The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[JettaKnight]

This is my only objection with your post. I would not classify abortion as a “healthcare option” generally. And perhaps the following is how you intended it. In the narrow case where it’s a choice between the mother’s or child’s life, I think it is a healthcare option. Otherwise, ideologues on the pro abortion side call it a “healthcare choice” even when they use abortion as birth control. I would not classify it as that except in narrow conditions where it literally is a healthcare choice.

Right, I don't classify "family planning" as healthcare. I'm strictly talking about medically complicated (dire) pregnancies.

 

[JettaKnight]

Bull****! If they want sex but not children, it is easily possible to take effective precautions BEFORE you take the risk

The ugly truth is they know they don't have to take precautions because if their number comes up they can just get rid of the inconvenience whenever they wish

Like Jamil said, I'm talking about a couple that wants to have a baby, but because of some unforeseen reason there's a complication that jeopardized one or both of their lives.

 

[BugI02]

There are cases where they have taken precautions. But that’s not the logical factor you think it is. Take a married couple who are trying to have kids. She gets pregnant. She’s happy as could be. Then something goes wrong in the pregnancy. Assume a fact in evidence, that carrying it to term with this condition kills the mother 90% of the time, and 100% of the time, the baby dies anyway. The mother has a moral right to choose life for herself, given the circumstances.

Because you think someone could abuse it isn’t a rational cause to eliminate the choice for everyone. It’s an ideological excuse to claim it is always irresponsible to have sex knowing there’s a possibility, especially when it’s fairly rare, that the pregnancy could endanger the mother’s life.

No, I'm saying abortion is overwhelmingly used as ex post facto birth control and the health of the mother and/o fetus is germane in only a tiny fraction of the cases. Most of the time the baby is a risk to the mother's lifestyle more than a risk to her life

I'm saying birth control is readily available and the time to decide you don't want a child is before you have sex with the risk of impregnation

You are welcome to cite statistics that prove me wrong, I'll wait

 

[LeftyGunner]

No, I'm saying abortion is overwhelmingly used as ex post facto birth control and the health of the mother and/o fetus is germane in only a tiny fraction of the cases. Most of the time the baby is a risk to the mother's lifestyle more than a risk to her life

Every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life…full stop.

Choosing to bear children is a truly sacrificial act, and real sacrifice is chosen, not imposed.

You are making an argument concerning the odds…the pro-choice argument concerns the stakes.

The stakes in every pregnancy are life and death.

It is the pregnant woman’s place alone to decide whether or not face those stakes at those odds…not anyone else’s…and certainly not the Government.

Why do you hate liberty?

I'm saying birth control is readily available and the time to decide you don't want a child is before you have sex with the risk of impregnation

I’m saying birth control often fails, sexual coercion is a fact of life, maternal poverty is a global issue, and a woman’s own assessment of her situation and the risks to her personal safety may change after learning she is pregnant.

You are welcome to cite statistics that prove me wrong, I'll wait

Ohio Issue 1

 

[oze]

The stakes in every pregnancy are life and death.

I'm sure that the 63,000,000 babies murdered since 1973 would agree with that statement. If only they could.

 

[KLB]

I’m saying birth control often fails, sexual coercion is a fact of life, maternal poverty is a global issue, and a woman’s own assessment of her situation and the risks to her personal safety may change after learning she is pregnant.

You made me look up efficacy. Damn, it was a lot lower than I realized.

How Effective Is Your Birth Control?

Birth control can help prevent unintended pregnancy, but no method is 100 percent successful. Here are the pros, cons, and effectiveness of each type.

www.healthline.com

 

[jamil]

No, I'm saying abortion is overwhelmingly used as ex post facto birth control and the health of the mother and/o fetus is germane in only a tiny fraction of the cases. Most of the time the baby is a risk to the mother's lifestyle more than a risk to her life

I'm saying birth control is readily available and the time to decide you don't want a child is before you have sex with the risk of impregnation

You are welcome to cite statistics that prove me wrong, I'll wait

I don’t need to do any research when I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were responding to the issue of when the mother’s life is in danger. In that case, I think the mother has a right to live. But as I said to JK, if it’s used as birth control, that’s something different.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You made me look up efficacy. Damn, it was a lot lower than I realized.

How Effective Is Your Birth Control?

Birth control can help prevent unintended pregnancy, but no method is 100 percent successful. Here are the pros, cons, and effectiveness of each type.

www.healthline.com

View attachment 319255

"Breastfeeding or chestfeeding"?? WTF?

 

[Creedmoor]

Every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life…full stop.

Choosing to bear children is a truly sacrificial act, and real sacrifice is chosen, not imposed.

You are making an argument concerning the odds…the pro-choice argument concerns the stakes.

The stakes in every pregnancy are life and death.

It is the pregnant woman’s place alone to decide whether or not face those stakes at those odds…not anyone else’s…and certainly not the Government.

Why do you hate liberty?



I’m saying birth control often fails, sexual coercion is a fact of life, maternal poverty is a global issue, and a woman’s own assessment of her situation and the risks to her personal safety may change after learning she is pregnant.



Ohio Issue 1

They truly hate Freedom and Liberty.

 

[Twangbanger]

"Breastfeeding or chestfeeding"?? WTF?

Ikr? I wonder if that's a contributor to the "natural family planning" having a worse "oops" rate than the "pull-out method"

 

[KLB]

"Breastfeeding or chestfeeding"?? WTF?

Yeah, I saw that. It is so hard to escape that these days.

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm sure that the 63,000,000 babies murdered since 1973 would agree with that statement. If only they could.

How many times have men and women in the USA had vaginal Intercourse since 1973 to get a fair percent average to how many abortions have been done in the same period. Along with, if any birth control was used, and what type was used.

 

[Creedmoor]

"Breastfeeding or chestfeeding"?? WTF?

Gotta wonder how a man gets pregnant doing any of those things.

 

[BugI02]

You made me look up efficacy. Damn, it was a lot lower than I realized.

Failure rate in typical use pattern is 9%, failure rate in perfect use is about 1%

So 88% of the women who get pregnant on the pill are also the reason for it

If it is such a matter of life and death as some on here would have us believe, one would think they would utilize more carefully - unless of course they are so laissez faire because they know they can terminate any undesired outcome. Like people not wearing seatbelts because the airbags will take care of it

 

[Twangbanger]

Yeah, I saw that. It is so hard to escape that these days.

I'm going to need to exercise the "phone a friend" option on this one, because I guess I'm not seeing how this prevents pregnancy, in anyone that had the potential to get pregnant to begin with?

 

[BugI02]

I don’t need to do any research when I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were responding to the issue of when the mother’s life is in danger. In that case, I think the mother has a right to live. But as I said to JK, if it’s used as birth control, that’s something different.

For someone who is often on about people arguing something you did not say, you're certainly bad at the obverse

Certainly when the mother's life is in danger it should be her call on whether to carry to term, and I have not said any different

The only way I spoke to the matter of the mother's life in danger was to say it is the '80 year old black women who don't drive and don't have ID' of the abortion debate. Those cases are statistically unlikely edge cases used to try for an emotional decision to the matter rather than a rational one

Rape, incest and mother's health COMBINED, in states where such information is reported, are less than 5%, the other 95+% is for the mother's convenience

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, and has been updated on January 14, 2023. To view this fact sheet as a PDF, see: Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country are considering and enacting laws...

lozierinstitute.org

Overall, common exceptions to abortion restrictions are estimated to account for less than 5% of all abortions.

Rape and incest: 0.3%[5]
Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6]
Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7]
Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8]
Elective and unspecified reasons: 95.7%[9]

 

[oze]

For someone who is often on about people arguing something you did not say, you're certainly bad at the obverse

Certainly when the mother's life is in danger it should be her call on whether to carry to term, and I have not said any different

The only way I spoke to the matter of the mother's life in danger was to say it is the '80 year old black women who don't drive and don't have ID' of the abortion debate. Those cases are statistically unlikely edge cases used to try for an emotional decision to the matter rather than a rational one

Rape, incest and mother's health COMBINED, in states where such information is reported, are less than 5%, the other 95+% is for the mother's convenience

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, and has been updated on January 14, 2023. To view this fact sheet as a PDF, see: Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country are considering and enacting laws...

lozierinstitute.org

Using those percentages and the number of abortions performed since 1973, 62,205,000 babies have been murdered since then, just because.

 

[Twangbanger]

For someone who is often on about people arguing something you did not say, you're certainly bad at the obverse

Certainly when the mother's life is in danger it should be her call on whether to carry to term, and I have not said any different

The only way I spoke to the matter of the mother's life in danger was to say it is the '80 year old black women who don't drive and don't have ID' of the abortion debate. Those cases are statistically unlikely edge cases used to try for an emotional decision to the matter rather than a rational one

Rape, incest and mother's health COMBINED, in states where such information is reported, are less than 5%, the other 95+% is for the mother's convenience

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, and has been updated on January 14, 2023. To view this fact sheet as a PDF, see: Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country are considering and enacting laws...

lozierinstitute.org

Yeah, but partial birth abortion is an "edge case" also, used in an attempt at perception-shifting. Both sides are not above the use of crass emotional appeals.

 

[jamil]

For someone who is often on about people arguing something you did not say, you're certainly bad at the obverse

********. Perhaps you were not talking about in cases of where the mother's life is in danger, but you did not make that clear. You rebutted to JK's post which was clearly about the mother's life being in danger.

You replied to this.

In these cases, I don't believe women are trying to get out of a pregnancy, they're trying to get out of a dangerous pregnancy. I think you're oversimplifying to a black and white morality choice. And I'm not saying that abortion isn't right or wrong, I'm saying the practicalities of life make things more difficult to determine the moral path in the heat of the moment with competing choices.

The highlighted indicates the context for the paragraph is obviously a "dangerous pregnancy". The whole paragraph, including the bit about "practicalities of life".

JK even replied to one of my posts saying he doesn't believe abortion should be a part of family planning. So I think he agrees with you and I that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

But you replied to JK's post about dangerous pregnancies thusly:

Bull****! If they want sex but not children, it is easily possible to take effective precautions BEFORE you take the risk

The ugly truth is they know they don't have to take precautions because if their number comes up they can just get rid of the inconvenience whenever they wish

In this post you did not indicate any different context than the one being discussed. Maybe you got JK's context wrong. It happens. I do it too. But clearly the paragraph you quoted was about when the mother's life is in danger. And I'll take your word for it that you intended your comments in a different context. But don't bitch at me for not guessing what context you were speaking to when you didn't indicate it.

Certainly when the mother's life is in danger it should be her call on whether to carry to term, and I have not said any different

The only way I spoke to the matter of the mother's life in danger was to say it is the '80 year old black women who don't drive and don't have ID' of the abortion debate. Those cases are statistically unlikely edge cases used to try for an emotional decision to the matter rather than a rational one
Rape, incest and mother's health COMBINED, in states where such information is reported, are less than 5%, the other 95+% is for the mother's convenience

I think the rareness is irrelevant to the point that the pro-abortion side makes about dangerous pregnancies. I think they do try to make it emotional. But I think the main reason is to try to expose anti-abortion people as extremists. And it works because it's what many of them believe. It's the infamous gotcha question that pro-abortion journalists like to use.

It is a sanity check to claim that the pro-life side is unreasonable. Because anti-abortion side wants a total ban even when the mother's life is in danger. And that is the actual position of many on the anti-abortion side. So to make that point it does not matter that dangerous pregnancies are fairly rare. It matters that the anti-abortion side wants to ban abortion even for dangerous pregnancies. And on that one, they kinda have a point.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life…full stop.

Choosing to bear children is a truly sacrificial act, and real sacrifice is chosen, not imposed.

You are making an argument concerning the odds…the pro-choice argument concerns the stakes.

The stakes in every pregnancy are life and death.

It is the pregnant woman’s place alone to decide whether or not face those stakes at those odds…not anyone else’s…and certainly not the Government.

Why do you hate liberty?

So according to you, if I am not allowed to kill someone who poses a threat to my life, no matter how minuscule the threat, that constitutes a violation of liberty?

This is just being silly, now. The crux of your argument lies on the fact that you don't believe an unborn child has human rights. If an unborn child does, in fact, have human rights, than you as much as anybody else would agree that for the government to protect that human life from being murdered is not a violation of anyone's liberty.

Every time someone else drives on the same road as me, flies an aircraft over my property, or sneezes in my direction, all of those things have some small chance of resulting in my death, but that doesn't give me the right to kill any of those people. What makes the case of the unborn different, for you, is that based on your belief in how human rights are derived, the unborn have no human rights, and their mother gets to make all decisions about them, full stop. For those of us who believe that unborn children do have human rights, it makes logical sense that we wouldn't want it to be legal to kill them, any more than to kill any of the folks in the examples I gave at the start of this paragraph.

It has nothing to do with either side believing more or less in individual liberty, and everything to do with a difference in beliefs about which human organisms get to have human rights.

You've already hashed this all out quite thoroughly, so why are you going back to this silly trolling people with phrases like "why do you hate liberty?"