I can't necessarily say these sources are credible or not, but I did hear on CNN not too long ago that abortions performed under a Democratic presidency were lower than under a Republican presidency. It turns out that is true up to a point. Abortion was at its highest rate under Reagan. Abortion steadily declined under a Clinton administration, and has declined under a Bush administration. The lesser number of abortions under a Bush administration is misleading apparently. It does not take into account California who has the highest number of abortions among all states. Anyhow here are a few graphs just from a little searching on google. Take it with a grain of salt. http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013 (Very Pro Life website, with Democratic undertones admittedly.) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=400&srcid=183 http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf If anything, I think the lesser number of abortions in the 90s is attributed to safe sex education which Republicans were against back then. It was a hot topic that sex education or offering condoms at a Planned Parenthood would encourage more sexual activity and thus more abortions. This was not the case. This also led to a lesser number of STDs being spread, specifically HIV/AIDS and helped track them. In addition to that, under a Democratic administration big government is aimed at helping the lower class, who have the highest rate of abortions among all other working class. Also the economy tends to help the lower and middle class under a Democratic administration more than a Republican one. Republican bigger government is aimed more towards military funding than actual projects aimed at helping Americans most in need. I think if you compound all these different points, it proves that the case of Republicans being Pro-Life is a fallacy. If you can't overturn Roe v Wade, give more reasons to convince women contemplating abortion to avoid doing it. Aim your economic strategy in helping the lower class instead of talking about it. Don't struggle with sex education or viewing contraceptives as sinful, while trying to overturn it. This is something Republicans love to talk about, but never take into account the after effects if it would. Adoption is not always the case, and that's throwing aside the actual mother and her needs. Think of the impact, otherwise don't give this slippery slope fallacy that Democrats are Pro-Abortion when the highest number of abortions were under a Republican administration.
Men and women just need to take this more seriously. Anytime you have sex, you are making a choice to risk getting pregnant.
This is the last post on the subject form me until probably Thanksgiving Break, but I'm literally just paraphrasing the decision. From wiki: Relying deferentially on Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was therefore unnecessary. And, where medical testimony disputed Congress's findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a "consensus." " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart Maybe to be more precise I should have said P/B Abortion is never needed. Anyway, no need to call people stupid, this has been a relatively civil debate. Semantics. Not even worth arguing. I'll argue that its technically not a surgery since it is being performed on another person, you'll argue its a tumor, or that elements of the procedure effect the tissue of the mother, or since it is invasive its surgery. Not worth having the argument, its not important to the issue. Yes. Legally, no, Max and I have already gone over this many times with you guys. It's not the law. Simply quit quoting it. It's not the current state of the nation. Ok. That's not about the issue at hand here. I haven't made a single emotional appeal. Thanks. See you guys around Thanksgiving or Christmas.
no, Thank you twhy77, your well thought out and articulated posts have been much appreciated. At least by me. Post more often.
Nice personal attack, too bad it didn't do anything to bolster your "argument." Fine, I will retract my portrayal of YOU forcing your God on other people. However, I stand by the rest of my statement and will put it forth amended thusly... Everyone has their own relationship with God and I wish that the majority of the pro-life crowd would stop trying to force theirs on other people.
Yes, we need more education, more ubiquitous contraception, and OTC availability of the morning after pill.
It wasn't an attack, it was a humorous poke because you were completely missing the point as your retraction below proves. And my wish is that people would stop playing god and grant little babies in their mother's womb a life of their own. For the "uncaring" mother, it's all over in 9 months via adoption. For the aborted child it's Death and no lollipops, ice cream, puppies or boyfriends.
Ok, this might be my last post (probably not though, because let's be honest, we all like to argue in here.) I told LSCOLAdominates and Deck I'd get back to them on the question of whether or not an increase in contraceptives increases abortions. Honestly, good clean data is hard to find. The closest I found was this...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3876/is_200303/ai_n9228690/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 Main point from the topic was this.. RESULTS: In seven countries-Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland-abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modem contraceptive use rose. In six others-Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea-levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea. CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly. So it looks like after awhile, the increase in contraceptive use will decrease abortions in some countries. I fully concede this point with qualifications. A) As a Catholic, the data doesn't really matter, because it does not destroy the moral arguments Catholics are able to make against contraception as being a sin. B) I think there are moral considerations that need to seriously be addressed before a country just starts popping the pill like crazy because they think it will decrease abortions, most notably being a country's fertility rate will suffer as less and less people want to have children because they like the effects of the pill. Most notably look at Europe and specifically Russia. Populations are waning. This is a bad thing. Well, I didn't want to leave anyone hanging on that argument.
I really applaud you getting back to us on this, twhy, because I had forgotten about the thread (life can be crazy busy!) and now remember the discussion. The data I quoted from the Netherlands was very interesting, and in no way should prevent someone from having the moral/religious belief of a devout Catholic on the subject, as you do. My point, if I'm remembering it at all well, was that cultural differences can affect statistics in regard to this topic. It doesn't mean the Dutch, in general, respect "life" less, IMO, but that they simply look at relationships, having children, and cohabitation differently that many Americans, particularly conservative ones. I don't see one side or another being "right," just different. My main concern is having the freedom to make our own choices. That's where things get sticky. Many from your side, with all the best will in the world, would take away the freedom to make many of the choices people from my end of the spectrum tend to take as a right. More than in this country, the Dutch (in general, of course.. there are conservatives in that country as well) practice the liberal lifestyle that many liberals here talk about, but don't actually "live." Anyway, it's interesting stuff, as is your argument.
I just want to make sure I'm prefectly clear. I'm not arguing the government should have the right to take away contraception. Just abortion, because there is another involved. Just so that's clear.
