Abortion: Legal or Illegal

The T wrote: I would say some cases when it's used as birth control are not so lazy, for example when methods have been used (condoms, pills, etc) and yet they fail and the woman becomes pregnant nevertheless. Yes, it's used as birth control. No, it's not lazy nor is it "criminal".

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The T wrote: I would say some cases when it's used as birth control are not so lazy, for example when methods have been used (condoms, pills, etc) and yet they fail and the woman becomes pregnant nevertheless. Yes, it's used as birth control. No, it's not lazy nor is it "criminal". T, I agree, but a woman knows she's pregnant after one, maybe two months without menstruation, they have enough time before 10th, 12th and even 2 trimesters.....Why in hell do they wait 26 or 28 weeks? Iván

Gamemako wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: That's true: The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.  Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;  1% because of fetal abnormalities;  3% due to the mother's health problems. http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm This is CRIMINAL That seems to be a complete fabrication. Hell, 54% of women who have abortions were using other birth control means at the time of conception. The only part of that which seems to be true is the 1% being rape or incest cases. Refer to a quick factsheet from the Guttmacher Institute for more abortion statistics.

Negoba wrote: To be fair, the vast majority of abortions are first trimester. Many abortion providers won't do 2nd trimester abortions, and virtually none do third.

Apparently, third-trimester abortions constitute roughly 0.08% of all abortions.


Edited by Gamemako - January 30 2012 at 11:34

Negoba wrote:   "• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]"   This doesn't say 54% of women used contraception at the time they were inpregnated. It says in the previous month. What's more the majority were not using it correctly. It was an intentionally deceptive statistic to begin with and then you further modified it.

Not at all. The problem is specifically defining correct use, as most contraceptives are used incorrectly. To keep with the same source,

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

Note that proper use of the pill results in very low pregnancy rates, but pregnancy rates for typical use are 30 times higher. Similarly, condoms are 1/9th the effectiveness they would ideally be if used properly. You'd think these things were simple, but they aren't.


Edited by Gamemako - January 30 2012 at 11:40

Negoba wrote:   If I have AIDS, and don't tell my partner, and transmit the virus, is that criminal? One could argue that any time you have unprotected sex, it's "buyer beware" and tough stuff if you get the loaded chamber.

I would consider it criminal. It's like inviting someone into your home when you know that it harbors a flesh eating virus. Yes the person entering the home assumes risks, but they must be within reason.

Negoba wrote: In the end, my view stems from the fact that I'm not comfortable with viability as the cutoff, because it is a variable.

I agree with this because of the relativity of the term. What would be considered viable 100 years ago is different than today and 1000 years from now. You can't tell me the fetus would be entitled to different rights depending on the time in which it was conceived.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 30 2012 at 13:37

Translation:

"I'm set in my beliefs so I have no interest in discussion and I will just peg anyone as an extremist who disagrees with my views by misrepresenting their beliefs."

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Translation: "I'm set in my beliefs so I have no interest in discussion and I will just peg anyone as an extremist who disagrees with my views by misrepresenting their beliefs."

Translation back into the original English: we all have strong feelings (most of us I think) on the issue and no one is going to change anyone's mind.

But consider what is the extreme position here.  That it ought to be left up to the woman or that doctors deserve to be killed?


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 30 2012 at 14:44

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Translation: "I'm set in my beliefs so I have no interest in discussion and I will just peg anyone as an extremist who disagrees with my views by misrepresenting their beliefs." Translation back into the original English: we all have strong feelings (most of us I think) on the issue and no one is going to change anyone's mind. But consider what is the extreme position here.  That it ought to be left up to the woman or that doctors deserve to be killed?

I've had strong opinions of everything from music to politics since I joined 7 years ago. My opinions on nearly all of those issues have changed.

I don't see the former as extreme. The latter I find to be stupid. I don't support the death penalty, and I do not believe the issue to be clear enough to engage in self-defense on behalf of the fetus.

I have driven by one of the few clinics in Chamblee (Atlanta).  The protesters are harassing women on days when the weather is nice.  I think they are out of line.

To Eq.  I didn't have strong positions on much of anything when I was that young, they did jell as I got older, interesting...


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 30 2012 at 15:08