|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever."
Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why.
At least that's how I see it.
Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
unborn child is tasty
User was warned for this post
|
On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics.
Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise.
|
On May 16 2015 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics. Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise.
Its hard to argue that the other side is any more open minded when they turn any discussion into "the war on women".
You can't advocate for better regulations on abortion providers at the same level it seems that you can't advocate anything about guns.
It would be good to mention as well that this discussion is also core to the arguments about stem cell research. Without an agreed on date of personhood the entire debate boils down to emotional name calling.
|
On May 16 2015 12:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics. Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise. Its hard to argue that the other side is any more open minded when they turn any discussion into "the war on women". You can't advocate for better regulations on abortion providers at the same level it seems that you can't advocate anything about guns. It would be good to mention as well that this discussion is also core to the arguments about stem cell research. Without an agreed on date of personhood the entire debate boils down to emotional name calling.
No date can ever be set because someone will always argue for a day sooner or a day later. Whatever we do legislatively will have to consider every circumstance unique. We can make some guidelines where circumstances will have to be documented but a date certain is a pointless argument imo.
Also do we have a stat on what percent of abortions are rape/incest/safety?
|
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think.
Did you seriously just write that? People who are pro-choice hold that position because they simply went for "the opposite position" of the right-wing's pro-life stance? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums, and that's saying a lot. And it's not only profoundly ignorant, it's incredibly insulting.
|
Care to give a reason why? How exactly is it not blatantly inconsistent to have a strong pro-life stance in regards to almost any topic but wave the question of abortion off as reactionary nonsense?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
inconsistency is not that big of a problem here.
|
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think.
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason while everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.
In the same fucking paragraph and everything. Damn that's beautiful.
|
On May 16 2015 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Care to give a reason why? How exactly is it not blatantly inconsistent to have a strong pro-life stance in regards to almost any topic but wave the question of abortion off as reactionary nonsense?
Yeah that ^ too lol
I just don't think most people do that if the person they are talking with isn't starting from the position that IUD's are abortion and abortion = murder.
|
On May 16 2015 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 12:20 Sermokala wrote:On May 16 2015 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics. Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise. Its hard to argue that the other side is any more open minded when they turn any discussion into "the war on women". You can't advocate for better regulations on abortion providers at the same level it seems that you can't advocate anything about guns. It would be good to mention as well that this discussion is also core to the arguments about stem cell research. Without an agreed on date of personhood the entire debate boils down to emotional name calling. No date can ever be set because someone will always argue for a day sooner or a day later. Whatever we do legislatively will have to consider every circumstance unique. We can make some guidelines where circumstances will have to be documented but a date certain is a pointless argument imo. Also do we have a stat on what percent of abortions are rape/incest/safety?
Here's one: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
TLDR: ~1% rape/incest, 10-15% said fetal/maternal health contributed, supermajority are that it is an unwanted pregnancy either for financial reasons or lacking a stable relationship reasons. Based on that survey I'd say over 80% of abortions are elective.
|
Sidestepping the rape/incest issue, how about when a woman wants to have an abortion because her chosen form(s) of birth control failed to work? Is it right for the government, by means of outlawing abortion, to force that woman to suffer through nine months of pregnancy that she does not want and was actively trying to avoid?
P.S. Please don't argue that women should not have sex at all if they are not willing to go through a full pregnancy should they conceive, unless you also want to argue that abstinence-focused sex education is effective. I'm pretty sure it has problems.
|
|
|
On May 16 2015 13:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2015 12:20 Sermokala wrote:On May 16 2015 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics. Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise. Its hard to argue that the other side is any more open minded when they turn any discussion into "the war on women". You can't advocate for better regulations on abortion providers at the same level it seems that you can't advocate anything about guns. It would be good to mention as well that this discussion is also core to the arguments about stem cell research. Without an agreed on date of personhood the entire debate boils down to emotional name calling. No date can ever be set because someone will always argue for a day sooner or a day later. Whatever we do legislatively will have to consider every circumstance unique. We can make some guidelines where circumstances will have to be documented but a date certain is a pointless argument imo. Also do we have a stat on what percent of abortions are rape/incest/safety? Here's one: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdfTLDR: ~1% rape/incest, 10-15% said fetal/maternal health contributed, supermajority are that it is an unwanted pregnancy either for financial reasons or lacking a stable relationship reasons. Based on that survey I'd say over 80% of abortions are elective.
Intro made it sound like it was much less than 10%. From what I read most women give several reasons so it's hard to say which ones were overlapping or not.
According to the video most unwanted pregnancies are from BC failing. I didn't see the source but I imagine he's not totally talking out of his ass.
If the percentages of cases are what we are talking about we can't avoid talking about women who were using birth control and it failed.
The bottom line is that contraception is a much better way to prevent abortion and that's just maths. Criminalizing it doesn't help anyone.
|
I said rape and incest as less than 1%, which is about right. Surely you can read. The discussion was veering off to talk about those things in particular. Also, in about 10% health was a factor, not the sole or primary reason. So still, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
|
That's correct, we don't know whether the number is 70% or 90% but the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons unrelated to rape/incest/maternal or fetal health. It's mostly done as a backup form of birth control either because contraception was not used during intercourse, or it was used and failed.
|
United States43534 Posts
On May 16 2015 15:08 NovaTheFeared wrote:
That's correct, we don't know whether the number is 70% or 90% but the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons unrelated to rape/incest/maternal or fetal health. It's mostly done as a backup form of birth control either because contraception was not used during intercourse, or it was used and failed.
Even rape and incest abortions are because contraception was not used or failed. Your statement is circular and dumb as hell. It was basically "Most people get abortions because they're pregnant".
|
On May 16 2015 15:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 15:08 NovaTheFeared wrote:
That's correct, we don't know whether the number is 70% or 90% but the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons unrelated to rape/incest/maternal or fetal health. It's mostly done as a backup form of birth control either because contraception was not used during intercourse, or it was used and failed. Even rape and incest abortions are because contraception was not used or failed. Your statement is circular and dumb as hell. It was basically "Most people get abortions because they're pregnant".
That's true, but one of the reasons we're talking about are life/health exceptions. Not just a routine pregnancy. And I don't consider rape or incest routine. The reason we're talking about this is that some people think that life/health/rape are acceptable reasons to have an abortion and abortion for the purpose of birth control is not. Most of the abortions are clearly from the latter group and not the former.
In other words people object to others getting abortions just because they are pregnant, unless other conditions are met.
|
On May 16 2015 12:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:18 Introvert wrote:On May 16 2015 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often. Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever." Because that gets so much attention, even right now in this thread. It's such a small % that if we were searching for common ground or some compromise on a law, it would be the last thing talked about, not the first. But everyone always goes back to "But rape! But incest!" as if there was an epidemic. The debate that has more impact has to do with when, not why. At least that's how I see it. Anyway, I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but it irks me that every time this topic is mentioned we go straight to the instances that are least common. The only reason for that is the one I mentioned, politics. Fair enough, I think it's important to try and find common ground on issues like these. I'm just not sure how a conversation can emerge when one side is 100% closed-minded and dismissive of any possibility of extenuating circumstances or compromise. Its hard to argue that the other side is any more open minded when they turn any discussion into "the war on women". You can't advocate for better regulations on abortion providers at the same level it seems that you can't advocate anything about guns. It would be good to mention as well that this discussion is also core to the arguments about stem cell research. Without an agreed on date of personhood the entire debate boils down to emotional name calling.
on regulations:
it's not that regulations are innately bad, but that there's a history of the anti-abortion groups trying to use regulations to get rid of abortion providers, by making rules that make it harder and harder for providers to operate.
|
On May 16 2015 15:04 Introvert wrote:
I said rape and incest as less than 1%, which is about right. Surely you can read. The discussion was veering off to talk about those things in particular. Also, in about 10% health was a factor, not the sole or primary reason. So still, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
My fault, you hear the same rhetoric enough sometimes you put stuff in there (happens against me pretty frequently) that the person didn't actually say. Sounds like though, your point was basically the same, that since those are more rare occasions we should put them on the back burner.
I suppose it could be more productive to start with situations where BC fails, since it's actually the most common cause (unless the yale guy is lying).
Good call Intro. I agree that if abortion is the topic, it should center around what the most frequent reason is: birth control failing (potentially with human error or failure to access). What is an appropriate way to handle it?
I'm going to say that we shouldn't force women to have children if their birth control fails. I'm also thinking abstinence only education should be opt-in and provided on local tabs with local legislative approval. Sex education needs to be revamped and some common ground found and nationally mandated. People would be able to opt out if that program and into a abstinence only program if their locality had one, but they would need to provide evidence that they had some basic health information. They don't have to believe it, just be able to demonstrate they are aware of it.
Birth control should be easily accessible (especially for adults). I think after a basic minimum of BC availability, (like free condoms at every medical facility or 1 facility for every x thousand people or x travel miles) States should be able to make their own decisions. For the record, thinking restricting IUD's will reduce abortions is pretty stupid imo.
Realistically I think (and the data suggests) increasing IUD availability would result in a near mirror image in reduction of unwanted pregnancies. That should be the simplest place to start.
If we have to move right from there I suppose we could go condoms and pills but it's probably less efficient. If birth control is out of the question, then we might as well go back to talking about incest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
