I have changed my views on abortion

368100

Don't disagree on abortion in some cases but I vehemently disagree on abortion as a form of contraception for casual sex, especially if the father is not consulted.

Happened to me, young and stupid perhaps and had unprotected sex....ended up in a pregnancy where she then travelled for abortion and it was nearly two years later that I found out what had happened. Where is the choice for the man?

The Rape of Lucretia

368100 wrote: »

Don't disagree on abortion in some cases but I vehemently disagree on abortion as a form of contraception for casual sex, especially if the father is not consulted.

Happened to me, young and stupid perhaps and had unprotected sex....ended up in a pregnancy where she then travelled for abortion and it was nearly two years later that I found out what had happened. Where is the choice for the man?

He doesnt have one. Its a downside/upside of being a man.

The Rape of Lucretia

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Serious question, in rape cases, are victims not prescribed a morning after pill as standard?

WTF ?!?!?

Surely not? Thats is a potential abortion. How could it be legal, let alone standard, in Ireland ?

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

WTF ?!?!?

Surely not? Thats is a potential abortion. How could it be legal, let alone standard, in Ireland ?

The morning after pill prevents ovulation, it doesn't prevent implantation.

But for various reasons rape victims do not report the rape, and wouldn't necessarily have emergency contraception at the front of their mind while processing such a horrific assault.

Also the morning after pill doesn't work if you've already ovulated, and isn't always effective for various reasons.

wakka12

Are you the same guy who was posting in the last abortion threadys saying even women who were raped shouldn't be allowed abort? Quite the turn around..

captbarnacles

368100 wrote: »

Don't disagree on abortion in some cases but I vehemently disagree on abortion as a form of contraception for casual sex, especially if the father is not consulted.

Happened to me, young and stupid perhaps and had unprotected sex....ended up in a pregnancy where she then travelled for abortion and it was nearly two years later that I found out what had happened. Where is the choice for the man?

oh FFS what woman thinks "not to worry, if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'?? know any? I don't.

Elliott S

kjl wrote: »

I'll probably get berated for this but I still think abortion is murder.

Look, it's your life and I won't stop you from getting one but to me, you are a murderer if you kill your unborn child.

I won't get in the way of people trying to change the law, but I certainly won't help them do it.

You probably know a few murderers then. How do you feel about that?

captbarnacles

captbarnacles wrote: »

oh FFS what woman thinks "not to worry, if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'?? know any? I don't.

They don't exist. This myth of women popping into the abortion clinic after brunch and then heading out to the nightclub for an evening of unprotected sex is insulting and has no basis in fact.

professore

I have to vote no on repealing the 8th if that's the vote, because I don't know what will replace it. I would vote in favour of abortion in limited circumstances, but am against abortions after about 10 weeks or so, or for lifestyle reasons. I value all human life, and am very slow to remove any protections for it.

It's the same reason if someone came up with the idea that to allow gay marriage we should remove all references to marriage and families from the constitution and let the politicians decide. I wouldn't vote for that either.

Also the whole I wouldn't do it myself but I can't tell others how to live their lives is such a cop out. That's like seeing your neighbour beating his wife half to death every day and voting to make assault and battery to not be a crime anymore because you can't impose your views on others. The pro choice people have no such hangups. Stand up for what you believe.

Ave Sodalis

professore wrote:

Also the whole I wouldn't do it myself but I can't tell others how to live their lives is such a cop out. That's like seeing your neighbour beating his wife half to death every day and voting to make assault and battery to not be a crime anymore because you can't impose your views on others. The pro choice people have no such hangups. Stand up for what you believe.

I was going to say you had a different from mine, but still respectable post... but then you got to this part...

Elliott S

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'm not convinced this is the most pressing issue facing ireland.

Does that matter? Was same sex marriage a pressing issue?

professore

professore wrote: »

I have to vote no on repealing the 8th if that's the vote, because I don't know what will replace it. I would vote in favour of abortion in limited circumstances, but am against abortions after about 10 weeks or so, or for lifestyle reasons. I value all human life, and am very slow to remove any protections for it.

It's the same reason if someone came up with the idea that to allow gay marriage we should remove all references to marriage and families from the constitution and let the politicians decide. I wouldn't vote for that either.

Also the whole I wouldn't do it myself but I can't tell others how to live their lives is such a cop out. That's like seeing your neighbour beating his wife half to death every day and voting to make assault and battery to not be a crime anymore because you can't impose your views on others. The pro choice people have no such hangups. Stand up for what you believe.

But the 8th amendment and the ban on abortions doesn't actually stop abortions from happening. Would it not be better to legalize it and work on preventing the need for abortion (thereby lowering the abortion rate and 'protecting human life') through proven social measures?

Regardless of what it says in the constitution women are going to have abortions, no point in sticking our heads in the sand any longer

AnGaelach

captbarnacles wrote:

oh FFS what woman thinks "not to worry, if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'?? know any? I don't.

I've known a woman who had two abortions because she just didn't want the kid, not because she thought she'd be a bad mother or because of some threat to her health - she simply wanted to not have to raise a kid or bring it to term.

I've changed my views on abortion. When I was younger, I was quite the pro-choice advocate. Now, I'm quite reserved, because it's not just about one person's feelings. It's about two lives.

AnGaelach

But the 8th amendment and the ban on abortions doesn't actually stop abortions from happening. Would it not be better to legalize it and work on preventing the need for abortion

People said the same thing about drug use in Britain back in the day, and the "tolerant" attitude towards drug use has done nothing to actually prevent its use.

People seem to think if you hold people's hands they'll work through anything, but they aren't. It's simple logic that if you legalise (or at least decriminalise) something, more people will avail of it.

AnGaelach

The 8th prevents all scenarios (except significant risk to mother's life), so even if you believe it should exist for FFA and rape etc, it can't with the 8th in place.

The constitution allows for amendments to the constitution under variations, additions or repealing. You don't need to repeal the 8th entirely in order to legislate for abortion, you simply need to modify it it in order to accommodate the new scenario. But of course, the pro-choice doesn't want this because it obstructs the ability of the courts to "magic up" the right to abortion (the first reason we even instituted it in the constitution in the first place was because of the American supreme court doing something similar and there being a fear our SC would follow suit).

You don't need to repeal the 8th Amendment in order for it to accommodate abortion. You only need to repeal it if you want complete "abortion on demand" - which thankfully the majority of voters are set against.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've known a woman who had two abortions because she just didn't want the kid, not because she thought she'd be a bad mother or because of some threat to her health - she simply wanted to not have to raise a kid or bring it to term.

I've changed my views on abortion. When I was younger, I was quite the pro-choice advocate. Now, I'm quite reserved, because it's not just about one person's feelings. It's about two lives.

Tbh I don't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she does not want. There's enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and while adoption works for some, it doesn't for everyone. If women could give away healthy babies to willing parents without the 9 month pregnancy they would, we're not heartless but we have to think about our lives too.

AnGaelach wrote: »

People said the same thing about drug use in Britain back in the day, and the "tolerant" attitude towards drug use has done nothing to actually prevent its use.

People seem to think if you hold people's hands they'll work through anything, but they aren't. It's simple logic that if you legalise (or at least decriminalise) something, more people will avail of it.

Decriminalisation without also implementing social supports to help lower usage won't achieve as much. In the case of abortion I'm very confident that legalizing abortion won't cause an increase in abortions.

professore

professore wrote: »

I have to vote no on repealing the 8th if that's the vote, because I don't know what will replace it. I would vote in favour of abortion in limited circumstances, but am against abortions after about 10 weeks or so, or for lifestyle reasons. I value all human life, and am very slow to remove any protections for it.

It's the same reason if someone came up with the idea that to allow gay marriage we should remove all references to marriage and families from the constitution and let the politicians decide. I wouldn't vote for that either.

Also the whole I wouldn't do it myself but I can't tell others how to live their lives is such a cop out. That's like seeing your neighbour beating his wife half to death every day and voting to make assault and battery to not be a crime anymore because you can't impose your views on others. The pro choice people have no such hangups. Stand up for what you believe.

What lifestyle reasons?

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've known a woman who had two abortions because she just didn't want the kid, not because she thought she'd be a bad mother or because of some threat to her health - she simply wanted to not have to raise a kid or bring it to term.

I've changed my views on abortion. When I was younger, I was quite the pro-choice advocate. Now, I'm quite reserved, because it's not just about one person's feelings. It's about two lives.

And why do you think that forcing women who do not want a child, to go through pregnancy, have a child, & then go through at least 18 years of raising that child is better than her just getting an abortion?

screamer

I am pro choice. No one can live another's life for them, and most people couldn't give a toss about other people or how they might be struggling financially, emotionally etc with an unwanted pregnancy, yet those same people are often the ones who love to shout from the rooftops about the wrongs of abortion. No woman should have to "travel" abroad to save Ireland's blushes, and I really feel sorry for those who are left with no other choice when they decide to terminate a pregnancy, it must just make an awful experience even worse. It almost seems like an additional punishment metered out to them. Awful.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

But the 8th amendment and the ban on abortions doesn't actually stop abortions from happening. Would it not be better to legalize it and work on preventing the need for abortion (thereby lowering the abortion rate and 'protecting human life') through proven social measures?

Regardless of what it says in the constitution women are going to have abortions, no point in sticking our heads in the sand any longer

You see this is my opinion. I sincerely believe that if we remove the stigma from having a choice and also from allowing women have a real discussion about their options with no judgement that the actual abortion rate will go down.

JupiterKid

I changed my views about about abortion when I was about 18/19. After years of church fed brainwashing and doctrine, I went away to university and could think for myself. It was also not long after the X-case.

I suppose I just grew up and formed my own values. I've been firmly pro-choice ever since then.

368100

captbarnacles wrote: »

oh FFS what woman thinks "not to worry, if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'?? know any? I don't.

Yes, unfortunately I do know at least one other

368100

bubblypop wrote: »

And why do you think that forcing women who do not want a child, to go through pregnancy, have a child, & then go through at least 18 years of raising that child is better than her just getting an abortion?

Because for some people, men and women and admittedly probably a small minority, to have readily available abortion for any reason will be seen as an easy "fix" to irresponsible behaviour when it comes to having unprotected sex.

Why should they be able to treat creating a life with so little disregard when there are so many couples who have difficulty conceiving?

Elliott S

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

How many adults (men or women) are prepared to have a celibate life due to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy? We all have sex drives. Without it, we wouldn't continue the human race.

Exactly. I'm sure the menfolk of Ireland would be only delighted if all the women in the country decided to only have sex when they want to become pregnant, abstention being the only 100% reliable contraception and all. :pac:

Grandeeod

Has anyone here actually had an abortion??

Elliott S

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

I do get the impression that "pro choice" campaigners use the examples of FFA, rape & risk to a mothers life as their main arguments for repealing when in reality they clearly want abortion to be legal in all cases (although presumably only prior to a certain date).

Many pro-choice campaigners are very explicit in their belief that there are no "good" or "bad" abortions and that it should be legal for any reason and many of these campaigners have been present on boards.ie threads on the subject.

Others may also feel the same way but might highlight certains cases where an abortion should be allowed simply because they are pragmatic about what they believe people will actually vote for if given a choice. I'd be one of those. I think early stage abortions should be available for all but would settle for them being allowed in certain cases ie. in the case of danger to the health of the mother, rape, suicide rish, TFMR. I really want abortions to allowed in these cases and would take it if this was what was made legal in Ireland.

There isn't anything devious going on with most pro-choice campaigners.

pickarooney

conorhal wrote: »

So you've gone from a pro life position to believing you should be allowed to kill a child up till the point of birth? Based on pictures from a protest? Wow, that sounds... rational.

Why not, it's a completely arbitrary stance in any case, not much different to choosing strawberry ice cream over chocolate.

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't exist. This myth of women popping into the abortion clinic after brunch and then heading out to the nightclub for an evening of unprotected sex is insulting and has no basis in fact.

In England & Wales in 2013, 19,000 women that had an abortion were on the third or more.

49 of them had already had at least eight previous abortions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10895765/Lifestyle-abortions-warning-as-serial-termination-numbers-surge.html

Ave Sodalis

Outlaw Pete wrote:

In England & Wales in 2013, 19,000 women that had an abortion were on the third or more.

And neither you nor the paper have any idea why.

Why should something be banned in entirety because of the actions of a tiny minority?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In England & Wales in 2013, 19,000 women that had an abortion were on the third or more.

49 of them had already had at least eight previous abortions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10895765/Lifestyle-abortions-warning-as-serial-termination-numbers-surge.html

That doesn't tell you they all didn't take measures to prevent their pregnancies, or that they don't take abortion seriously. Maybe they were unfortunate enough to find themselves in a position where a pregnancy was unviable or unsafe for them more than once. You don't know all these women so you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about them. The fact is the vast majority of women do not see abortion as 'contraception', and to say we're too lazy to use a condom/take a pill and that going to see doctors, make appointments, travel overseas (in the case of Irish women) and undergo an often unpleasant and painful medical procedure (and expensive if you're Irish!) is somehow 'easier' is complete nonsense.

Elliott S

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In England & Wales in 2013, 19,000 women that had an abortion were on the third or more.

49 of them had already had at least eight previous abortions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10895765/Lifestyle-abortions-warning-as-serial-termination-numbers-surge.html

If you believe abortion for any reason should be allowed before 12 weeks, as you've said, why do you care? Should each woman get a ration? Why is having one abortion fine but having three not?

And 49 is a truly negligible number. Even 19,000 (the three or more figure) is less than 1% of the 2,000,000 abortions that have happened in England and Scotland in the last decade. 49 is 0.002% percent. You will always have outliers.

And as piratequeen said, those give no details on the preventative measures taken by those women.

Jen44

what about a 24 week old foetus who's brain hasn't developed, these things often dont get spotted till the 20 week anatomy scan, and will not survive outside the womb?

Jen44

Thats what i find so sad about the whole thing. The absolute devastation these women who's much loved and yearned for baby who will not survive, get the choice to a) carry that baby to term, go through the agony that is child birth to watch a defenseless baby suffer and then die or b) travel to another country to an unfamiliar place and then face traveling back in pain full of grief following a medical procedure. Seems very cruel to me.

JuliusCaesar

Deleted User wrote: »

I used to be pro life too. Then I did some research and realised that making abortion illegal actually doesn't result in fewer abortions (not significantly anyway). You know what does lead to fewer abortions? Providing free contraception, comprehensive sex education in schools, free or heavily subsided childcare, better single parent supports...policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies and help women feel supported and empowered to raise a child on their own or with limited resources.

I rarely, if ever, hear the same people calling for abortions to be banned also campaigning for the above measures to be introduced. Regardless of your personal opinion on abortion, if the law doesn't actually reduce abortions it makes more sense to legalize it and allow women to make decisions they were going to make anyway, and work towards reducing the need for abortions using methods that actually work.

This bears repeating. If the "pro-life" people were half as concerned about existing life as they are about embryos and fetuses, we would have had radical social change in Ireland twenty/thirty years ago.

Creme Liqueur

Creme Liqueur wrote: »

Why are you assuming her cares?

I for one don't care if abortion is legal or illegal, however if one is to live by a moral code I find it amusing that so many people can decide that killing a 24 week old foetus is fine. It makes it easier to understand how the persecution of the Jews was allowed to take place in national socialist Germany. People are generally selfish and once enough people agree then morals can easily go out the window.

Please observe Godwin's law. Believing a women should have a choice whether to continue a pregnancy is not the same as supporting genocide.

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

If you believe abortion for any reason should be allowed before 12 weeks, as you've said, why do you care? Should each woman get a ration? Why is having one abortion fine but having three not?

And 49 is a truly negligible number. Even 19,000 (the three or more figure) is less than 1% of the 2,000,000 abortions that have happened in England and Scotland in the last decade. 49 is 0.002% percent. You will always have outliers.

And as piratequeen said, those give no details on the preventative measures taken by those women.

While I don't know if any of the figures mentioned are correct, the 2M figure you are quoting relates to abortions carried out in the last decade and the 19,000 and 49 figures relate to 2013 only, so I think you are being misleading as you'd need to use a figure for total abortions in 2013 to have relevant percentages.

sullivlo

Grandeeod wrote: »

Has anyone here actually had an abortion??

Do you really think that someone is going to answer that question truthfully after seeing some of the hate that is written in this thread?!

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

While I don't know if any of the figures mentioned are correct, the 2M figure you are quoting relates to abortions carried out in the last decade and the 19,000 and 49 figures relate to 2013 only, so I think you are being misleading as you'd need to use a figure for total abortions in 2013 to have relevant percentages.

It said that 19,000 women who had an abortion in 2013 were on their third. Those 19,000 didn't have three abortions in a year!

I probably shouldn't have worked out a percentage, but basically, we don't know how far the three abortions of those 19,000 spread out over. If some were early 40s, you could be talking more than 20 years for some. Ten years for others. Who knows?

And as said, if someone is OK with abortions before 12 weeks as that poster is, does it matter if it's one or eight?

19,000 is still a tiny perecentage of the total amount of women who have a had abortions in the UK. They are outliers.

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

It said that 19,000 women who had an abortion in 2013 were on their third. Those 19,000 didn't have three abortions in a year!

I probably shouldn't have worked out a percentage, but basically, we don't know how far the three abortions of those 19,000 spread out over. If some were early 40s, you could be talking more than 20 years for some. Ten years for others. Who knows?

And as said, if someone is OK with abortions before 12 weeks as that poster is, does it matter if it's one or eight?

19,000 is still a tiny perecentage of the total amount of women who have a had abortions in the UK. They are outliers.

All I said was your figures were misleading, which they are, take that as you will. There could be 19,000 women in 2012 and again in 2011 who were also on their 3rd abortion, I don't know the figures so won't claim that but it makes a significant difference to the percentages you worked out. All I'm trying to do here is prevent misinformation.

Just had a look there and the total abortions for 2013 was 185,331. That means 10.25% of them were on their 3rd abortion, I wouldn't regard that as a small percentage. I'm not arguing any opinion, just giving relevant figures.

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

All I said was your figures were misleading, which they are, take that as you will. There could be 19,000 women in 2012 and again in 2011 who were also on their 3rd abortion, I don't know the figures so won't claim that but it makes a significant difference to the percentages you worked out. All I'm trying to do here is prevent misinformation.

Just had a look there and the total abortions for 2013 was 185,331. That means 10.25% of them were on their 3rd abortion, I wouldn't regard that as a small percentage. I'm not arguing any opinion, just giving relevant figures.

Well, the fact that the 2013 figures were reported on as a peak would suggest that it was an unusually high figure. If the preceding years had been the same or near that, would it have been reported on?

And much like I shouldn't work out 19,000 as a percentage of 2,000,000, it's also not useful to work out the 19,000 as a percentage of the 2013 figures. It's also a meaningless figure. One needs to look at in the bigger picture.

And my point still stands - if OK with abortions, as that poster claims to be before 12 weeks (when the vast majority of abortions happen, even in the UK), does it matter how many a woman has? Why is one OK, but three not? One is straying into the realm of moralising there. After all, the only 100% reliable contraception out there is abstention.

nozzferrahhtoo

me_right_one wrote: »

You can also scientifically determine the point where life starts - personally, thats the definition I'd go with - and that is the point where cells spontaneously self-propagate with their own individual DNA. ie, conception.

Yet clearly "life" alone is not what we mediate moral and ethical concern on given we happily swat flies, kill bacteria and viruses, kill and eat meat and vegetables, chop down trees, and annihilate inconvenient species of insect.

So arbitrarily picking a point to call something "life" and then using vague science to validate that, is not really addressing the actual moral and ethical concerns around abortion at all.

me_right_one wrote: »

Did you know that a babys heart starts beating at 21 days?

Yet is a beating heart a morally and ethically coherent basis to mediate things like rights? I do not think it is.

me_right_one wrote: »

Not fully understanding the biology is part of the pro-abortion peoples problem.

Vaguely understanding the biology but not understanding how to coherently apply that knowledge is the anti-choice peoples problem. As is, seemingly, your understanding of the pro-choice position if you think "pro abortion" is a coherent summation of their goals.

As what you will find is that the majority of people who are pro-choice on the subject are actually pro ALL the initiatives that would reduce the number of people ever having them. So in many ways the pro choice campaigner is actually anti abortion.

Wibbs wrote: »

Only someone bereft of sense could compare a single celled sperm cell and a foetus with a brainstem and heartbeat and fingers and toes etc and say the destruction of one is the same as the destruction of another.

It entirely depends on the context and goal of the comparison as to whether the person doing it is bereft of sense. For example it might SEEM bereft of sense to compare rocks with cars. However if I was comparing them specifically under the context of "color" there are many cars that are indeed very comparable to rocks.

Similarly it might seem to you bereft of sense to compare a sperm cell with a fetus. However if I was comparing them specifically under the context of "Moral and ethical concern" then there are very coherent and genuine reasons to make the comparison that are quite the opposite of being bereft of sense.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its a legitimate view. If you are in favour of killing unborn babies, then there is consistency in being in favour of killing unborn babies right up to the nine months.

The "consistency" would be entirely dependent on their reasoning. For example I mediate moral and ethical concern for an entity based on it's capacity for sentience and consciousness.

So my pro-choice position up to 16 weeks would NOT be consistent with a pro-choice position up to 40 weeks. At all.

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

I do get the impression that "pro choice" campaigners use the examples of FFA, rape & risk to a mothers life as their main arguments for repealing when in reality they clearly want abortion to be legal in all cases

I would go some way to agreeing with you in that despite being pro-choice I entirely AVOID using rape based arguments. They make me uncomfortable for a few reasons.

The first is that I can think of few, if any, other cases when someone (X) loses rights because someone (Y) committed a crime on someone else (Z). Either the fetus has a right to life, or it does not. It should not lose that right due to a crime committed by someone that is not it, on someone who is also not it.

The second is that I do not see rape as workable. Perhaps I merely lack imagination and it is easy to implement, but I would be interested to know how. How is rape established for example? Does the woman have to have sought and attained a prosecution? Or do we simply take her word for it on the abortion application form? And if the latter.... is that not the same as "Abortion on demand" given all women would have to do is tick the appropriate box whether true or not?

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Serious question, in rape cases, are victims not prescribed a morning after pill as standard?

Not sure, but even if they are this does not address all cases. There are many cases where women do not KNOW they have been raped, or they know but they do not process it, or they do process it but decide for many reasons simply not to pursue medial or legal channels. And so on and so on.

Creme Liqueur wrote: »

Is there anyone who actually disagrees with that?

To some degree some do alas. IF there is ANY chance of survival at all, there are people who would be against abortion.

Go over the threads on the topic and you will find a lot of people offering up anecdotes for that very reason. Anecdotes that usually follow the formula "X was pregnant.... doctors told her of some anomaly and that the child would not survive..... child is currently doing well in the local football team" or some such.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

This bears repeating. If the "pro-life" people were half as concerned about existing life as they are about embryos and fetuses, we would have had radical social change in Ireland twenty/thirty years ago.

Creme Liqueur wrote: »

I would be categorosid by many as "Pro life", I don't care whether abortion is legal or illegal.

It is one of the reasons I call them "anti choice" rather than "pro life" because all the "pro choice" people who they want desperately to call "pro abortion" are actually ever bit as "pro life" as they are. They just have differing criteria as to what constitutes a "life" worthy of moral and ethical concern.

I am entirely pro life. And I am entirely anti abortion in that I support any and all initiatives that reduce the requirement for abortions to ever happen. But I am entirely pro-choice up to and possibly beyond 16 weeks for those who want or require them. And I see no contradiction whatsoever between applying all three of those labels to myself at the same time.

But I am no more "pro abortion" than I am "pro cardiac bypass". In that I would like anyone who wants to have bypass to be able to get it, but in an ideal world no one would want or need to and they would never happen. But in the absence of an ideal world the best we can do is strive towards one.

GerryDerpy

Women should have the choice to kill men's children without their consent. Good one.

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

Well, the fact that the 2013 figures were reported on as a peak would suggest that it was an unusually high figure. If the preceding years had been the same or near that, would it have been?

And much like I shouldn't work out 19,000 as a percentage of 2,000,000, it's also not useful to work out the 19,000 as a percentage of the 2013 figures. It's also a meaningless figure. One needs to look at in the bigger picture.

And my point still stands - if OK with abortions, as that poster claims to be before 12 weeks (when the vast majority of abortions happen, even in the UK), does it matter how many a woman has? Why is one ok, but three not?

I think you are misunderstand statistics here, the 10.25% figure is relevant for the 2013 period. The percentage figures you quoted mixed figures from the last decade with figures for a single year.

After reading the article posted it says that 19,000 figure was an 8% increase from the previous year so 2012 had 17,593 women on their 3rd abortion or higher. The total abortion figure for 2012 was 185,122. As I'm sure you can work out yourself, this accounts for 9.5% of abortions in 2012, again not exactly a low percentage.

I'm not arguing your point on the differences between having 1 and 3 abortions, I'm just trying to prevent your misinformation.

Jayop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I used to be pro life too. Then I did some research and realised that making abortion illegal actually doesn't result in fewer abortions (not significantly anyway). You know what does lead to fewer abortions? Providing free contraception, comprehensive sex education in schools, free or heavily subsided childcare, better single parent supports...policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies and help women feel supported and empowered to raise a child on their own or with limited resources.

I rarely, if ever, hear the same people calling for abortions to be banned also campaigning for the above measures to be introduced. Regardless of your personal opinion on abortion, if the law doesn't actually reduce abortions it makes more sense to legalize it and allow women to make decisions they were going to make anyway, and work towards reducing the need for abortions using methods that actually work.

It's the same thing with most of them imo. They're largely right leaning and are people who complain about welfare and the likes. They're pro birth not pro life. Have that baby, just don't expect the state to contribute to its education, health care or other costs.

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

I'm not arguing your point on the differences between having 1 and 3 abortions, I'm just trying to prevent your misinformation.

I've pretty much already acknowledged this. Is this a stats lecture or a thread discussing abortion? If you have such an itch to teach stats, perhaps look for a job in that field? I just want to talk about the issue of legalising abortion even if I err in some points. And I see little point in people bringing up women having multiple abortions - if abortion is legal, that will happen.

Elliott S

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Women should have the choice to kill men's children without their consent. Good one.

Well, they do. It's not going away. Even if it were illegal everywhere, it still wouldn't go away. So how should we deal with it?

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

I've pretty much already acknowledged this. Is this a stats lecture or a thread discussing abortion? If you have such an itch to teach stats, perhaps look for a job in that field? I just want to talk about the issue of legalising abortion even if I err in some points. And I see little point in people bringing up people having multiple abortions - if abortion is legal, that will happen.

I know you acknowledged that you were wrong, I didn't claim otherwise.

The stats are relevant to this thread no? I mean you were the one that started throwing out percentages when talking to another poster and they seemed relevant to you at that time? And I already have a job in the field, thanks for your input though.

You may want to just talk about legalizing abortion but if you err on some points in your argument for or against abortion then you should expect them to be brought up.

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

I know you acknowledged that you were wrong, I didn't claim otherwise.

The stats are relevant to this thread no? I mean you were the one that started throwing out percentages when talking to another poster and they seemed relevant to you at that time? And I already have a job in the field, thanks for your input though.

You may want to just talk about legalizing abortion but if you err on some points in your argument for or against abortion then you should expect them to be brought up.

Yes, and you've brought it up, in three (or even four?) separate posts. It's fascinating stuff. You know things about stats. Can we move on now?

My main point, that got derailed, was that three abortions isn't a lot if its spread out over many years. 19,000 women had their third abortions that year. When did they have their first? The longer abortion is legalised, the more women are going to have more than one over an extended number of years. Women are fertile from the early teens up to around 50, depending. That's a long time to be always be on the ball, contraception-wise.

And 49 women having eight abortions is acknowledged as extreme in the article. They truly are outliers. That is always going to be a vanishingly small number of women.

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

Yes, and you've brought it up, in three (or even four?) separate posts. It's fascinating stuff. You know things about stats. Can we move on now?

I've brought up stats in previous posts because they were relevant to the discussion and to debunk your arguments on the figures. If you have a problem with that well frankly I don't care, I will continue to use numbers and statistics in the future for arguments as they are the only things that don't lie.

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

I've brought up stats in previous posts because they were relevant to the discussion and to debunk your arguments on the figures. If you have a problem with that well frankly I don't care, I will continue to use numbers and statistics in the future for arguments as they are the only things that don't lie.

Ignored the rest of my post. Actually, it IS important to look at how spread out those three abortions are for each woman, considering a woman's fertile period can be over thirty years. Statistics are useful but do not tell everything. Over thirty years of fertility, that's a long old time to always be on the ball re: contraception. And its understandable if a young teen or a forty-something woman does not want to continue with a pregnancy, for different reasons.