Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[koshergrl]

NONE of those things are in place. There is no mandatory sex education in public schools, parents can opt their kid out. Parents fear that learning about sex will encourage the kids to satisfy their curiosity. Studies have shown that just the opposite is true.

Christian schools teach abstinence only, and girls are expected to make chastity pledges. A friend of mine who teaches in one of these schools tells me that these sweet Christian girls are engaging in oral and annal sex in such numbers that their parents would be shocked, but not vaginal sex because they have to remain virgins.

So in an effort to not break their pledges, these girls are engaging in dangerous forms of sex which could lead to injury or infection. Since these kids haven't had proper education on how their bodies function sexually, they have no idea how dangerous some of these practices may be. Call it the law of unintended consequences.

What a ridiculous load of garbage.

You maintain we have more stds and unplanned pregnancies because girls at Christian schools are giving blow jobs and having anal sex?

I wouldn't be surprised at all about what he says about the girls in Christian schools. I lived in a foreign country where girls are supposed to be virgins when they marry, and it was true there that the young women engaged in anal sex and oral sex but not vaginal sex so they would still be a virgin when they got married. It was very common knowledge among the younger generation there. The parents may not have had a clue, however.

I have an idea. We could make abortion illegal again and bring all these fetuses to term, then we'd have a whole lot of babies no one wants. Then we could institute the ideas in Swift's "A Modest Proposal," sell the flesh to millionaires at very high prices and pay off the national debt. American ingenuity in a nutshell! Not to mention capitalism at peak performance.

The concept that abortion prevents neglect/unwanted babies is a complete and total fallacy. If there is any connection at all, then obviously abortion causes MORE child abuse/neglect/unwanted children, since the rate of those things is so much higher since the legalization of abortion.

Your favorite *reason* for abortion is nonsense, in other words. Abortion does NOT reduce the incidence of unwanted children. It's complete rubbish, and anyone who looks at the stats knows it. If you continue to maintain that abortion prevents neglect, abuse, and reduces the numbers of unwanted pregnancy, well you're lying as the opposite is demonstrably true.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The concept that abortion prevents neglect/unwanted babies is a complete and total fallacy. If there is any connection at all, then obviously abortion causes MORE child abuse/neglect/unwanted children, since the rate of those things is so much higher since the legalization of abortion.

Your favorite *reason* for abortion is nonsense, in other words. Abortion does NOT reduce the incidence of unwanted children. It's complete rubbish, and anyone who looks at the stats knows it. If you continue to maintain that abortion prevents neglect, abuse, and reduces the numbers of unwanted pregnancy, well you're lying as the opposite is demonstrably true.

This is a complete fallacy.

The rate of child abuse is not higher, the standard of what constitutes child abuse is lower. Most of the stuff the Nuns did to us in the Bad Old Days would be considered "child abuse" today. SO would the way parents disciplined their kids.

The problem with most of your "statistics", whether it be about abortions or child abuse or STD's is that you think an increase in reportage is an increase in incidence.

It's kind of like saying that there was no Radon before people invented Radon tests.

 

[koshergrl]

We've heard your ridiculous, completely unsubstatiated lies ad nauseum. Take a break, you've been discredited thoroughly and repeatedly. Nobody gives you any credit.

 

[JoeB131]

We've heard your ridiculous, completely unsubstatiated lies ad nauseum. Take a break, you've been discredited thoroughly and repeatedly. Nobody gives you any credit.

Ooookay...........

Frankly, you live in a world impervious to facts... One where no one got abortions before Roe vs. Wade.

One where countries that ban abortion don't have higher incidences of them than ones where it's legal.

That's the problem with Religious Zealot Rubes. They don't need facts, they have faith.

 

[paperview]

[

The concept that abortion prevents neglect/unwanted babies is a complete and total fallacy. If there is any connection at all, then obviously abortion causes MORE child abuse/neglect/unwanted children, since the rate of those things is so much higher since the legalization of abortion.

Your favorite *reason* for abortion is nonsense, in other words. Abortion does NOT reduce the incidence of unwanted children. It's complete rubbish, and anyone who looks at the stats knows it. If you continue to maintain that abortion prevents neglect, abuse, and reduces the numbers of unwanted pregnancy, well you're lying as the opposite is demonstrably true.

This is a complete fallacy.

The rate of child abuse is not higher, the standard of what constitutes child abuse is lower. Most of the stuff the Nuns did to us in the Bad Old Days would be considered "child abuse" today. SO would the way parents disciplined their kids.

The problem with most of your "statistics", whether it be about abortions or child abuse or STD's is that you think an increase in reportage is an increase in incidence.

It's kind of like saying that there was no Radon before people invented Radon tests.

Or no priests raping little boys before this current century.

 

[editec]

If you don't have a womb?

You don't have standing in this room.

 

[koshergrl]

We've heard your ridiculous, completely unsubstatiated lies ad nauseum. Take a break, you've been discredited thoroughly and repeatedly. Nobody gives you any credit.

Ooookay...........

Frankly, you live in a world impervious to facts... One where no one got abortions before Roe vs. Wade.

One where countries that ban abortion don't have higher incidences of them than ones where it's legal.

That's the problem with Religious Zealot Rubes. They don't need facts, they have faith.

Fuck you. You don't, and have never, presented any facts. You're a discredited porn weirdo whose greatest joy is to see women degraded, and who interjects his repulsive self into every single abortion discussion, and holds out to the very end, posting lies and baby killing propaganda throughout the entire discussion. You present lies as if they were previously proven and which can't BE proven.

Like the lie that there were just as many abortions prior to RvW as after it. That's an outright lie...yet you have been committed to it for YEARS when it comes to this discussion. I have shown you to be a liar dozens, scores of times...as have others...yet you continue to doggedly continue to post all the discredited and vile rhetoric. You know you're lying, I know you're lying, and every person who has watched you on this board knows you're lying.

So what motivates a sleezeball to continue to post the very lies he's been outed with, over and over?

I don't even want to imagine. All I know is that you're a liar...and not an accidental one. You deliberately tell lies to minimalize the horror of abortion, and to encourage women it's in their best interests to support the abortion and porn industries.

You're disgusting. I've no doubt you're a criminal in real life, but worse, you're a fucking lying pervert, with all the revolting connotations that go with it, which you exemplify on this board.

Honestly, I don't know how scummy people can stand themselves...let alone be okay with knowing how other people view them. Ordinary people would at least try to appear normal. Not you, though. You wallow in your depravity, you wear it like a badge, and you appear to be proud of your lies (which aren't even clever...just blatant...) What sort of person does that make you? Exactly the sort of person you are. Dishonest, dangerous, perverted.

 

[paperview]

Uh oh. Someone's stinky tampon is all aflame.

 

[Katzndogz]

If we didn't have abortion we would not have more unwanted children. We would have far fewer foreign adoptions.

Given that a woman has a right to choose to kill her child. At what age would the child have to be to cut off that right? We know that being born doesn't cut off the right because liberals have evolved to murder after the child is born. So what age is acceptable to end a woman's right to choose and what of the infringement on her rights then?

 

[Dragonlady]

We've heard your ridiculous, completely unsubstatiated lies ad nauseum. Take a break, you've been discredited thoroughly and repeatedly. Nobody gives you any credit.

YOU have been discredited thoroughly. JoeB's right. When I was in school, we got the strap if we disobeyed. Students were sent to the principal's office and he had a leather strap there that he administer to the derrieres of the troublesome boys. Nuns at the Catholic schools would crack student's knuckles with a ruler. Today, any teacher hitting a student would be fired. There were numerous incidences of child abuse at orphanages, including sexual abuse, that were reported in the 1960's and 1970's that were never prosecuted because the schools were run by churches, and not just the Catholic Church either. The children simply weren't believed.

There was a lot more corporal punishment in the era of Roe v. Wade. My mother spanked her children. I did not. I thought it dumb and pointless. Fear of a spanking never stopped me from doing anything. Fear of grounding was a whole other issue.

When I was growing up, if a child misbehaved in public and the parent DIDN'T smack them, people would tsk, tsk at the crappy parenting. Today, if someone smacked their kid in the grocery store, someone would report them to child services.

You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that the Bible bars or forbids abortion. While we've come up with lots of situations which show that God has no compunctions about requiring pregnant women to be killed, thus killing their unborn child.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You really think these hippy chicks in 1971 were abstaining from sex? really?

Now I know you conservatards think that women were beaten dogs back pre-Roe, but the reality, people knew "someone who could take care of that".

If you think there's a woman who thinks, "I'm gonna have an abortion for fun", I think it just exposes your misogyny.

Well, it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Where abortion is unavailable, women are more cautious about becoming pregnant because they have no "fall back" option, and are more likely to use contraception in order to not become pregnant, if they choose to engage in sex at all. Where abortion is available, women are more likely to become pregnant due to the increased likelihood of engaging in 'riskier' sex/increased likelihood to forgo contraception. There are quite a few studies done on this (that are all but ignored by liberals). Here is one such study for you to read (link).

This paper views abortion access as an insurance policy that protects women from unwanted pregnancies. Within this framework, we present a theoretical model where greater access provides value in the form of insurance against unwanted births and also reduces the incentive to avoid pregnancy. This model predicts that legalized abortion should lead to a reduction in the likelihood of giving birth. It also predicts that if abortion access becomes relatively inexpensive (including both monetary and psychic costs), then pregnancies would rise and births would remain unchanged or may even rise as well. We review the evidence on the impact of changes in abortion policy mainly from the United States and find support for both predictions. Then we test these hypotheses using recent changes in abortion policy in several Eastern European countries. We find that countries which changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births, highlighting the insurance value. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available upon request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, indicating that pregnancies rose as well. These findings are consistent with the incentive effect implications of our model.

You're free to come back with your citation to the contrary, though you will find it very hard to do.

You act like the abortion rate is a sign of failure. It isn't.

Well, that's interesting. You constantly see/hear pro-choicers going on about how if pro-lifers cared about reducing the abortion rate they'd do "X", or about how the U.S. has a higher abortion rate than some other country, but point out the fact that "red" states tend to have lower abortion rates than "blue" states, or that the U.S. has a high abortion rate as a whole because a few "blue" states are driving the number up, then abortion rate becomes irrelevant? How does that work?

The blue states are more advanced.

In what way?

But really, the fact is, Texas has 16 abortions per 1000 women and Kansas has 19. That's just as high or higher than Blue states.

Abortion Rate - Kaiser State Health Facts

No, it's really not. Guttmacher has been tracking the abortion rate by state (abortions per 1,000 women) for a few years now. You can go here to look at it. But I'll make it easy for you. Those are the states ranked from the highest abortion rate to the lowest. Look at the states at the top and look at the states at the bottom.

Deleware: 40.0
New York: 37.6
New Jersey: 31.3
Washington DC*: 29.9
Maryland: 29.9
California: 27.6
Florida: 27.2
Nevada: 25.9
Connecticut: 24.6
Rhode Island: 22.9
Hawaii: 22.6
Illinois: 20.5
Georgia: 19.2
Kansas: 19.2
Michigan: 18.4
Massachusetts: 18.3
Washington: 18.3
Virginia: 17.6
North Carolina: 17.5
Oregon: 17.3
Pennsylvania: 17.0
Texas: 16.5
Louisiana: 16.1
Colorado: 15.7
New Mexico: 15.5
Tennessee: 15.5
Arizona: 15.2
Ohio: 14.7
Minnesota: 12.5
Vermont: 12.5
Montana: 12.3
New Hampshire: 12.3
Alabama: 12.0
Alaska: 12.0
Iowa: 11.3
Maine: 11.2
North Dakota: 11.2
Oklahoma: 9.9
Arkansas: 8.7
Indiana: 8.3
Nebraska: 8.1
South Carolina: 8.1
Wisconsin 7.4
Utah: 6.7
West Virginia: 6.6
Missouri: 6.3
Idaho: 6.0
South Dakota: 5.6
Kentucky: 5.1
Mississippi: 4.6
Wyoming: 0.9

Look at the top of the list. Now look at the bottom of the list. Seems to me like "blue" America needs to try a little harder, huh?

 

[koshergrl]

We've heard your ridiculous, completely unsubstatiated lies ad nauseum. Take a break, you've been discredited thoroughly and repeatedly. Nobody gives you any credit.

YOU have been discredited thoroughly. JoeB's right. When I was in school, we got the strap if we disobeyed. Students were sent to the principal's office and he had a leather strap there that he administer to the derrieres of the troublesome boys. Nuns at the Catholic schools would crack student's knuckles with a ruler. Today, any teacher hitting a student would be fired. There were numerous incidences of child abuse at orphanages, including sexual abuse, that were reported in the 1960's and 1970's that were never prosecuted because the schools were run by churches, and not just the Catholic Church either. The children simply weren't believed.

There was a lot more corporal punishment in the era of Roe v. Wade. My mother spanked her children. I did not. I thought it dumb and pointless. Fear of a spanking never stopped me from doing anything. Fear of grounding was a whole other issue.

When I was growing up, if a child misbehaved in public and the parent DIDN'T smack them, people would tsk, tsk at the crappy parenting. Today, if someone smacked their kid in the grocery store, someone would report them to child services.

You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that the Bible bars or forbids abortion. While we've come up with lots of situations which show that God has no compunctions about requiring pregnant women to be killed, thus killing their unborn child.

Lol...no, I haven't been discredited...however you discredit Joe here. He didn't say there was less unplanned pregnancy in the past. He said there was just as much, and abortion was just as common.

It's a lie. And you're a liar, too. You won't see any of the intelligent, measured posters supporting anything that whackjob says. Which explains your support of him.

 

[Dragonlady]

If we didn't have abortion we would not have more unwanted children. We would have far fewer foreign adoptions.

There are so many foreign adoptions because people want WHITE babies, and because the adoptive parents often can't qualify or can't afford adoption in the US. To adopt in the US costs over $50K because you have to pay the birth mother, the agency and the lawyer. It's selling babies which I find revolting, but you have to spend a lot to get a healthy, white, American-born baby.

 

[Esmeralda]

You really think these hippy chicks in 1971 were abstaining from sex? really?

Now I know you conservatards think that women were beaten dogs back pre-Roe, but the reality, people knew "someone who could take care of that".

If you think there's a woman who thinks, "I'm gonna have an abortion for fun", I think it just exposes your misogyny.

Well, it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Where abortion is unavailable, women are more cautious about becoming pregnant because they have no "fall back" option, and are more likely to use contraception in order to not become pregnant, if they choose to engage in sex at all. Where abortion is available, women are more likely to become pregnant due to the increased likelihood of engaging in 'riskier' sex/increased likelihood to forgo contraception. There are quite a few studies done on this (that are all but ignored by liberals). Here is one such study for you to read (link).

This paper views abortion access as an insurance policy that protects women from unwanted pregnancies. Within this framework, we present a theoretical model where greater access provides value in the form of insurance against unwanted births and also reduces the incentive to avoid pregnancy. This model predicts that legalized abortion should lead to a reduction in the likelihood of giving birth. It also predicts that if abortion access becomes relatively inexpensive (including both monetary and psychic costs), then pregnancies would rise and births would remain unchanged or may even rise as well. We review the evidence on the impact of changes in abortion policy mainly from the United States and find support for both predictions. Then we test these hypotheses using recent changes in abortion policy in several Eastern European countries. We find that countries which changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births, highlighting the insurance value. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available upon request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, indicating that pregnancies rose as well. These findings are consistent with the incentive effect implications of our model.

You're free to come back with your citation to the contrary, though you will find it very hard to do.



Well, that's interesting. You constantly see/hear pro-choicers going on about how if pro-lifers cared about reducing the abortion rate they'd do "X", or about how the U.S. has a higher abortion rate than some other country, but point out the fact that "red" states tend to have lower abortion rates than "blue" states, or that the U.S. has a high abortion rate as a whole because a few "blue" states are driving the number up, then abortion rate becomes irrelevant? How does that work?

The blue states are more advanced.

In what way?

But really, the fact is, Texas has 16 abortions per 1000 women and Kansas has 19. That's just as high or higher than Blue states.

Abortion Rate - Kaiser State Health Facts

No, it's really not. Guttmacher has been tracking the abortion rate by state (abortions per 1,000 women) for a few years now. You can go here to look at it. But I'll make it easy for you. Those are the states ranked from the highest abortion rate to the lowest. Look at the states at the top and look at the states at the bottom.

Deleware: 40.0
New York: 37.6
New Jersey: 31.3
Washington DC*: 29.9
Maryland: 29.9
California: 27.6
Florida: 27.2
Nevada: 25.9
Connecticut: 24.6
Rhode Island: 22.9
Hawaii: 22.6
Illinois: 20.5
Georgia: 19.2
Kansas: 19.2
Michigan: 18.4
Massachusetts: 18.3
Washington: 18.3
Virginia: 17.6
North Carolina: 17.5
Oregon: 17.3
Pennsylvania: 17.0
Texas: 16.5
Louisiana: 16.1
Colorado: 15.7
New Mexico: 15.5
Tennessee: 15.5
Arizona: 15.2
Ohio: 14.7
Minnesota: 12.5
Vermont: 12.5
Montana: 12.3
New Hampshire: 12.3
Alabama: 12.0
Alaska: 12.0
Iowa: 11.3
Maine: 11.2
North Dakota: 11.2
Oklahoma: 9.9
Arkansas: 8.7
Indiana: 8.3
Nebraska: 8.1
South Carolina: 8.1
Wisconsin 7.4
Utah: 6.7
West Virginia: 6.6
Missouri: 6.3
Idaho: 6.0
South Dakota: 5.6
Kentucky: 5.1
Mississippi: 4.6
Wyoming: 0.9

Look at the top of the list. Now look at the bottom of the list. Seems to me like "blue" America needs to try a little harder, huh?

You don't think it might be a matter of acceptance do you? If you live in a state where people don't find abortion acceptable, how likely are you going to be to be brave enough to get one? Divorce was legal for a long time before it became accepted. There were very few divorces in those days, not because people were happily married but because divorce was socially unacceptable. What this chart suggests to me is that there are probably a great many unwanted children being born in certain states. Or maybe if you're rich enough, you go up North where no one knows you and get your abortion there, if you can afford to do so. So, not only are unwanted children being born in those areas, but they are being born to those who can least afford it. Because, if your rationale is that people in the red states are more likely to abstain from sex, I'd say your living in la la land. People have sex, everywhere, at the same rate. Being sexually active isn't confined to people who think abortion is a birth control method.

 

[koshergrl]

In what states do people not find abortion "acceptable"? Please cite your evidence.

I can't wait for this one.

Also, per that loon D.L's idiocy, peopel don't adopt Chinese babies because they want WHITE babies. You bigoted nincompoop, Asian babies aren't "white".

They adopt them because Chinese babies are languishing in cribs in dying rooms, thanks to the 1-child policy. The people who adopt Asian babies do it out of a concern for those children, not because they have a problem with black babies.

Besides which, there aren't that many black babies up for adoption. There are a lot of black foster kids...and good luck prying those poor, dysfunctional children out of the hands of the state. You generally have to foster them for 2 years before they will even consider allowing adoption, and the entire time they're in your care, you have to deal with their families bouncing in and out of their lives, state interference, periodic and inexplicable removals and placements.

Of course people go abroad to adopt. Fucking progressives are committed to the state raising the poor babies who actually survive.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Where abortion is unavailable, women are more cautious about becoming pregnant because they have no "fall back" option, and are more likely to use contraception in order to not become pregnant, if they choose to engage in sex at all. Where abortion is available, women are more likely to become pregnant due to the increased likelihood of engaging in 'riskier' sex/increased likelihood to forgo contraception. There are quite a few studies done on this (that are all but ignored by liberals). Here is one such study for you to read (link).

We first present a theoretical model that treats abortion availability analogously to bankruptcy or fire and flood insurance; it provides protection from the downside risk of an action, but may also alter individual’s incentives to take that action.

Did you even read the "study" you linked to, or the quotes you used?

We first present a theoretical model

This isn't a study of what has happened, it's is a THEORY. The paragraph quoted above had a note at the end of the paragraph and this is what the note said:

1 Incentive effects such as these are traditionally labeled “moral hazard,” indicating that the presence of the insurance increases the likelihood of the event being insured against. It is our understanding that this expression originated among actuaries decades ago and clearly reflects the social mores of an earlier era Although the behavior we describe in this paper is substantively comparable, it is not our intention to provide such judgements to that behavior.

This entire paper is based on THEORY and conjecture. In fact, first world countries with an unfettered access to abortion have generally a lower rate of abortion. In Canada abortion is fully legal and the abortion rate is 30% lower than the rate in the US. Of course Canada has a social safety net, which is also a factor in women making the decision to carry the baby to term. China and Russia have higher rates of abortion but neither are first world countries.

American conservatives want poor women to have babies, but they don't want them to have paid maternity leave, access to pre-natal and post-natal care, subsidized day-care, or medical benefits. They want the abortion rate lower, but ask them to dip into their pockets for tax dollars to make it happen, and suddenly they spout "personal responsibility". I say "Put your money where your mouth is".

 

[editec]

Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

Depends.

Do you think they OWN their bodies?

If so then yes

If not then, who hell do you think does own THEIR bodies

YOU? the GOVERNMENT? YOUR CHURCH?


And let me guess.,..you think that you love the concept of freedom, too don't you?

Except for women, naturally.

They are yours to command.

 

[koshergrl]

They don't own the babies they kill.

 

[Caroljo]

"...IF we managed to instill in people, starting at a young age, some sense of responsibility and the consequences of actions."

And we wouldn't have dishonest politicians, insincere religious figures, avaricious speculators that caused economic crises, soldiers that followed illegal and immoral orders and most of all the other rampart social ills.

True! While we have always had dishonest politicians, insincere religious figures and all the rest, we might have fewer of them. After all, there weren't many insincere religious figures when the penalty was to be tarred, feathered and run out of town. Consequences has largely been removed from the entirety of our culture. Everyone is a victim. This is a much larger subject. But, when the avaricious was strung up by the neck in the town square, there weren't that many.

Women who get pregnant and the men who impregnate them are not VICTIMS, they shouldn't be treated as if they had nothing to do with the pregnancy.

They should be treated as if they made a mistake, you are a barbarian, perhaps you would be satisfied in a less civilized environment.

You're right....everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I've learned from my mistakes so i don't keep repeating them. What about women that have more that 1 abortion? Do you think that person learned from their mistake the first time? After one time, there's no feeling sorry for them.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Did you even read the "study" you linked to, or the quotes you used?

We first present a theoretical model

This isn't a study of what has happened, it's is a THEORY.

First and foremost, this just goes to show that you don't understand what you read. They present a theory, then they test that theory to see if it's accurate. That's how these things usually work, you know? Second of all, to say "this isn't study of what happened" just proves to me that you didn't read a damn thing (unsurprising), since they actually looked at changes in abortion policy in relation to the abortion rates, birth rates, death rates and pregnancy rates.

The paragraph quoted above had a note at the end of the paragraph and this is what the note said:

1 Incentive effects such as these are traditionally labeled “moral hazard,” indicating that the presence of the insurance increases the likelihood of the event being insured against. It is our understanding that this expression originated among actuaries decades ago and clearly reflects the social mores of an earlier era Although the behavior we describe in this paper is substantively comparable, it is not our intention to provide such judgements to that behavior.

Which means they're not passing judgments on people's behavior, rather simply reporting/studing changes in that behavior. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Please stop grasping at straws here.

This entire paper is based on THEORY and conjecture.

No, it's not. They use readily available evidence in conjunction with a few statistical models to test their theory. Note how you haven't bothered responding to the actual substance of the paper, quite possibly because you have no argument. I'm more than happy to provide you with more sources which all come to the same conclusion. Will you outright dismiss them as well?

In fact, first world countries with an unfettered access to abortion have generally a lower rate of abortion.

That's a lie. The countries with the lowest rate of abortions don't have unfettered access to abortion. Western Europe, as a whole, has abortion rates lower than North America, but they have more restrictive abortion laws than do the U.S.

In Canada abortion is fully legal and the abortion rate is 30% lower than the rate in the US.

Primarily thanks to our American liberals and their appalling abortion rates.

American conservatives want poor women to have babies, but they don't want them to have paid maternity leave, access to pre-natal and post-natal care, subsidized day-care, or medical benefits. They want the abortion rate lower, but ask them to dip into their pockets for tax dollars to make it happen, and suddenly they spout "personal responsibility". I say "Put your money where your mouth is".

And yet, abortions in America aren't concentrated in conservative areas.