What do you all think?

They admitted that their estimates MAY be off. Of course they'll be off, they are estimates. They also said that their margin of area was roughly 1% for earlier estimates...and that was unusually high. They werent overshooting by hundreds of thousands...

I dont understand how you are getting the point that the incidence rate of women having abortions will increase if it is illegalized.

There were roughly 800k abortions pre roe vs wade with roughly 200 million americans. There were 1.2 million(i subtracted 90k, to account for a VERY high margin of error) in 2002 with a population of 300 million american. Thats .004 abortions per person for both. To me, it seems like it has remained steady.

That is if we trust ANY of these numbers...and i think we can both agree that all these numbers are just estimates and very, very unreliable.

 

Because that is what has been happening. The stats, which you don't want to read suport a slow, but stead DROP in abortions. Damn, you think a damn Republican would be happy, No, it's more important to CONTROL womyn, which is ALL THE ABORTION DEBATE IS ABOUT. The NEED to control womyn by men who are afraid of female sexuality. (NO, I don't have a FUCKING statistic on this. Jeeezsus.)

In the book "The Worst of Times (maybe you and Huck should read it) it was estimated that over a million abortions were perfromed IN the CITY OF NEW YORK every year during the 1850s to 1880s. That is ONE CITY. (this rate was based on reporting from midwives and doctors were were afraid to tell their stories, there were MORE than this, if you count the thousands and more of self induced abortions, and those done by people who would not come forward due to fear of getting the death penalty.) Birth Control, easier access to abortion ect REDUCED the abortion rate. If womyn have NO option, they WILL abort, again and again. During this time period, the average womyn had TWO abortions a YEAR. Yeah, every womyn, two a year. WHY? Because, there was difficult acccess, and also they had to wait longer, and there was no legal way to prevent themselves from being human walkin uteruses.

Tell you what. Next time you accidentally get pregnant, let's talk about your feelings? Okay. I'm SICK of this womyn hating shit.

 

Ya know. No one is going into the MIF and ragging on men day and night. No womyn is doing it. But, this forum gets all the womyn haters. AND if you are ANTICHOICE, you don't RESPECT A WOMYN to make choices about her own body.

If you can't trust a womyn with a choice, HOW can you trust her with a child?

I'm fucking done with this shit. As soon as y'all can GET PREGNANT get back to me. Okay? Because without that, you really have no idea what is is like to have people try to make laws FORCING you to do things with your body.

Keep Your womyn hating laws OFF my body.

 

abortion is wrong

 

Back on the original question of whether anti-abortion is about women's rights or the actual fetus (because I don't recall answering), I feel that it depends on the person, but that women's rights are a huge factor.

I have a hard time believing that conservative pro-lifers who are conservative in more areas than just the abortion issues give a shit about babies. Look at the other things they do, like deny access to birth control for sexually active teenagers and deny adoption rights to people who we have no reason to think would make bad parents. And that's not even counting the number of children in poverty who they seemingly don't give a shit about (wouldn't want to give them "handouts" and make them dependent on welfare would we?) Yet an unborn, unwanted baby is worth saving? I really don't think the children are the issue in that circumstance, I think in that circumstance the issue is control. I reiterate from a previous abortion post the concept of suffering. Children forced to rot in adoption shelters or juggled from foster home to foster home are suffering far more than a fetus suffers when it is aborted. This is not to say that I oppose adoption, I encourage it, but to illegalize abortion would result in many more children such as this.

To bring in another issue which I think is similar to this, when Terry Shiavo was on life support people were adamant in keeping her on it to save her life. Where are these people when other people need their help?

On the other hand, there are people who are pro-life who are not conservative in key ways which lead me to believe they really do care about the children and not simply about control. They support effective prevention methods that don't just yell at people to not have sex or they deserve it. They support progressive adoption legislation. Things like that. This is not to say that I agree with them, but I think they have a better plan than the above.

 

Let's assume it has dropped. Numerous restrictrions adopted at the state level throughout the last decade have undoubtedly played a huge role.

Maybe I'll have to try to get a hold of this. The numbers sound completely absurd.

As Megara has noted, it's also absurd to blame illegal abortion for the maternal death rate in poor countries. As for Ireland, I think it's dubious to automatically assume that every woman interested in an abortion is traveling to England to have one. It's a very convenient way to dismiss the fact that Ireland and England have comparable maternal death rates. Finally, I notice that you've said nothing about Poland.

 

It is sad to see how quickly dicussions always break down and turn into pure rhetoric and name slinging.

I care for neither right now.