WizardofOz
New member
What are your rationalizations? How do you justify legal abortion? If you're pro-choice, let me know why! 
What would it take to change your mind?
What would it take to change your mind?
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm certainly not blanket "pro-choice", however "life begins at conception" is untenable as well. It's almost impossible to enforce very early term abortions and many forms of contraception would be illegal if a so called "Life Amendment" were passed.
I think a fetus is a person, or at least close enough to be protected at a certain point after conception. I'm not entirely sure when that is, but somewhere between a heartbeat and quickening might be good places to draw the line. I do not think a fertilized egg or a ball of undifferentiated cells is a person.
Research shows that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce abortion rates at all, it simply makes it less safe for the woman. Countries where abortion is illegal have similar rates to those where it is legal.
I do think abortion should, at the very least, be illegal after fetal viability with exceptions for the life of the mother and *severe* fetal defects. I could see more restrictions being placed, but a blanket life amendment type law wouldn't be supported by much of the population at all.
I am also interested in addressing unplanned pregnancy with greater access to birth control as well as better social support for women who choose to have their children. It's these latter two that many right wingers object to, which makes me think instead of being pro-life, they are simply "pro-birth". once the kid is born it's up to the parents to take care of the child. "Government provided social services just reward bad behavior!" they say. Unfortunately the lack of them punishes the very children they insist must be born.
I think a fetus is a person, or at least close enough to be protected at a certain point after conception. I'm not entirely sure when that is, but somewhere between a heartbeat and quickening might be good places to draw the line. I do not think a fertilized egg or a ball of undifferentiated cells is a person.
Research shows that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce abortion rates at all, it simply makes it less safe for the woman. Countries where abortion is illegal have similar rates to those where it is legal.
I do think abortion should, at the very least, be illegal after fetal viability with exceptions for the life of the mother and *severe* fetal defects. I could see more restrictions being placed, but a blanket life amendment type law wouldn't be supported by much of the population at all.
I am also interested in addressing unplanned pregnancy with greater access to birth control as well as better social support for women who choose to have their children. It's these latter two that many right wingers object to, which makes me think instead of being pro-life, they are simply "pro-birth". once the kid is born it's up to the parents to take care of the child. "Government provided social services just reward bad behavior!" they say. Unfortunately the lack of them punishes the very children they insist must be born.
The actual history of abortion is that even when illegal it was still done extensively but often in unsanitary conditions. I am against abortions but I am even more against making abortion illegal. Oz asks what would change my mind. If our society would put in place protections for women during and after the pregnancy yet do so in a way that did not make it appealing as a way of life (welfare abuse). I seriously doubt that can be done. Especially since it would also require provisions for the children who certainly do not deserve to be born into poverty and a miserable existence. These are tough equations and our leaders seem more inclined to spent trillions on munitions to blow holes in deserts and drones to execute infidels. Are our priorities not a bit off kilter?
I read somewhere, today, that the conclusions from this research is based on fallacies and exaggeration.
I should have bookmarked it. I'll find it and link to it.
Alate_One
Well-known member
But Personhood USA would have no reason to bias such an article . . .
Josh Craddock, the author, is a young man full of integrity, as are the rest of the members of the organization. And Josh also cited, and linked to, his sources for anyone wanting to check his facts.
But you wouldn't want to do something honest like that, would you?
Alate_One
Well-known member
I didn't say I wouldn't look at it, in detail. I don't have time right at this moment (though I did look at one of the articles). All the Chilean article said was maternal mortality was decreasing because of education sanitation etc. But Maternal mortality from illegal abortion was still very high in Chile, about a third of all deaths until relatively recently. It's thought the lowered death rate is due partly to improved practices by illegal abortion providers and increased use of contraception.
Problem is "personhood" groups tend to want to eliminate many common forms of contraception, removing one of the ways out of abortion.
In any case I'll check the rest of his citations in detail when I get time.
gcthomas
New member
The article makes a big deal of Ireland's low maternal mortality. Ireland does have a very restrictive abortion law, but the UK is a short ferry ride away. Any woman who wants an abortion can go to Liverpool or Cardiff and have a safe, professional abortion in a clean hospital for as little as 400 GBP. Ireland outsources its abortion demand, and so avoids developing a backstreet industry.
Sources?
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm thinking that him being from the UK makes him knowledgeable about that sort of thing. I could be wrong of course, but I also found this.
| But, with approximately 4,000 women from the republic and 1,000 from the north traveling to Britain each year for abortions, the Irish electorate is increasingly calling for clarification of abortion legislation. |
Considering the population of the entire Island of Ireland is only about 6 million, that's a fairly high number of women leaving for abortion.
It's somewhat obvious that when you have two nations very close in proximity with very different abortion policies, outsourcing is what will happen.
5,000 out of 6 million? I'm not buying it. I suspect more exaggeration; and I don't mean simple hyperbole.
gcthomas
New member
The UK's National Health Service collects residency addresses so that the right region can be billed. The data from the NHS is here, you want to look at table 12a.
The figures are certainly an UNDERESTIMATE since a woman who claims a UK address will not have to pay for the procedure. Many will stay with relatives in the UK for the duration of their trip which makes addresses a poor indication of nationality. ID is not usually required at NHS hospitals.
The total figures since 1980 are 160 000 women had abortions in the UK after giving an Irish Republic address. The real figure will be much higher with false addresses included.
I was looking at the numbers wrong.
This is much less than even one percent per year. It's less than 0.1%, even.
What are your rationalizations? How do you justify legal abortion? If you're pro-choice, let me know why!
The right to one's own body.
No unwanted pregnancies.
gcthomas
New member
That's 0.2% of women per year, so that probably works out at 5% of all women at some point in their lives. Plus those that didn't give a correct address to get the freebie service. Not insignificant.