Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No... with respect... many people believe that the act constitutes the Murder of Innocents.Republican men must have raging erections over this. Seems they think of nothing else but women's vaginas.
Yes, they are.
What's your point?
Until you guys support universal health care and family and medical leave, you really can't go blaming the ladies for being "selfish" when you are.
What are you willing to give up for your beliefs?
what does "universal health care and family and medical leave" have to do with this?
The fact that countries that have them have a lower abortion rate than we have.
Yes, they are.
What's your point?
Until you guys support universal health care and family and medical leave, you really can't go blaming the ladies for being "selfish" when you are.
What are you willing to give up for your beliefs?
what does "universal health care and family and medical leave" have to do with this?
Just hazarding a guess but given that the Guttmacher Institute cites that 75% of all women who have abortions do so because they cannot afford the cost of having a child don't you think that universal health care and medical leave would alleviate some of that problem?
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]
It seems logical that Red States which oppose abortion would provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants one without restriction, and provide age appropriate education to all students in their public schools. Yet they do not and even want to defund Planned Parenthood suggests a hidden agenda.
It seems the leadership within the GOP and Red States understands that abortion is a great recruiting tool, aiding to advance their careers and the power of the GOP. I wonder why the pro life crowd never considers the fact the anti abortion movement gains speed only when the GOP needs votes; when the R's held the White House with GWB, and both chambers of The Congress nary a peep was heard on abortion restrictions.
It seems logical that Red States which oppose abortion would provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants one without restriction, and provide age appropriate education to all students in their public schools. Yet they do not and even want to defund Planned Parenthood suggests a hidden agenda.
I agree that it may have been used politically, though I do not think making it free would be a much of a boost, and I think they do have sex ed. in schools even in red states(?).
It seems the leadership within the GOP and Red States understands that abortion is a great recruiting tool, aiding to advance their careers and the power of the GOP. I wonder why the pro life crowd never considers the fact the anti abortion movement gains speed only when the GOP needs votes; when the R's held the White House with GWB, and both chambers of The Congress nary a peep was heard on abortion restrictions.
not true-
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2]
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the votes has some bi-partisan sppt. too
House (281142)-Senate (6434)
It seems logical that Red States which oppose abortion would provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants one without restriction, and provide age appropriate education to all students in their public schools. Yet they do not and even want to defund Planned Parenthood suggests a hidden agenda.
I agree that it may have been used politically, though I do not think making it free would be a much of a boost, and I think they do have sex ed. in schools even in red states(?).
It seems the leadership within the GOP and Red States understands that abortion is a great recruiting tool, aiding to advance their careers and the power of the GOP. I wonder why the pro life crowd never considers the fact the anti abortion movement gains speed only when the GOP needs votes; when the R's held the White House with GWB, and both chambers of The Congress nary a peep was heard on abortion restrictions.
not true-
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2]
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the votes has some bi-partisan sppt. too
House (281142)-Senate (6434)
Yes it did. That does not disprove my observation about abortion being a wedge tool used by the GOP to garner support/votes.
what does "universal health care and family and medical leave" have to do with this?
Just hazarding a guess but given that the Guttmacher Institute cites that 75% of all women who have abortions do so because they cannot afford the cost of having a child don't you think that universal health care and medical leave would alleviate some of that problem?
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]
Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]
I don't see medical leave being much of a help there, they would have a job to go back to....if they are working that is...*shrugs*
And I think if you heck you'll find that the overwhelming majority of folks with children who didn't sign up for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) , were low income....there are low income neonatal facilities at clinics and inner city Hospitals, yet, many don't avail themselves of the use of such.
I just don't see this as an issue ion this context. Example; contraceptives in low income areas are free or $9 at say a wal-mart ( I checked they have been offering at that price since 2007 and at $14 previously).
Do you see whats missing here?
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
Each year, two percent of women aged 1544 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]
]]]]what does "universal health care and family and medical leave" have to do with this?
The fact that countries that have them have a lower abortion rate than we have.
the old saying- 'correlation doesn't equal causation' comes to mind, I think that if we went back to say 40 years ago and before you'd find that abortion was less frequent becasue the avenue was not open to those that wanted one on this scale, and expectations on a overall societal basis were different. Maybe the Europeans are just more responsible in this context?
Theres no real way to determine back then how many people wanted one or got one 'off the grid', but I will say that since the advent of cheap easily accessible contraception, that leaves me wondering if we decided to treat the symptom not the 'disease' ( I don't mean that in a pejorative sense btw).
The number of abortions has been increasing since 2005 (according to Guttmacher and medication-based abortions have gone up 24% ) , I would have thought there would have been a flat-line or reverse since contraception has become so readily available over the last 2 decades especially.....see my point?
We try to socially engineer a great deal in this country, I wonder why for example the abortion rates among African Americans is so proportionally huge......
No... with respect... many people believe that the act constitutes the Murder of Innocents.Republican men must have raging erections over this. Seems they think of nothing else but women's vaginas.
I understand the Control-Over-One's-Own-Body argument.
I understand the Murder-of-Innocents argument.
I have no answers.
But I understand and respect both sides of that divide.
I think of my position on abortion as pragmatic. Regardless of whether you think it's life or not, women are going to still get them if they are desperate enough. And if you are serious about wanting to reduce the number, you better be ready to sign on to some evil "Socialism" like family and medical leave and universal health care.
It seems logical that Red States which oppose abortion would provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants one without restriction, and provide age appropriate education to all students in their public schools. Yet they do not and even want to defund Planned Parenthood suggests a hidden agenda.
I agree that it may have been used politically, though I do not think making it free would be a much of a boost, and I think they do have sex ed. in schools even in red states(?).
It seems the leadership within the GOP and Red States understands that abortion is a great recruiting tool, aiding to advance their careers and the power of the GOP. I wonder why the pro life crowd never considers the fact the anti abortion movement gains speed only when the GOP needs votes; when the R's held the White House with GWB, and both chambers of The Congress nary a peep was heard on abortion restrictions.
not true-
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2]
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the votes has some bi-partisan sppt. too
House (281142)-Senate (6434)
Yes it did. That does not disprove my observation about abortion being a wedge tool used by the GOP to garner support/votes.
Just hazarding a guess but given that the Guttmacher Institute cites that 75% of all women who have abortions do so because they cannot afford the cost of having a child don't you think that universal health care and medical leave would alleviate some of that problem?
I don't see medical leave being much of a help there, they would have a job to go back to....if they are working that is...*shrugs*
And I think if you heck you'll find that the overwhelming majority of folks with children who didn't sign up for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) , were low income....there are low income neonatal facilities at clinics and inner city Hospitals, yet, many don't avail themselves of the use of such.
I just don't see this as an issue ion this context. Example; contraceptives in low income areas are free or $9 at say a wal-mart ( I checked they have been offering at that price since 2007 and at $14 previously).
Do you see whats missing here?
From the Guttmacher link there are these statistics;
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
Each year, two percent of women aged 1544 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]
If only 40% of unintended pregnancies are aborted then that means that there are 1.5 times as many that result in child birth. It is also means that contraception is failing 2.5 million times each year. Now is that because it is unavailable, it wasn't used properly, it wasn't used at all or that it simply failed to work?
For those 2.5 million women faced with an unintended pregnancy each year they have to make a difficult choice. 60% of them go ahead and have the child. How many of those children end up on SCHIP is something that I haven't researched but obviously a certain percentage will do so. This is a cost to society that taxpayers must bear.
So if abortions are no longer as readily available in those 5 states how many more of these children are going to end up needing coverage under SCHIP in those states? 75% of all abortions were for women below twice the poverty level. This indicates that 3 out of every 4 additional children that are not aborted in these states will need SCHIP support. Have the taxpayers in those states been told of the consequences of these laws? Are they in agreement that they are willing to assume this increased burden?
How's this for a crazy idea.
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
But otherwise, mind your own business.
I mean, isn't that like a crazy idea?
The fact that countries that have them have a lower abortion rate than we have.
the old saying- 'correlation doesn't equal causation' comes to mind, I think that if we went back to say 40 years ago and before you'd find that abortion was less frequent becasue the avenue was not open to those that wanted one on this scale, and expectations on a overall societal basis were different. Maybe the Europeans are just more responsible in this context?
What, you are trying to argue that the French are more sexually reserved than Americans? Really? Yet their per-capita abortion rate is half ours. Conversely, you take a poor country like the Phillippines, where abortion is illegal, and they have an abortion rate that is higher than ours.
I didn't equate responsibility with permissiveness or activity, the point was they might use contraception more often or are just generally more responsible in that context...etc.
My own opinion. There were probably just as many abortions before Roe as there were after. Why? Because the number of LIVE Births didn't suddenly drop after Roe. It actually ticked up a bit by 1975.
*shrugs*
The number of abortions has been increasing since 2005 (according to Guttmacher and medication-based abortions have gone up 24% ) , I would have thought there would have been a flat-line or reverse since contraception has become so readily available over the last 2 decades especially.....see my point?
The number of SURGICAL abortions has decreased. I think you only get an increase if you count chemical abortions, and even then, I doubt you could do more than an estimate.
We try to socially engineer a great deal in this country, I wonder why for example the abortion rates among African Americans is so proportionally huge......
Mostly because they don't have easy access to medical insurance or solid health care or those things called "Jobs".
I'd have to say I don't think so- Schip was created for just that purpose, to insure kids in families with low incomes but to high for Medicaid. I don't know what you mean by 'solid health care'....
I am not sure why jobs ( or family leave if they Have jobs) is an issue here.
And the other 99.99% of abortions performed are purely out of selfishness.
Yes, they are.
What's your point?
Until you guys support universal health care and family and medical leave, you really can't go blaming the ladies for being "selfish" when you are.
What are you willing to give up for your beliefs?
what does "universal health care and family and medical leave" have to do with this?
Your assumptions are borderline crazy.If only 40% of unintended pregnancies are aborted then that means that there are 1.5 times as many that result in child birth. It is also means that contraception is failing 2.5 million times each year. Now is that because it is unavailable, it wasn't used properly, it wasn't used at all or that it simply failed to work?
For those 2.5 million women faced with an unintended pregnancy each year they have to make a difficult choice. 60% of them go ahead and have the child. How many of those children end up on SCHIP is something that I haven't researched but obviously a certain percentage will do so. This is a cost to society that taxpayers must bear.
So if abortions are no longer as readily available in those 5 states how many more of these children are going to end up needing coverage under SCHIP in those states? 75% of all abortions were for women below twice the poverty level. This indicates that 3 out of every 4 additional children that are not aborted in these states will need SCHIP support. Have the taxpayers in those states been told of the consequences of these laws? Are they in agreement that they are willing to assume this increased burden?
