|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2022 06:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I would put a lot of medical procedures into the same category. Take chemotherapy, for example. Yes, it is good and necessary to not die off cancer. But chemotherapy still isn't a fun thing either. So it is good to get it, but definitively a "lesser of two evils" situations.
Maybe I just misunderstand what a "lesser of two evils" situation is. For me it's like, you can only afford to either buy food or heat up your home in winter, choose either to go hungry or go cold. When the choices are to choose between literally dying or living, "lesser of two evils" does not apply in my view. Now, if that cancer patient is under sooooo much pain that normal life is impossible and they just want to end it, a choice of withdrawing medication and dying may be a "lesser of two evils" situation.
|
On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases.
You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.).
The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it.
|
On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it.
Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things?
I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me.
|
On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me.
You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies:
www.webmd.com
About 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added.
They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point.
|
On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comShow nested quote +About 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point.
Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points.
|
On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 05 2022 23:02 Simberto wrote:
Just to make sure that i am understood, i am absolutely of the opinion that people should have the ability to get an abortion (within some sensible limits that are not relevant right now). I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem.
I mean. For me it is not about "evil". Something beeing "evil" requieres you to believe in an almighty beeing that decides what is evil and what is not , as nature itself has no morality. I dont like to use this word,it has little meaning to me personally. The hardcore anti abortion people they do see it as "evil" , mostly based on their religion and maybe also partially based on a feeling that is not neccesarily rooted in religion.
Which is why i used a different description "not a positive thing". Yes it probably does improve the living quality of the person getting the abortion but that in itself does not make it a positive thing. There are many things that would improve quality of living that can hardly be described as positive.
Is a homeless shelter a positive thing? It is better then living on the streets so having many homeless shelters is a positive thing? I would say they are not,the fact that we need those shelters i would not call a positive thing,even though it does improve the living conditions of the homeless.
And that about is my vieuw on abortions,i guess it is mostly about semantics.
People do not celebrate having an abortion like they celebrate mariage or a birthday. Or even getting a certain medical procedure. Say people have been on a waiting list and can finally get the procedure that will improve their quality of life. I can imagine such a person celebrating after the operation went well. I find it very difficult to believe that people would "celebrate" a succesfull abortion. That is what i mean with "not a positive thing". (but then again,i find it difficult to imagine beeing in such a position so maybe i am wrong with this).
Abortions generally are a tragedy that involves multiple people. It might be better then the alternative but that doesnt make it a positive experience in general. And this is why i find it difficult to root for (even though i am pro choice,just to be clear again).
|
No, it isn't celebrated, abortions are strictly taboo and a very private matter.
There tens of thousands of women who can credit major positive changes to their lives to abortions, though: education, careers, businesses, getting a healthy child after aborting a sick one, becoming a mother later with a more stable partner etc. etc. Unfortunately, not many of them will ever tell about it in public, so the true magnitude of the negative consequences of the abortion bans will never be known.
On the flip side, there will be plenty of people who exist because their mother refused to have an abortion too, and in the end, almost all parents end up loving their children.
|
|
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
Like I said, I'm pretty certain this is caused by the fact that restricting abortion tends to be coupled with not restricting unwanted pregnancies.
None of this makes me remotely close to advocating for banning abortions, lol. But it's a simple though exercise. If hypothetical me had accidentally impregnated some one night stand back when I was 21 or whatever, I would very, very staunchly tell the girl involved that I'm by no means ready for parenthood, I don't know you, I'm not gonna be involved, please have an abortion. It'd be her choice of course - but I'd be a very strong proponent of aborting that fetus.
Say this same thought experiment happens in a country where abortion is illegal, thus the same girl having to do an unsafe abortion that might threaten her life, or one that will criminalize her, or both. Suddenly, asking her to have an abortion would feel wildly unethical. I'd be no more fond of the prospect of having a baby - but I'd feel like an absolutely shitty person through asking her to do something that'd endanger her.
Some abortions, probably a significant number of them, are 'nobrainer' abortions, in the sense that the parents involved are completely unwilling and or incapable of taking care of a baby. Someone who feels that their life will certainly be completely ruined by having to raise a child will instead take the small % chance of health problems / criminal prosecution from having an abortion. But many abortions aren't like that. Many are more in a 70/30 territory. A child might be inconvenient, you'd prefer waiting four more years, but it wouldn't ruin your life or all your future plans. Hypothetical 21 year old me would feel like my life was effectively ruined if I were forced to raise a child with some random woman I had known for one evening. Real 37 year old me thought 'I'm ready for this' and thought 'let's have a baby!' when my wife announced her pregnancy. Hypothetical 31 year old me would've had a very tough time with the same question - to the point where the legality of abortion could easily have been the turning point for whether I'd want one or not.
I mean, you've made the point yourself - abortion becomes a lot more dangerous if it's illegal. Consequently, it's entirely obvious to me that it's less attractive of an option if it's illegal, as that is bound to be part of the equation one makes. Not necessarily for the people who feel that a child would certainly ruin their life - those people are still willing to gamble, but for the people who have abortions because 'this pregnancy is inconvenient and I'd rather get pregnant in 4-5 years', it'd be a factor. Meanwhile, I can't think of any possible reason why someone would be more likely to have an abortion because abortions are more dangerous and because you might be criminally prosecuted for having one. Rather than give irrelevant sources (abortion rates are obviously affected by more than their legality), can you issue any argument for or describe any situation in which criminalizing abortions make them seem like a better option for someone wondering whether they want to keep their child? I can't - but I can easily picture the opposite.
If you take a country like Norway, where sexual education is reasonably decent and contraceptives are widely available, and you make one single change - from now on, abortions are illegal, and you can only get them through accessing black market pills (or worse), and you'll be criminally prosecuted for murder if you go to the doctor seeking health treatment following that, abortion rates would be reduced. There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind regarding this. I don't need a study to confirm it, and if you do, I don't really care. 
|
What about the thrill of the forbidden fruit? j/k xD
|
|
|
On August 06 2022 23:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 04:50 JimmiC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The point about 'to reduce abortions you should fight to reduce unwanted pregnancies' is obviously sound and I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the statement 'banning abortion makes abortion more available and common', because that is entirely counterintuitive and not how banning stuff normally influences use or availability. (Again, not that banning stuff ever succeeds in removing it entirely, but it does, in fact, normally lead to less use. ) Sure banning stuff normally leads to less use. Abortions are not a normal thing, the people who want them are extremely desperate. Also, an unsafe abortion is WAY easier than a safe one, it requires no set up or regulation. The other huge factor is that with the ban every place that is doing it is also lowering education and access to contraction. What I'm trying to get people to think about is that banning does not greatly reduce, + Show Spoiler + I believe increases based on available data but really there is no apple to apple place to compare because no where else in the world is doing this because it is such an obviously bad idea, the amounts of abortion. So the argument of whether abortions are "good or bad" is irrelevant since you are likely not going to change any minds on that and even if bad you still have to consider what a ban actually does the "good" and the bad. The question for people who want the bans is. How many abortions will it actually do away with? (which no one here, or anywhere has even suggested) and then is it a good idea to reduce abortions by 10,20 whatever percentage when the cost is that 100% of the ones that are still going to happen are going to be unsafe. If you are like me and think they will go up or stay close to the same it is pretty easy math. How many women and babies are you willing to hurt to make sure that X number less abortions happen? That is the question people need to ask themselves because it is fantasy that they will go away. It is certain they will still happen, and it is certain that they are way way way less safe. You can be against abortion as a practice and logically should still be against bans. You should be for things that safely reduce abortions. But the "prolife" movement is not, they claim to be against abortion, but they are against everything that safely reduces abortion and for what makes abortion super dangerous and more common. Hence why they should be called pro punishment since the only "benefit" to abortion bans is now they can punish the people who do get and give abortions. + Show Spoiler +Policies like the abortion bans sweeping the U.S. may affect pregnancy-related deaths in several ways. In my study, I estimated a portion of the additional deaths that would be caused by a nationwide ban on all abortions.
To do this, I used published U.S. pregnancy and abortion death rates to project how many deaths would occur if all pregnancies that currently end in abortion were instead continued to miscarriage or term. My conservative estimate found that the annual number of pregnancy-related deaths would increase by 21% overall, or 140 additional deaths, by the second year after a ban.
Among non-Hispanic Black woman, this percentage would increase 33%, causing 78 additional deaths and exacerbating the ongoing U.S. Black maternal health crisis. The pregnancy-related death rate for non-Hispanic Black women is about three times higher than for non-Hispanic white women and Hispanic or Latino women, likely because of structural racism, biases in health care provision and disparities in health care access, among other reasons.
Pregnancy-related deaths would increase after a US nationwide ban on all abortions
Pregnancy-related deaths would increase after a US nationwide ban on all abortions. Because pregnancies are riskier than safe abortions, a ban ending all abortions could result in an increase in deaths among pregnant people, the brunt of which falls on non-Hispanic Black women. (View in higher resolution on The Conversation's website).
In reality, these figures could be higher. They do not account for the fact that people having abortions are on average less advantaged than people having births and at a higher risk of pregnancy-related death. Nor do they include the risks of using less safe abortion methods. https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2021/09/22/study-shows-abortion-ban-may-lead-21-increase-pregnancy-related-deathsShow nested quote +On August 06 2022 03:19 maybenexttime wrote:
@JimmiC
I checked the last 10 pages and the only relevant link you posted was to the Kansas referendum. Am I missing something? My guess is it is much further back. Here is some stuff. I wanted to wait to get something coming in the other direction but is is not going to come because like I said it does not exist. People just like to pretend that banning is going to make it go all away and will maybe say kind of, even though neither is true. It is much simpler to pretend you are stopping the "killing of babies" then the reality that you are pushing mothers into dangerous situations with criminals. Even the costs are high, and that is with the current amount of unsafe abortions, which people still get now just to avoid the bureaucracy, shame, cost and so on of abortions in the US. https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2Kuug7Ww-QIVhSCtBh213wAgEAAYASAAEgLHiPD_BwE#tab=tab_2Show nested quote +Restricting access to abortion does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it dramatically affects whether abortions attained are safe.
Nearly half of all abortions are unsafe, and developing countries bear the burden of 97% of these unsafe abortions. Globally, unsafe abortions account for 4.7–13.2% of all maternal deaths, disproportionately affecting people in developing regions. Moreover, each year an estimated 7 million women in developing countries are treated in hospital facilities for complications from unsafe abortion.
Barriers to safe, timely, geographically reachable, affordable, respectful and non-discriminatory abortion care can cause emotional distress and violate women’s and girls’ right to privacy; right to equality and non-discrimination; and right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. It also has financial and social implications for people and communities including negatively impacting women’s and girls’ possibilities to obtain education and full and effective participation in society.
Abortion regulations that force people to travel to attain legal care, or that require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, burden health systems and can result in women experiencing travel costs, loss of income or the need to resort to unsafe abortion.
A disproportionate share of resources is used for post-abortion care: in developing countries, treatments of complications of unsafe abortion cost health systems US$ 553 million per year, while households experience US$ 922 million in income loss due to disabilities. Show nested quote +People have abortions all the time, regardless of what the law says
Ending a pregnancy is a common decision that millions of people make – every year a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion.
And regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, people still require and regularly access abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a US-based reproductive health non-profit, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 people in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only in instances to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 people in countries that broadly allow for abortion, a difference that is not statistically significant.
When undertaken by a trained health-care provider in sanitary conditions, abortions are one of the safest medical procedures available, safer even than child birth.
But when governments restrict access to abortions, people are compelled to resort to clandestine, unsafe abortions, particularly those who cannot afford to travel or seek private care. Which brings us to the next point.
Criminalising abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe
Preventing women and girls from accessing an abortion does not mean they stop needing one. That’s why attempts to ban or restrict abortions do nothing to reduce the number of abortions, it only forces people to seek out unsafe abortions.
Unsafe abortions are defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.”
They estimate that 25 million unsafe abortions take place each year, the vast majority of them in developing countries.
In contrast to a legal abortion that is carried out by a trained medical provider, unsafe abortions can have fatal consequences. So much so that unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide and lead to an additional five million largely preventable disabilities, according to the WHO.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/Show nested quote +Nevertheless, for the past two decades scientists at the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute have been developing tools to estimate abortion rates around the globe. Both institutions support abortion rights for people worldwide. This past February, they published, for the first time, abortion rates for nearly every country. And they've also updated their analysis looking at how abortion rates vary across regions of the world – and whether the legality of the procedure is associated with those rates. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh
Here are the most updated rates.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext+ Show Spoiler +
@Falling and @liquidrone Given all of the above but mainly the study I have left unspoilered and the statement from WHO, do you still believe that abortion bans will reduce abortions? If so what is your data or research that says otherwise or what do you believe the flaws in the study to be? And then how flawed do you think it is, if you still believe bans to be effective (in terms of reducing abortions), how effective and why? Show nested quote +the abortion rate is actually higher in countries that restrict abortion access than in those that do not. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
The study just doesn't claim what you say it claims. "Abortion rate is higher in countries that restrict abortion access" does not in any way, shape or form imply that banning abortions by itself increases abortion rate. This is a routine logical error that headlines reporting on studies make.
This link of yours: https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/abortion-and-after-legalization
cites a CDC estimate that there were 130,000 illegal abortions in the US in the year before Roe v Wade and 17,000 in the year after it.
We can combine that with the number of legal abortions in the same years, which I found here: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/59313
And we get:
586 760 + 130 000 = 716 760 for 1972
763 476 + 17 000 = 780 476 for 1974
This is pretty much the closest we can get to "all else being equal" type of data on the subject. Going state by state and removing the ones where it was legal both before and after from each of the subtotals would give a more useful % change but I'm not willing to spend hours on this.
Because we're dealing with a combination of reported procedures + estimated illegal procedures (the latter could be way off in either direction) it's still relatively weak data, but it is orders of magnitude more useful than comparing estimations from one country with real data from another country.
On a lot of subjects, proper valid evidence just doesn't exist or can't exist and we have to use common sense. We all have a lifetime of noticing patterns with what happens when you add or remove barriers to just about anything. Though you're also right that because whether one can or can't get an abortion is much more life-changing than whether someone can or can't get a joint, people will risk a lot more for the former.
Other than that, I just don't think it's a good argument to be making. We can't tell conservatives barriers work when we want them to (see the gun control or climate change discussions for example), but then call them stupid specifically for thinking barriers work when it's something they want to restrict.
|
Norway28561 Posts
Lol dude you say 'banning abortions increases abortion rates', I say 'that's not correct', you give a bunch of sources to support your statement, I don't accept those sources because they don't support the point you're making, and you then eventually state that you actually mean 'banning abortions also means reducing access to contraceptives shaming unwed mothers and not giving sex education', which is entirely different from the statement I said was incorrect, and something I even said I agreed with before. Add to it your last paragraph where you're trying to do what? deride me in some way? because I spend some time clarifying my point so it'll be a bit coherent and not subject to the kind of misunderstanding that is kind of inevitable if you repeat one sentence several times while actually seemingly meaning to convey something dramatically different from that sentence, before you tell me you'd feel sorry for me if I weren't so passive aggressive. It's honestly pretty ridiculous, but overall a good reminder of why I generally prefer ignoring you.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 07 2022 06:07 JimmiC wrote:
If you think you threatening to ignore me is something I care about you really have not been paying attention, quite frankly I'd rather you went away completely. Even writing that sentence is passive aggressive, if you want to ignore me or whatever just do it, announcing it makes you sound like your an angry middle schooler.
His words were, "a good reminder of why I generally prefer ignoring you." There is no threat here; there is the presence of an observation about past behavior, which suggests this same behavior will keep being repeated in the future (because it has been re-confirmed to have been made in good judgment). It's not passive aggressive, it's not a threat, and it's not an announcement. You twisting his words and intent is the only immature thing here, and it seems like a very reflexive thing to do when your feelings have been hurt.
|
On August 07 2022 06:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 04:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lol dude you say 'banning abortions increases abortion rates', I say 'that's not correct', you give a bunch of sources to support your statement, I don't accept those sources because they don't support the point you're making, and you then eventually state that you actually mean 'banning abortions also means reducing access to contraceptives shaming unwed mothers and not giving sex education', which is entirely different from the statement I said was incorrect, and something I even said I agreed with before. Add to it your last paragraph where you're trying to do what? deride me in some way? because I spend some time clarifying my point so it'll be a bit coherent and not subject to the kind of misunderstanding that is kind of inevitable if you repeat one sentence several times while actually seemingly meaning to convey something dramatically different from that sentence, before you tell me you'd feel sorry for me if I weren't so passive aggressive. It's honestly pretty ridiculous, but overall a good reminder of why I generally prefer ignoring you. I said much more than that, I put in lots of effort and reasoned all my assumptions, not to mention unlike you did not claim my assumptions are fact. Of course banning abortions means all those things, that is how it happens in the real world, that is what is happening in US politics. My apologies if you actually were unaware of that, but my question would be why would be so sure if you didn't know something so basic? Especially when I repeatedly explain it on further questions. Picking one sentence out of context and arguing against it does not make you smart, and it does not cover your hard back peddle.
He didn't pick the weakest claim to discredit your other points, he picked it because he agrees with all the rest and it's the only one he took issue with. It was the same for me. I think we don't even have any pro abortion ban people here, that's the problem I guess, some people miss arguing with the banned conservatives a little too much.
|
|
|
On August 06 2022 19:13 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:On August 05 2022 23:50 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
I understand and it is definitely coming across. What I reject is the framing that abortions are evil. They're not. Ah, i get it now. I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comAbout 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point. Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points.
You said that the stigma was there because it was preventable and often frivolous. I think we both know that's not why there's a stigma attached to abortions.
If Christians believed that the soul resided in the appendix and removing it was literal soul murder, then we could end up attaching stigma to appendectomies.
My point is that the abortion issue is manufactured. Abortions are a medical operation that lead to a positive outcome, so viewing them as a negative thing is not right in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
