth. If it is not permitted to reach term, and be delivered , you have prevented a child from acquiring its right to life — pretty much like saying, “You can vote, but you can’t enter a voting booth.”
Are you answering my question here? Do you really want to make the argument that a pregnant woman does not have the right to drink what she wants?
“I say it’s up to the woman who has the fetus inside her because it’s HER BODY and she has the right to decide if she wants to take the fetus full term or not.”
It might be her body but is it her fetus? It’s not an earing.
you have prevented a child from acquiring its right to life
You’ve almost got it right, Frank! The fetus, indeed, DOES NOT have a right to life. By procuring an abortion, you eliminate the fetus before it has the right to life. Therefore, since the fetus had no right to life, it is not “wrong” to terminate it. At least, with reference to the rights of the adult, human female that it is inside of.
Would you be in favor of this? Why or why not? Serious question.
a) I do not consider it a serious question. Any woman who takes toxic substances to terminate her pregnancy has obviously had an abortion.
b) Jaim and abanterer: There is nothing that sickens me more than people trying to be glib about abortion (you, too, Mambo). If it is such a serious matter that you pretend that women agonize over it; so jealously guarded a women’s right, that a 12 year old can get an abortion without her parents permission, but she can’t get her ears pierced; so traumatic that some women suffer for the rest of their lives, after having had one abortion — then why the pseudo cleverness; the glibness; the gleeful “gotchas”.
Face the truth — a child was going to be born. Now it will not be. Teenagers are making life – altering decisions with no help, no assistance, no guidance.
We were living with a government that wants us to stop smoking, lose weight, and exercise. But not have an abortion? Surely an abortion can’t do any harm…
Frank, if a fetus doesn’t have the right to life until it’s born, how can you take away it’s right to life if you prevent it coming to term? You can’t take away something it doesn’t have yet, even if it can potentially have it at some future point.
No, Mambo , you have it wrong… A right that cannot be exercised is no right at all. Suppose you were told you can only vote on the Moon? Would you still have a right to vote?
It would be utter nonsense to suppose that the right to life does not include the right to become alive.
You are playing a word game.
So many good and decent evangelicals came for saving the babies but stayed for bombing the Iraqis. Quite sad, really.
Oh, Frank… this is where you lose, badly. You want to make it illegal for some women to drink alcohol, or take sleeping pills, or antibiotics, or smoke cigarettes, or to take kickboxing lessons, or any number of a million things that could terminate a pregnancy? Really? Good luck with that.
Funny how the party of personal responsibility and individual liberty wants to take away the freedoms of pregnant women.
And for the record, I’m not being glib about abortion. I’m being glib about what romance would necessarily be like under a conservative plan. That it bears little resemblance to the way human relationships work is not my fault, but the fault of whomever thinks women should have as little say in the matter as possible.
It would be utter nonsense to suppose that the right to life does not include the right to become alive.
No, I don’t think so. Those are different things. I can easily parse them: Once born, there is a “right to life”. Before being born, there is no “right to life.”
The Declaration states that MEN have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration does not say that unborn fetuses have any such right.
@Frank- I don’t think it’s fun or funny either. That is why I believe that the decision should be left up to the person that is going though it not by others beliefs.
“CJ, this may surprise you, but laws were not written to protect the rights of women. ”
Wait so we don’t have law saying a woman has a right to a abortion?
Hmm Roe v Wade…I guess that was a fight over a dog.
Frank said: “Teenagers are making life – altering decisions with no help, no assistance, no guidance.”
Yes, that’s the point about sex ed; help, assistance and guidance. Abstnence only guidance is nonsense. I don’t even mind sex ed that says “Abstinence is really the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and changing your life, but if you can’t practice this, these methods will also help prevent & etc.”
“that a 12 year old can get an abortion without her parents permission”
If a 12 year old is pregnant, there’s a likelihood of rape, incest, or abuse. This is precisely why parents shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all of their children’s decisions regarding abortion.
And yeah, the best thing we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancy is to teach good sex education/human biology classes in public schools. But you don’t find many anti-choice folks willing to make the most basic of concessions to logic and reason on this front.
Teenagers are making life – altering decisions with no help, no assistance, no guidance.
Are…are you really arguing that dropping out of high school to raise a child in a single parent household will IMPROVE their lives? Really?
I know Republicans really buy into the whole “young people are stupid” thing, but this takes the cake.
I hate these stupid arguments… I said that nowhere in the Constitution did it say that a woman had a right to an abortion, but it did at least infer in the Declaration of Independence that there was an inalienable right to life … Are you denying that? Are are you throwing up a straw man?
The Declaration of Independence does not establish any laws of legal precedent, so your point is moot.
If you could somehow persuade me that it would be worse for a woman to be pregnant for nine months, than it would be for a child to be denied the right to live, then I might favor abortion, too.
Here’s a list:
1. Incest
2. Rape
3. LIfe-risking complications (implantation in the fallopian tube)
4. Can’t afford to support the child (or even pay the bills for the birth for that matter)
5. Abusive families/threat of disowning (you’re probably familiar with this one)
That’s a good starting point.
I notice the insults have started up again in this thread. I’m sure that people feel strongly about this subject in particular, but there’s no reason to snipe at them personally, even if you find their opinion objectionable. Weakens your argument as well.
The cons cheered Malkin as she stalked kids on SCHIP. They don’t care about the kids after they’re born
I’m still reeling from the whole “Abortion isn’t in the constitution so it must be wrong” thing. Frank, the constitution doesn’t say explicitly that I shouldn’t split your face open with a hatchet. Now sure, the present law does, but why should those laws written after the fact deprive me of my God-given right to life-spent-hatcheting-you-in-the-face?
The Bill of Rights states that things not made explicit in the Constitution should be taken up by the states.
Which is of course a wing-nut nightmare, because if you put it on a ballot and made it clear that if abortion was made illegal women and doctors would be going to jail, even in cases of rape, incest, or a woman’s life being at stake, a majority of states would vote to keep it legal.
…so, what about ectopic pregnancies, Frank? If the birth of the fetus necessarily leads to the death of the mother, does the fetus have the right to live?
Difficulty of enforcement is not a strong argument against the righteousness of a regulation, regardless of what you think in the abortion debate. The debate is one of morals and priorities, not practicality, and discourse will almost never result in a changed mind on the subject.
Frank,
The Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There is no explicit right to abortion, but the Court in Roe found an implicit right. I think if you were going to argue for overturning Roe, you could make your case. That the fetus has an implicit right not to be whacked before its born.
These are all old, stale arguments: The fetus is “not a human until it crosses the finish line”, but if the skull is crushed on the way out, and the baby torn to shreds upon delivery – well, then, it did n’t cross the finish line { no, it was KILLED at the finish line }
You want to make it illegal for some women to [ingest things] that could terminate a pregnancy?
No, I would not, any more than I would call it murder if a mother accidentally gave her child Drano instead of baby formula. An accident is an accident; purposeful is purposeful.
If a 12 year old is pregnant, there’s a likelihood of rape, incest, or abuse.
Oh, really? Is that another one of your undocumented “of course it’s true; I said so, didn’t I?” thingies.
If you could somehow persuade me that it would be worse for a woman to be pregnant for nine months
The operative word here is “pregnant”. I am not saying that a woman should risk her life to have a child, However, being pregnant is not in most cases , life threatening, per se
I am well aware of the implied rights principle in the Constitution, and of the meaning of stare decisis. The majority opinion in Roe v Wade did not rely on precedent or on the 9th Amendment. It used the idea of a “penumbra” that surrounded the right to privacy, which they claimed included a woman’s womb. Somehow, the right to privacy, in their view, did, indeed “trump” the right to life of the “child unborn”, as Mambo put it.
That doesn’t mean they were correct, nor does it mean that if they were “correct” in some legalistic sense , that I would have to agree,
As you said, Mambo, “The Declaration states that MEN have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Did that mean that women did not? How about post-op transsexuals (female to male)? Do they get their rights , only after surgery?
Finally, Rex, the Constitution was never meant to be a restatement of the Civil or Criminal Code; it is meant to be the Rules by which the Government operates. The Supreme Court was originally designed to settle interstate disputes. It was John Marshall who persuaded the Nation that the Supreme Court could not effectively settle disputes, unless it could determine constitutionality. Now, we have the Supreme Court determining that the life of an owl trumps a major lumber industry’s existence.
Jesus, Frank, you’re even snarky when I offer support.
Here’s the bottom line Frank– it’s none of your damn business. None, zilch, nada. You don’t have a say, k? Get that through your thick skull already.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about a woman having the right to an abortion? Got news for ya, Frank– there ain’t nothing in the Bible about NOT having the right, either. Read the stupid book every once in a while before you go spewing your mysoginistic bullshit all over the place.
Don’t like abortion? Then maybe you shouldn’t f*@% women anymore. Maybe you should just try f^$#ing yerself.
Ivy, thank you so much for your contribution to the debate.
However, as I interpret the liberal world view, we are each of us responsible for each other. Are you suggesting that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, we can just cross her off the list of people we need to be concerned about?
As I implied above, are we to be concerned about STD’s smoking, overeating, anorexia, body image dysphoria, gender identity confusion in women, but not care about the side effects and / or trauma associated with abortion?
As to whether or I not I have sex with women, I don’t have sex with women who might abort their babies.
Besides which, life without sex is better than no life at all – no matter what Freud said.
Jesus, Frank, you’re even snarky when I offer support.
Sorry about that. The comment on the Constitution was aimed at bot Rex and Mambo, not you. It’s a pattern : The Declaration of Independence counts when the subject is equality. It doesn’t count when it comes to the right to life.
The Constitution is the Law, when it comes to Roe v Wade, but it is a living document when it comes to Prohibition, the Women’s vote, and the 18 year old vote.
And let’s not forget Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson
Expansion of the vote, prohibition, and even abolition took amendments. An amendment regarding abortion one way or the other would be too controversial. I think the ‘living document’ approach to abortion is going to gain as fetuses become more and more viable at an earlier age and a competing interest vs. the mother’s right to privacy can be claimed. Or as noted above, abortion might come to be seen as more of a matter for the states. Don’t know if a complete overturn of Roe is likely.
So if the title of this post is true (Abortion Bans Don’t Stop Abortions), what’re we gonna do?
‘However, as I interpret the liberal world view, we are each of us responsible for each other. Are you suggesting that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, we can just cross her off the list of people we need to be concerned about?’
It’s an interesting question. Ultimately, it’s the woman’s decision. But as Obama noted in his keynote address, we’re all interwoven to some extent. If a woman in South Carolina had trouble getting her Social Security check, that affected him in Chicago. Not literally, but in some sense. Abortion is not an issue for me directly, but in some sense, it affects us as a community.
The operative word here is “pregnant”.
So the women (or girls) in the situations I listed aren’t really pregnant? Good to know.
How about post-op transsexuals (female to male)? Do they get their rights , only after surgery?
Not if the Religious Right has anything to say about it.
Are you suggesting that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, we can just cross her off the list of people we need to be concerned about?
OMG Frank, don’t even. Yes Frank, I’ve had an abortion. So has one in four women you probably know. Are you “concerned” for me now? Don’t be. I’m fine.
As I implied above, are we to be concerned about STD’s smoking, overeating, anorexia, body image dysphoria, gender identity confusion in women, but not care about the side effects and / or trauma associated with abortion?
Well, all I can do is speak of my own experience. Side effects? I had cramps and bleeding for a couple days, nothing major. Trauma? Yes, I grieved. Then I went on with my life. Like I said before, I’m just fine.
As to whether or I not I have sex with women, I don’t have sex with women who might abort their babies.
Is that the question that comes after “So, what do you do for a living?” on a blind date? “So, if I knock you up tonight, you’re carrying it full term, right?”
Besides which, life without sex is better than no life at all – no matter what Freud said.
And this is where I’m going to end. I am not going to revel in the festival of evil that I really want to at this moment. All I’m going to say is that statement is VERY telling, Frank. Life without sex IS no life at all.
Sorry about the italics, folks. Guess I didn’t do it right ;O
Now, we have the Supreme Court determining that the life of an owl trumps a major lumber industry’s existence.
Interesting, Frank. You believe think a company’s existence trumps an owl’s right to life?
I wonder if you could expand upon that a bit.
What inalienable right to exist does a company have that an owl doesn’t?
Or if they both have a right to exist, what logic grants greater weight to the company than the owl when their equal rights clash?
Can we infer that you see human life as superior to all other life on the planet and thus has a greater right to exist than others?
The right has lost the abortion debate for almost 40 years. They should just give it up already. Abortion will remain legal and available in this country whether they like it or not.
They’ve lost all the social issues wars, but yet they cling so tightly to them because they’ve built their entire fading political movement on wedge issues.
I suppose the thing to do now is to say “Abortions are available; I hate it, but that’s how it is. Now, making lemonade from this lemon, how can we stop there being a need for abortions? What can we teach to our children so that they never place themselves in a position where they might have an unwanted pregnancy?”
Educate, baby, educate! That’s the way to reduce those abortions as close to zero as possible. Abstinence doesn’t work, ignorance doesn’t work, nor do threats or ostracism.
Technically, abstinence works. It’s getting people to be abstinent that’s a bear.
fafaroo, it’s pretty simple. In conservativeworld, it’s like this,
Corporations > Men > Babies > Women > Animals
For the right it’s like this “We must protect the babies in the womb” but once they’re out “It’s your problem now”.
I say it again…The decision must stay in the hands of the person who is going though it i.e the woman.
It’s a pattern : The Declaration of Independence counts when the subject is equality. It doesn’t count when it comes to the right to life.
Yeah, Frank. Also it doesn’t count when it comes to VCR repair, Cosmetic Surgery and Leveling your Night Elf Druid in World of Warcraft, and all for the same simple reason that it doesn’t have a goddam thing to say on the subject.
Further, what is “The Right to Life?” Who, under what authority, has given it to whom, and for what reason, or is it just thats such a pleasing phrase to use because it lets you pretend youre the one fighting for a right instead of against one?
Further, what is “The Right to Life?” Who, under what authority, has given it to whom, and for what reason,
Good luck getting an answer to this one.
or is it just thats such a pleasing phrase to use because it lets you pretend youre the one fighting for a right instead of against one?
… yes.
So a 12 year-old getting pregnant is a normal occurence in your world, Frank?
How’s the weather in Sickoville today?
I believe it is mentioned here:
Now I know many of you believe that the Creator doesn’t exist, or if He ever did , he left the building a few billion years. I am only quoting the men who founded the nation. Who have you got? Renquist?
Quoting from the article,
Seems pretty obvious to me what needs to be done, Frank – if you want to prevent abortion, make sure women have access to healthcare and specifically birth control.
I believe it is mentioned here:
Huh. Look at that. A wonderfully-written document, but of no bearing in any legal matters. Ever. And besides THAT, I don’t see any mention of fetuses there.
Mambo, we’re back where we started. Of course, the Declaration of Independence has a bearing in legal matters. Just like the Justinian Code, the Magna Carta, and Blackstone’s Commentaries do.
LOL,
Lots of heat, damn little light. We have an all out attack on Frank based primarily on emotion with his replies couched in terms of logic, rational thought, and law. Fairly typical example of the left right divide.
Lots of heat, damn little light. We have an all out attack on Frank based primarily on emotion with his replies couched in terms of logic, rational thought, and law. Fairly typical example of the left right divide.
(head spinning)
What? Are you reading the same fucking thread as the rest of us? What color is the sky on your planet?
Because 12 year-olds getting pregnant is totally cool with Frank and AO.
Because 12 year-olds getting pregnant is totally cool with Frank and AO.
It is precisely because of nonsense like this that one can not have an intelligent discussion about abortion.
Never did I say, or even suggest, that 12 year olds getting pregnant was “OK” with me. It was you who incorrectly asserted that a pregnant 12 year old is likely the victim of incest, rape, or abuse. Aside from the obvious – that having sex with a 12 year old would constitute rape or abuse, or both, per se — I asked where was your evidence for such an assertion.
Your “answer” was that I was “OK” with 12 year olds being pregnant – a case of repeating an irrelevant falsehood to support an inaccurate assertion.
The mind boggles.