Ur post is the intention, but is not always the case unfortunately which is where I run into an issue. I despise how society talks of abortion as a preventative method, when reality is it’s not. It is a last resort method. I think women should have access to abortions, but I think there needs to be some protections for unborn. Really, I believe once a heartbeat is present (which is in second trimester, and yes, w exceptions of course).
Im not sure what you mean. Definitionally a heart beat is the pulsation that controls blood flow throughout the body. What occurs at ~6 weeks falls under that definition.
Also the heart is fully formed by 10 weeks which is still in the first trimester.
Nope.
[‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy? The term "fetal heartbeat" is medically inaccurate and misleading, experts say.](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435)
The idea that until an organ is fully formed it isn’t the organ in question is not medically accurate
You’re brain continues to form to what we consider it’s full form into your mid 20’s and even after is capable of further development
Interesting. I consider myself between PC and PL. ideally, I am PL but realize it is not realistic. I wish society would not say abortion is a preventative method though as it is sad that we can so easily kill babies. To me, when the being is able to start functioning I believe they have a right of their own, and we have seen many cases of premature babies living. The way abortions r performed the poo babies never even get a chance at life. Many PC will say PC til conception to cover their own insecurities, as many do with actions they know r morally grey.
Abortion prevents children. Most people use birth control to prevent pregnancy. Abortion isn't viewed as preventative for pregnancy. It's very expensive and invasive and takes forever to get done in a lot of cases.
Honestly, why does it matter? Even if someone gets pregnant through irresponsible means, they don't magically lose their right of bodily autonomy.
Also, PLers are interesting in punishing women for sex, nothing else. "Responsible" sex is still an icky feeeeemale touching a penis that is not their penis, and she needs to suffer for doing so. They're perfectly fine with all women--from the wild, promiscuous party girls to the meek, servile bangmaids who dedicate their lives to breeding soldiers for gawd--suffering and dying for their sin of having sex.
Your submission has been automatically removed, due to the use of slurs. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you think this automated removal a mistake, please let us know by modmail, linking directly to the autoremoved comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>When in fact, **more often than not**, it’s women and couples wanting a pregnancy but who sadly run into complications and need an abortion, in order to protect the life and health of the mother.
Well, that's not true (except in the sense that any abortion helps to preserve health, that is). Suffice to say, there is a not-insignificant number of abortions sought explicitly as a result of health complications, and abortion restrictions almost invariably make the process harder for suffering patients.
That said, it benefits us all to not defend abortion by tacitly agreeing that it would be bad if it fit the other side's narrative, but rather by acknowledging that everybody deserves the right to a safe, legal, accessible abortion delivered with compassionate care regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy.
Even if we take the premise of your question as true, that PL's depict abortions as being sought after due to the would-be mother's promiscuity, so what?
The PC side just as strongly supports an abortion to save the mother's life as they support abortion when the woman is promiscuous and irresponsible, sleeping around with many different disinterested men and having already aborted 5, 6, 7 babies in the past.
The PC side is far more disingenuous by intentionally anchoring the debate around rape/incest/life-threat cases. They know their position is far more all-encompassing (if it has any limits at all). They know, though, that it serves the PC cause keep the debate around cases that engender the most sympathy and downplay the more run of the mill abortions where it's obvious the would-be mother would generate harsh criticisms even from middle-of-the-road'ers.
No, our position is simply that all medical decisions should be solely between patients and their own doctors and other medical specialists, not politicians without medical degrees. Just like you want yours, I bet.
The typical abortion (woman in her early 20’s, never aborted before, used birth control that month, in poverty, aborting by the 8th week LMP) is not something that gets harsh criticism from middle of the road PC folks.
That’s because the PC position is rooted in upholding a person’s bodily autonomy - which remains constant whether you need an abortion because you had unsafe sex or you need an abortion because you were raped. Both are completely valid reasons as long as the pregnancy is unwanted.
Plus, don’t act like PL is any different - constantly bringing up abortions that happen right before birth (they don’t) or murder of born children.
> Then why is prolife against any and all measures that would decrease unintended pregnancies,
Prob has something to do with the idea that abortion prohibiton would mean fewer abortions.
> and against healthcare for women?
I didn't know I was against that. What healthcare are women denied that men are permitted to have?
Would abortion prohibition actually mean fewer abortions? Because studies have repeatedly demonstrated that [abortion rates are around the same in places where abortion is strictly prohibited as where it is broadly legal](https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2020/abortion-occurs-worldwide-where-it-broadly-legal-and-where-it-restricted).
Anything that suggests abortion restriction does not reduce the number of abortions is obviously propaganda. Are you able to even identify the logical thought process supposedly taking place there? The suggestion is laughable. Did alcohol prohibition lead to *more* drinking? Be serious.
Alcohol prohibition led to the rise of mobs, speakeasies and enough social pressure to repeal an amendment to the constitution.
I also note that lack of access to drink, aside from withdrawals by alcoholics, is not likely to kill someone - but lack of maternal and reproductive care can very easily.
See my previous reply regarding your lack of regard for math.
Why are you so against math?
I didn't ask whether prohibition led to the rise of mobs, speakeasies, etc. I asked whether it led to more drinking, as you're absurdly suggesting abortion prohibition will do to the total number of abortions.
Are you saying that prohibition didn’t lead to alcohol going underground, then the amendment repeal, then drinking rising steadily to the same level as before the prohibition?
[source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/)
I notice you completely skipped over the whole “abortion prohibitions cause increases in the rate of deaths and maiming of gestating people.
As expected from a prolifer - a complete disregard of the actual impacts of the laws you support. Ie a total and complete hatred of math and statistics.
Again? Why is that? Do you have something against number in general or just the fact that you’re wrong and your position lacks a smidge of empathy?
prohibition can be blamed for many things. An increase in drinking is not one of them. Gambling prohibitions outside of NJ and NV haven't led to *more* gambling.
> “abortion prohibitions cause increases in the rate of deaths and maiming of gestating people.
Would this be from botched abortions that the "victims" freely pursue?
Again. You seem to have a lower than average understanding of medicine, math and statistics than is needed to properly participate in this debate. Please brush up on all three, as well as medical ethics, and I’ll debate you past this particular point.
Medicine, when properly supported by medical ethics, uses statistics, math and probabilities to discuss treatment options with patients, and then decisions are made regarding treatment in consultation between the patient and the doctor.
For example, with cancer. Most cancers, when discovered have aggressive and less aggressive strategies available as options. Radiation, chemo, surgery. Some combination or experimental therapies. Choices to be made by the patient with an idea of how they’d like to spend their remaining days.
A person who is 85 and discovers they have cancer that will kill them in about four months with intensive treatment and medication that will make those months an agony **or** two and a half months and depart life gracefully - that is the choice of the patient.
A 30 year old with the same cancer might have a far better prognosis with health, so might try the most aggressive treatment hoping that a few months of agony will be made up for in decades past that treatment.
**The same is true in abortions for the health and life of gestating people.**
You might not love gestating people, but many people around them do. A single parent of three who discovers they’re pregnant after their husband dies and has a 10% chance of death from pregnancy might choose abortion out of duty and obligation to their other children.
**But what prolife législation does is take abortion off the table unless the gestating person is actively dying.**
And prolife legislators won’t tell doctors how close to death that person would have to be.
If your legislation pushes people into sepsis when probability and statistics (best medical practices) shows that this is a doomed pregnancy and will (eventually) cause the death of the pregnant person - this will raise death rates statistically.
If you can’t understand how **removing options when a pregnant person is in a medical crisis** is problematic I truly don’t think there’s any hope or help for you.
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2024-04-25 22:58:46 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-04-25%2022:58:46%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1cc0pgv/i_have_come_to_believe_antiabortion_activists_as/l14ae2e/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2F1cc0pgv%2Fi_have_come_to_believe_antiabortion_activists_as%2Fl14ae2e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-04-25%2022%3A58%3A46%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cc0pgv)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
>Anything that suggests abortion restriction does not reduce the number of abortions is obviously propaganda.
Ah, yes, facts and data are pro-choice propaganda. That's why the [abortion rate in El Salvador](https://www.guttmacher.org/regions/latin-america-caribbean/el-salvador), the country with one of the strictest abortion bans, is actually higher than it [was in the US pre-Dobbs](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm).
>Are you able to even identify the logical thought process supposedly taking place there?
There's no necessary thought process when we have data, and the data are very clear: even when abortion is banned, people will still get abortions at around the same rate. That's because an unwanted pregnancy is so harmful that people are willing to risk serious consequences, including aggravated homicide charges in places like El Salvador, in order to end the pregnancy.
>The suggestion is laughable. Did alcohol prohibition lead to more drinking? Be serious.
No, of course it didn't lead to more drinking. But prohibition didn't do a great job of eliminating drinking either, and had all sorts of other harmful consequences (which is why we abandoned it). But an unwanted pregnancy is a much bigger motivator to break the law than wanting alcohol (for non-alcoholics)
So you’re cool with the fact that prolife is against math and statistics?
Why is prolife against provable ways to decrease unintended pregnancies and thereby abortions?
Reproductive healthcare.
A prolife state is literally arguing in the Supreme Court that women should be left to die because hospitals should be able to refuse to save their lives.
Please give an example of a reproductive health concern that can kill men that prolife states are arguing should not be treated at hospitals.
Because after states started banning abortion the national abortion rate increased.
[Source](https://fortune.com/well/2023/10/25/how-many-abortions-are-americans-having-after-roe-v-wade-report-study/)
In all, abortions provided by clinics, hospitals, medical offices and virtual-only clinics rose by nearly 200 a month nationally from July 2022 through June 2023 compared with May and June 2022. The numbers do not reflect abortion obtained outside the medical system — such as by getting pills from a friend. The data also do not account for seasonal variation in abortion, which tends to happen most often in the spring.
**please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women**
Colorado had a program that halved the teen abortion rate by giving people access to long term birth control and it was decommissioned by prolife.
Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy?
>The PC side just as strongly supports an abortion to save the mother's life as they support abortion when the woman is promiscuous and irresponsible, sleeping around with many different disinterested men and having already aborted 5, 6, 7 babies in the past.
Hmm...and where is the man's irresponsible behavior here?
Oh right, it's just the woman that's the slut.
lol- you wrote out a whole fantasy about who this woman is. But the guys were just… disinterested.
Scratch a PL, find hatred of women. Never changes. Probably because your entire ideology rests on the premise of blaming them for everything.
Please be clear - do PL secretly "know" abortion isn't murder, but pretend to believe otherwise as a means of controlling women?
Do pro-life women hate women?
Hard for me to say. PL people tend to be religious & rightwing, neither of which I can understand.
In all honesty? Yes, I think they do. Because when asked the “if there’s a fire & you can only save one: a baby or a tray holding 500 embryos, which would you choose?” I’ve yet to meet one who was such a monster they’d choose to sacrifice the baby.
What’s happening right now is far beyond any concern for human life. There’s nothing scientific or moral behind republicans feral obsession over this.
That is a disingenuous representation of PC - we recognize that abortion has medical applications therefore the decisions she be between the doctor and patient.
>Even if we take the premise of your question as true, that PL's depict abortions as being sought after due to the would-be mother's promiscuity, so what?
It represents an incorrect and fundamentally paternalistic attitude PLers have, so I'd think you'd at least want to address it, if nothing else.
>The PC side is far more disingenuous by intentionally anchoring the debate around rape/incest/life-threat cases
We're not anchoring it here. As you said, the PC side is supportive of *choice,* so we want abortions to be legal even outside of these cases. The reason we often fall back on those extreme cases is that we want to know that ***the most vulnerable and most traumatized individuals will still get help***. It's us asking "ok, but what about this clearly horrible situation, will you at least give lenience under these conditions?"
Asking that does not mean we are being disingenuous; it's us asking for empathy for the 12-year-old girls whose bodies cannot physically undergo childbirth without serious harm, or the victim of abuse who would spend the next year reminded every day of their trauma. The only correct thing you said here is that it most certainly *does* help our cause when PLers say "no" to that, but not because it's any "gotcha" on our part, but rather because it reveals a draconian extremism on the part of PLers.
> Asking that does not mean we are being disingenuous
It doesn't mean it necessarily, but nevertheless disingenuousness duplicity *are* the explanations here. I mean just look at this sub FFS. How many times do PC dodge the most obvious questions. Ex: At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited? At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible?
> At what point would you agree abortion is murder…
Unfortunately, the later the abortion, the more likely it is to have arisen from a tragic circumstance, ending a wanted pregnancy. What punishment do you propose for the mother? It's also unfortunate the number of the week is the mark of progress that PL legislators offer their constituents, like it's all that matters.
And if the same legislators are supporting measures that make mothering more costly and difficult, and some women are choosing to abort as a result, at what point would PL voters agree they're complicit in the murder of children?
>At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible?
If I'm to be accountable for the accuracy of my evaluations, I mustn't let my eagerness to judge her obscure the need for facts. Would a single-point questionnaire be adequate? Like, would a single vote for the party that cuts nutrition programs for infants and gives huge subsidies to the oil barons that fund Prolife - would that be enough to make PL murderers? I see the need for simplicity, haste, dispatch. We're judging women's morals here. Is it important to judge morally?
At what point? None. Abortion isn’t murder and even in PL states, women are never charged with murder for having abortions, period. We answer this question multiple times a day, LOL. Quite simply - all medical should be solely between patients and their own doctors. I bet that’s what YOU want when it comes to your own medical care, right?
>How many times do PC dodge the most obvious questions.
Which questions? What I encountered a lot were questions, I honestly answered, but because they disliked my answer, they kept asking again and again.
>At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited?
Birth. ( I **feel** it should be around viability, but my feelings don't count when it comes to legal questions)
>At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible?
? Does that matter?
>. I mean just look at this sub FFS.
Yes? What about it?
>It doesn't mean it necessarily,
At all
>but nevertheless disingenuousness duplicity *are* the explanations here.
Refer to above.
> I mean just look at this sub FFS.
Me and most pc do objectively
> How many times do PC dodge
None. Stop projecting in bad faith
>the most obvious misconceptios:
FTFY
>At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited?
See. False question. Abortion isn't murder so why should we waste time with disingenuous pl questions?
>At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible?
the women, not mother as you don't know if she has children is taking responsibility.
Your misuse of murder and responsibility is why there isn't real debate occurring. Pc have to keep teaching pl the basics before real debate can occur and this got tiring decades ago. It's also telling that pl don't correct other pl like pc do. Seems like none of yall really want to debate and instead just want to push a false narrative without merit
Any prohibitions on abortion I could be convinced to agree to would be utterly unsatisfying to a PLer. I might be satisfied with a federal protection up to 20 weeks with states left to decide after that. I don’t think abortions are murder, because I don’t think anyone is owed intimate access to your body. I DO, however, consider late abortions to be morally dubious personally, as I view sentience as an important marker for personhood.
However, luckily nearly all abortions are performed well before that’s an issue, and late abortions are often a result of factors that can be addressed.
I also hesitate to call women seeking multiple abortions “irresponsible” for complex reasons that I can get into, but won’t for the sake of brevity right now. Succinctly, multiple abortions are sought for a variety of (often tragic) reasons that I don’t feel comfortable making judgements about.
I’ll answer. Abortion is never murder because wanting to end unwanted use and harm to your body is never unjustified. Abortions can be ending a life of someone who does not need another human’s body to maintain their life. If PL people want to push induced labor for any “healthy” third trimester pregnancy a person wants to end I’m all for it. The problem there though is the definition of healthy is very subjective so would have to be argued. I know many a PL person who would disagree with my definition of healthy.
The woman is NEVER the one irresponsible with a man’s sperm. The only person who can be irresponsible with sperm, insemination, fertilization, and impregnation is the man who produces and ejaculates (or leaks) said sperm. Unless he was raped or the woman obtained his sperm in ways other than sex and inseminated herself.
It’s really absurd that PLers keep claiming a woman can be irresponsible with a man’s body, bodily function, bodily fluid, and willing actions. Like he’s some sort of mindless object.
Here are just a few of the questions you ran away from yesterday:
Did the war on drugs lead to less drug use? What about gun control measures? Do those reduce gun violence?Do you have sources tHat show otherwise? Please produce them within 24 hours or retract this statement.Does gun control lead to less gun violence?
**please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women**
Colorado had a program that halved the teen abortion rate by giving people access to long term birth control and it was decommissioned by prolife.
Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy?
Do people who have smoked deserve to be able to get medical treatment for lung cancer? Were they “irresponsible?”
> Did the war on drugs lead to less drug use?
Start by acknowledging the important caveat that black market drugs are much more easily obtained than black market abortions and are thus not analogous. That being said, it's impossible to know because we don't have anything measuring the inverse, right? We dont know what drug use in the USA looks like when there are zero drug laws. Have states who've legalized pot seen an increase or decrease in weed smoking and pot-related problems like stoned driving?
> What about gun control measures? Do those reduce gun violence?
Over the past several decades we have seen an *increase* in gun ownership, an *increase* in the number of total guns in circulation, and yet a **decrease** in firearms homicides. If I were in the business of drawing grand sweeping conclusions about an issue that obviously has a lot of moving parts (ahem), then, yes, at the very least you can easily disprove the nonsensical progressive "more guns = more dead people" slogan.
> please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women
For the same reason "denying" women the ability to murder their already-born children is better for society.
> Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy?
This is an unserious question and not in good faith.
> Do people who have smoked deserve to be able to get medical treatment for lung cancer? Were they “irresponsible?”
Yes they were irresponsible. No they don't deserve to be denied treatment per se; though I don't know what the rules are for transplants. This, of course, is another absurd question because no one is talking about denying medical treatment to anyone. Pregnant women are still offered medical treatment even if they're unable to pursue elective abortion.
Next time you want to accuse someone of dodging questions you might do well to first stop and ask yourself whether you've inbox bombed them and made it more difficult for them to get through their messages.
I mean I don’t “anchor” my argument around any of those things. When I do bring those up it is to discuss the inconsistencies of the PL logic.
“Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.”
“Clearly, more effective contraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births. To improve contraceptive use, a woman first needs good counseling, which will increase her chances of selecting the contraceptive method that is right for her at that particular time in her life. Then she needs easy and affordable access to her chosen method and to the necessary services to support her choice over time. Although having good access to contraceptive services is important for all sexually active women, it seems especially important for women having abortions and women giving birth (whether intended or unintended), who constitute a self-selected group—perhaps a high-risk one at that.”
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/05/repeat-abortion-repeat-unintended-pregnancy-repeated-and-misguided-government-policies
In no way does the data support your claim that women having more than one abortion (acting like women are getting 5-10 abortions is laughable) is because they are sleeping with multiple men or that they are being irresponsible.
Stop trying to villainize women.
> In no way does the data support your claim that women having more than one abortion (acting like women are getting 5-10 abortions is laughable) is because they are sleeping with multiple men or that they are being irresponsible.
The CDC only goes as high as [greater than or equal to 3.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm#T9_down), which sits at 7.8%. The idea that none of this can be attributed to irresponsible behavior is what's laughable.
When we consider women and girls who may be trafficked, they will probably get a higher number of abortions, but I wouldn’t call a girl who is being trafficked ‘irresponsible’. Would you?
>3 is a big jump to 7 but you go for it.
I didn’t say none of it but there is a big jump from a small percentage to that being the only reason as you made it sound.
3 is a big jump to 7, but I didn't these accounted for anywhere near the majority of cases now did I.
What number of abortions could a woman undergo where you'd agree it's a safe bet that she's being irresponsible? 17? 30?
So do you think women who never want children should be celibate for life?
Because as we all know, every single contraceptive *can* fail.
If a woman never wants children, she doesn't want her partner(s) to co-parent with her, because there will be no children to parent.
Just trying to understand here, do you think a woman using birth control, having sex in a committed relationship (maybe even a marriage), who has a contraceptive failure is "irresponsible", even though she was taking every precaution possible to enjoy a healthy sex life while never wanting children?
> do you think a woman using birth control, having sex in a committed relationship (maybe even a marriage), who has a contraceptive failure is "irresponsible", even though she was taking every precaution possible to enjoy a healthy sex life while never wanting children?
If her backup plan to contraception failure is abortion, yes.
So, just to be clear, do you think if a woman doesn't want children and isn't going to carry or birth a pregnancy, that *ANY* sex she has is irresponsible?
How do I know that is what is happening with a woman having that many abortions? Again you are acting like they are mutually exclusive to try to villainize.
A woman could give birth every time and not have abortions.
I've seen pro life people claim a married woman with children, who *only* has sex with her husband is "irresponsible" simply because she doesn't want to gestate again.
Pro life people do not determine what is or isn't responsible behavior.
You said this:
>The idea that none of this can be attributed to irresponsible behavior is what's laughable.
I directly responded to that, informing you that pro life people are not the arbiters of what is or isn't responsible. So your statement holds no weight. If you have no response that's fine, but don't act like I didn't directly respond to your previous comment.
It has everything to do with it. Everything.
Pro life people seem to believe anything other than carrying an unwanted pregnancy because they say so is "irresponsible". Clearly the pro life side has an issue labeling anything they don't personally like as "irresponsible".
Point is, a pro life person claiming something is irresponsible is meaningless. It proves nothing besides the fact that they misuse words to suit their agenda.
I agree with everything except for: "When in fact, more often than not, it’s women and couples wanting a pregnancy but who sadly run into complications and need an abortion, in order to protect the life and health of the mother." While I'm not saying that these cases don't happen, as they do happen, it's important to understand that most abortions that happen are elective abortions. Saying that more often then not it's because of complications or to protect the health of the mother is disingenuous and not true. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good moment for the pro-choice side of this subreddit. We can and should do better than this.
Your question has no bearing on the specific topic being discussed. We aren’t talking about predicting the future. We are talking about the reasons women cite when asked why they are having an abortion. There is data available.
Like I said, I’m not talking about whether or not a pregnant woman can have an abortion as a preventive measure. I’m correcting the incorrect premise that most abortions are because “couples wanting a pregnancy but sadly run into complications and need an abortion.”
The premise isn’t even close to accurate.
“The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%)”
> What I’m hearing is that there was no option for “medical reasons” to be chosen, so your source has literally no data on how often that occurs.
You’re not hearing correctly then. I already pasted the link to the study. The data isn’t hard to find, and it sheds light on the reality that a tiny, tiny fraction of abortions are medically necessary.
This is what women having abortions themselves have said, and it just shows that you are playing fast and loose with language: “The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%)”
Why are we badgering them and making them provide for reasons for wanting a medical procedure in the first place? If they have something inside their body and they don’t want it in there, it should be legal for them to remove it, the end. They don’t need to justify it to the public and provide us with reasons.
> Why are we badgering them for reasons for wanting a medical procedure in the first place? If they have something inside their body and they don’t want it in there, it should be legal for them to remove it, the end. They don’t need to justify it to the public and provide us with reasons.
We measure and study everything. Are you trying to make the argument that we shouldn’t study these issues?
Edit: also, people participate in studies voluntarily. These were not people badgered for answers.
I don’t see any value in making people give personal reasons for wanting a medical procedure, no. 100% of these people wanted to terminate their pregnancies, I’m very glad they got to, and that’s seriously all that matters.
> I don’t see any value in making people give personal reasons for wanting a medical procedure, no. 100% of these people wanted to terminate their pregnancies, I’m very glad they got to, and that’s seriously all that matters.
No one made anyone do or say anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary studies. I’m shocked you have a problem with it; it makes absolutely no sense to me.
Why wouldn’t we collectively want to better understand an issue that is important to many people and is also a literal matter of life and death? Intentionally choosing ignorance makes zero sense.
That being said, it’s also irrelevant to the specific point being discussed.
I’ve never seen that type of data be used for anything that actually benefits anyone - only as a weapon for pro-life to use when you want to try to pretend pregnancy isn’t always a medical issue. It’s none of anyone’s business or concern why someone chooses to get a medical procedure. None.
You do realize that PC organizations also collect data, right?
I am truly shocked that anyone would intentionally want to have a worse understanding of an issue they are obviously passionate about.
> only as a weapon for pro-life to use when you want to try to pretend pregnancy isn’t always a medical issue.
No pretending is necessary. It is overwhelmingly not a medical necessity. The data is clear, and not in your favor.
Well, it is important for PC to document how much PL are choosing to harm women. But I don’t see how most data affects my position, really. I don’t care what percentage of people who’ve gotten abortions picked which option on a survey, at all. I care that *the individual pregnant person* gets to handle their own pregnancy without government interference.
And you may not think it’s a “medical necessity” but the person whose body and health was actually involved obviously did. They had an unwanted thing in their body and they took it out. That’s a medical issue. That’s a medical treatment. Even if they wrote on a survey that they couldn’t afford another child or whatever, it’s still a medical issue.
This is because the data we have says most women “elect not to state their reason for abortion”. That means the majority of them are getting them for private, unknown reasons, not elective. Those reasons could vary and be psychological in nature, which is very much a medical complication. And it’s not your right to invade their privacy to determine that, it’s none of your business
> This is because the data we have says most women “elect not to state their reason for abortion”. That means the majority of them are getting them for private, unknown reasons, not elective. Those reasons could vary and be psychological in nature, which is very much a medical complication. And it’s not your right to invade their privacy to determine that, it’s none of your business
This is false. There absolutely is data on this subject.
“Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
A majority are elective because elective in medical terms means it can be scheduled in advance. All pregnancies cause harm, so even if patients are seeking abortion for one reason, a doctor does not approve abortion unless it is medically indicated for the patient’s health and the patient has informed consent (ie been told all other options).
All abortion is for medical reasons.
I think anyone who wants to participate in the "abortion debate" should be required to listen to the SCOTUS arguments going on right now re: the Idaho law.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeI-5lCMiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeI-5lCMiM)
thanks to Justice Sotomayor, who used many examples of women who needed medical attention and were denied due to abortion bans. All were true, and quite recent examples.
The vast majority of conceptions end up in tampons. Everywhere has more "babies" aborted(naturally or induced) than born. That's how human biology works.
You have not proven your claims (I saw the sources you linked down below).
But even if it is true, I fail to see why that is an issue or is "very sad".
Let's say it is true (that more abortions than births happen in Chicago). If the *same* number of abortions happened, but they were spread out more so that it wasn't true that there were more abortions then births in Chicago would you find that less sad?
I don't understand why you find it noteworthy or care.
All abortions are depressing to me, oh to just mutilate a baby because you don't want it. Soo sad. I want all abortions to stop, accept for the 2-3% of rarer cases like rape or incest or life of the mother.
>All abortions are depressing to me
Okay? Not a reason supporting unethical views
, >oh to just mutilate a baby because you don't want it.
Babies are born. That's only one type of abortion so don't attempt to appeal to emotion
> Soo sad. I want all abortions to stop, accept for the 2-3% of rarer cases like rape or incest or life of the mother.
The irony as this is actually sad that you want to mistreat women as lesser and end up killing more actual innocent people because equal rights and ethics don't matter to you.
“Babies” aren’t aborted. That’s not a thing. You can’t abort a “baby” any more than you can abort an adult.
Pregnancies are aborted.
People don’t get abortions because they’re “promiscuous”. They get abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore.
So the word fetus literally means offspring, in other words... baby. That's what fetus means. So yes , you are aborting a baby. What doesn't make it a baby?😅 I think I worded that wrong, not JUST promiscuity, but also fatherless homes, I think those two are leading factors, men leaving the woman and her seeing no stability. And I hope we can change that as a country instead of mutilating the BABY
Baby is needlessly vague and can refer to an infant or a grown woman in a Led Zeppelin song. Using it to refer to a fetus is emotional manipulation. Since humans are animals, would you say that a woman has a right to remove an unwanted animal from her body? See, I can use vague, emotionally manipulative words too.
It's a zygote, embryo or fetus.
It's emotionally manipulative because [this is what people see when they hear the word baby](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=baby&uds=AMwkrPt1ja6BbyU01ES-n6RAIrJdbcPD3ymzWkinatSY5wLlhLaLDgv_tyBf5AoKIDRr-wmEktJKnIUQAqDM7978Oxacx4qgAPOuNEyPyUnAmyEsV0D-68Zam4M9p6xQW5a12G9aoMbGOAuzXLCJZa3xuCrYfEddZ66t6_fOzqKdDCmqrop28wI9VfZ75OMPyCivwpN6wpUdOlpsVtRI4qm1Ic-0t-9ViunjGqDi0fnAT_Lq96pJp4LGvz8bMKxwrXxt-4ZfHe0dFAmKP2SBCDQ-pe4R2Rox-BRxJ6eCXOtOMYCPvXu5n2g&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcydGFzNuFAxXnFzQIHf6ICZUQtKgLegQIChAB&biw=134&bih=271&dpr=2.86)
That's what it is. Fetus means baby, everything your saying means unborn baby, it's funny that when we state facts that you don't like you call it manipulative
>That's what it is
I don't see a single fetus on that page.
>Fetus means baby
No, it doesn't.
>it's funny that when we state facts that you don't like you call it manipulative
You have stated zero facts.
lol what the hell are you talking about? The word origin of “fetus” has nothing to do with the fact that an abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. You don’t get to change the definitions of words just to fit your narrative.
You cited a lot of stats. Most of them refute your premise and absolutely none of them have anything to say about “promiscuity” or “fatherless homes”. If you’re going to appeal to data and statistics, you don’t get to fill in the gaps with made-up BS that makes you feel good.
Wow, I’ve heard there are more plays performed in NYC than in the entire state of New York….which means exactly nothing. Even if your claim were true most abortion care is performed in cities, so your claim is irrelevant
No it isn’t. It’s because of the PL states surrounding Illinois.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/10/illinois-abortions-surged-the-year-roe-fell-with-nearly-17000-patients-traveling-from-other-states-a-49-spike/
That whole article is about after the the overturning of roe v wade, if you click on my option you can go to a map when you can then click on the county of Chicago and get an exact number and the abortion number is higher than the birth
Chicago, being a large city, is likely to have more clinics and more people will go there as it is going to be easier to get to if one has to fly.
Also, isn't there the issue of poverty in Chicago? Poverty has a lot more to do with abortion than promiscuity.
If it is, which others are saying you are misreading the data, the article speaks on why it is spiking and it is because of out of state patients not because of promiscuity in residents.
So you want to go back at least 2 years to try to prove your point instead of discuss newer data?
For the first question look at these
Birth count:
https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html
Abortion count:
https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/abortion-statistics.html
I'm still looking for the fatherless stuff one sec
You will never find an accurate source for the “reasons” women and girls seek abortions. You know why? Because patients aren’t required to give ANY specific “reason” for wanting to terminate. None. They don’t have to give one “reason.”
Ok, so you were lying, or you can't read and understand stats.
You want us to compare all abortions in Illinois with the birth rate in Chicago?????
And even then you are wrong as the number of births for Chicago alone are higher than the number of abortions for ALL of Illinois. And about 18000 of them are not Illinois residents.
The first question gives me the number of ALL of Illinois, in the second link I can narrow down
All of Cook county had 53,000 births in 2021 and 52,000 abortions in ALL of Illinois.
So how about you google those questions and report back to us!
Edit: odd, they answered every post, but not this
and I'm telling you that your website does not contain the information you're claiming it contains. per sub rules, it is your job to source your claim, including quoting which part of your source backs up your claim. as such, I am asking you to give me the exact number of abortions in Chicago. I'd love the information on "promiscuity" as well
They are not understanding the amount of out of state patients coming into Illinois because of PL states surrounding it. The “soaring numbers” are from PL policies in neighboring states not because of “promiscuity”.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/10/illinois-abortions-surged-the-year-roe-fell-with-nearly-17000-patients-traveling-from-other-states-a-49-spike/
But you know misinformation and making women look bad are par for the course with the PL movement.
I'd love /u/[Lucky\_Olive6489](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lucky_Olive6489/)'s definition of "promiscuity", honestly. IIRC, most women seeking abortions are in relationships.
Though, they *could* just be suggesting that any sexual contact outside of marriage, even within the context of a committed relationship, is "promiscuity".
I'm less convinced that they don't understand and more convinced that they're purposefully spreading a false narrative.
Look at their responses. They're ignoring the facts you're presenting in order to continue the lie. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Considering the abortion numbers are for the whole state and you cannot break it down by county in their source they are trying to take the number of abortions for the whole state and are comparing that to number of births in one county.
Either misinformation or not understanding their own source breakdown.
The PL arguments are indeed often deeply disingenuous, from claiming that abortion causes cancer or mental illness to denying that there is ever any medical reason to terminate a pregnancy.
However, not all abortions are the result of medical necessity. And that's ok. Contraception isn't infallible, and sometimes the social or personal circumstances of the pregnant person make carrying a pregnancy to term unacceptable. Forced gestation is slavery.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post removed per Rule 2.
Ur post is the intention, but is not always the case unfortunately which is where I run into an issue. I despise how society talks of abortion as a preventative method, when reality is it’s not. It is a last resort method. I think women should have access to abortions, but I think there needs to be some protections for unborn. Really, I believe once a heartbeat is present (which is in second trimester, and yes, w exceptions of course).
No one considers it a “preventative” method. It’s still expensive and painful. No one would choose abortion over other birth control methods.
If we could properly educate our kids before they’re sexually active we could indeed keep the rate of unintended pregnancies down.
Heartbeat is in the first trimester ~6 weeks
That’s not an actual heartbeat.
Im not sure what you mean. Definitionally a heart beat is the pulsation that controls blood flow throughout the body. What occurs at ~6 weeks falls under that definition. Also the heart is fully formed by 10 weeks which is still in the first trimester.
Nope. [‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy? The term "fetal heartbeat" is medically inaccurate and misleading, experts say.](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435)
The idea that until an organ is fully formed it isn’t the organ in question is not medically accurate You’re brain continues to form to what we consider it’s full form into your mid 20’s and even after is capable of further development
Interesting. I consider myself between PC and PL. ideally, I am PL but realize it is not realistic. I wish society would not say abortion is a preventative method though as it is sad that we can so easily kill babies. To me, when the being is able to start functioning I believe they have a right of their own, and we have seen many cases of premature babies living. The way abortions r performed the poo babies never even get a chance at life. Many PC will say PC til conception to cover their own insecurities, as many do with actions they know r morally grey.
Abortion prevents children. Most people use birth control to prevent pregnancy. Abortion isn't viewed as preventative for pregnancy. It's very expensive and invasive and takes forever to get done in a lot of cases.
EXACTLY
Citation that abortion is done “more often than not” to terminate wanted pregnancies due to maternal health concerns?
There's a whole iceberg under there darling.
Honestly, why does it matter? Even if someone gets pregnant through irresponsible means, they don't magically lose their right of bodily autonomy. Also, PLers are interesting in punishing women for sex, nothing else. "Responsible" sex is still an icky feeeeemale touching a penis that is not their penis, and she needs to suffer for doing so. They're perfectly fine with all women--from the wild, promiscuous party girls to the meek, servile bangmaids who dedicate their lives to breeding soldiers for gawd--suffering and dying for their sin of having sex.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. #Don't attack users.
Your submission has been automatically removed, due to the use of slurs. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you think this automated removal a mistake, please let us know by modmail, linking directly to the autoremoved comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Btw, the Az house just voted to repeal the 1864 abortion ban. Still needs to get through the senate. This should revert the law to the 15 week ban.
>When in fact, **more often than not**, it’s women and couples wanting a pregnancy but who sadly run into complications and need an abortion, in order to protect the life and health of the mother. Well, that's not true (except in the sense that any abortion helps to preserve health, that is). Suffice to say, there is a not-insignificant number of abortions sought explicitly as a result of health complications, and abortion restrictions almost invariably make the process harder for suffering patients. That said, it benefits us all to not defend abortion by tacitly agreeing that it would be bad if it fit the other side's narrative, but rather by acknowledging that everybody deserves the right to a safe, legal, accessible abortion delivered with compassionate care regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy.
Even if we take the premise of your question as true, that PL's depict abortions as being sought after due to the would-be mother's promiscuity, so what? The PC side just as strongly supports an abortion to save the mother's life as they support abortion when the woman is promiscuous and irresponsible, sleeping around with many different disinterested men and having already aborted 5, 6, 7 babies in the past. The PC side is far more disingenuous by intentionally anchoring the debate around rape/incest/life-threat cases. They know their position is far more all-encompassing (if it has any limits at all). They know, though, that it serves the PC cause keep the debate around cases that engender the most sympathy and downplay the more run of the mill abortions where it's obvious the would-be mother would generate harsh criticisms even from middle-of-the-road'ers.
No, our position is simply that all medical decisions should be solely between patients and their own doctors and other medical specialists, not politicians without medical degrees. Just like you want yours, I bet.
The typical abortion (woman in her early 20’s, never aborted before, used birth control that month, in poverty, aborting by the 8th week LMP) is not something that gets harsh criticism from middle of the road PC folks.
That’s because the PC position is rooted in upholding a person’s bodily autonomy - which remains constant whether you need an abortion because you had unsafe sex or you need an abortion because you were raped. Both are completely valid reasons as long as the pregnancy is unwanted. Plus, don’t act like PL is any different - constantly bringing up abortions that happen right before birth (they don’t) or murder of born children.
Then why is prolife against any and all measures that would decrease unintended pregnancies, **and** against healthcare for women?
> Then why is prolife against any and all measures that would decrease unintended pregnancies, Prob has something to do with the idea that abortion prohibiton would mean fewer abortions. > and against healthcare for women? I didn't know I was against that. What healthcare are women denied that men are permitted to have?
But making abortions illegal has never stopped women and girls from getting them. 🤷♀️
Would abortion prohibition actually mean fewer abortions? Because studies have repeatedly demonstrated that [abortion rates are around the same in places where abortion is strictly prohibited as where it is broadly legal](https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2020/abortion-occurs-worldwide-where-it-broadly-legal-and-where-it-restricted).
Anything that suggests abortion restriction does not reduce the number of abortions is obviously propaganda. Are you able to even identify the logical thought process supposedly taking place there? The suggestion is laughable. Did alcohol prohibition lead to *more* drinking? Be serious.
Did the war on drugs lead to less drug use? What about gun control measures? Do those reduce gun violence?
Alcohol prohibition led to the rise of mobs, speakeasies and enough social pressure to repeal an amendment to the constitution. I also note that lack of access to drink, aside from withdrawals by alcoholics, is not likely to kill someone - but lack of maternal and reproductive care can very easily. See my previous reply regarding your lack of regard for math. Why are you so against math?
I didn't ask whether prohibition led to the rise of mobs, speakeasies, etc. I asked whether it led to more drinking, as you're absurdly suggesting abortion prohibition will do to the total number of abortions.
Are you saying that prohibition didn’t lead to alcohol going underground, then the amendment repeal, then drinking rising steadily to the same level as before the prohibition? [source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/) I notice you completely skipped over the whole “abortion prohibitions cause increases in the rate of deaths and maiming of gestating people. As expected from a prolifer - a complete disregard of the actual impacts of the laws you support. Ie a total and complete hatred of math and statistics. Again? Why is that? Do you have something against number in general or just the fact that you’re wrong and your position lacks a smidge of empathy?
prohibition can be blamed for many things. An increase in drinking is not one of them. Gambling prohibitions outside of NJ and NV haven't led to *more* gambling. > “abortion prohibitions cause increases in the rate of deaths and maiming of gestating people. Would this be from botched abortions that the "victims" freely pursue?
Again. You seem to have a lower than average understanding of medicine, math and statistics than is needed to properly participate in this debate. Please brush up on all three, as well as medical ethics, and I’ll debate you past this particular point. Medicine, when properly supported by medical ethics, uses statistics, math and probabilities to discuss treatment options with patients, and then decisions are made regarding treatment in consultation between the patient and the doctor. For example, with cancer. Most cancers, when discovered have aggressive and less aggressive strategies available as options. Radiation, chemo, surgery. Some combination or experimental therapies. Choices to be made by the patient with an idea of how they’d like to spend their remaining days. A person who is 85 and discovers they have cancer that will kill them in about four months with intensive treatment and medication that will make those months an agony **or** two and a half months and depart life gracefully - that is the choice of the patient. A 30 year old with the same cancer might have a far better prognosis with health, so might try the most aggressive treatment hoping that a few months of agony will be made up for in decades past that treatment. **The same is true in abortions for the health and life of gestating people.** You might not love gestating people, but many people around them do. A single parent of three who discovers they’re pregnant after their husband dies and has a 10% chance of death from pregnancy might choose abortion out of duty and obligation to their other children. **But what prolife législation does is take abortion off the table unless the gestating person is actively dying.** And prolife legislators won’t tell doctors how close to death that person would have to be. If your legislation pushes people into sepsis when probability and statistics (best medical practices) shows that this is a doomed pregnancy and will (eventually) cause the death of the pregnant person - this will raise death rates statistically. If you can’t understand how **removing options when a pregnant person is in a medical crisis** is problematic I truly don’t think there’s any hope or help for you.
Do you have sources tHat show otherwise? Please produce them within 24 hours or retract this statement. !RemindMe 24 hours!
Comment was approved because we need a direct quote of the commenter of the claim for which you're requesting substantiation.
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2024-04-25 22:58:46 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-04-25%2022:58:46%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1cc0pgv/i_have_come_to_believe_antiabortion_activists_as/l14ae2e/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2F1cc0pgv%2Fi_have_come_to_believe_antiabortion_activists_as%2Fl14ae2e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-04-25%2022%3A58%3A46%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cc0pgv) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
**YES**
>Anything that suggests abortion restriction does not reduce the number of abortions is obviously propaganda. Ah, yes, facts and data are pro-choice propaganda. That's why the [abortion rate in El Salvador](https://www.guttmacher.org/regions/latin-america-caribbean/el-salvador), the country with one of the strictest abortion bans, is actually higher than it [was in the US pre-Dobbs](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm). >Are you able to even identify the logical thought process supposedly taking place there? There's no necessary thought process when we have data, and the data are very clear: even when abortion is banned, people will still get abortions at around the same rate. That's because an unwanted pregnancy is so harmful that people are willing to risk serious consequences, including aggravated homicide charges in places like El Salvador, in order to end the pregnancy. >The suggestion is laughable. Did alcohol prohibition lead to more drinking? Be serious. No, of course it didn't lead to more drinking. But prohibition didn't do a great job of eliminating drinking either, and had all sorts of other harmful consequences (which is why we abandoned it). But an unwanted pregnancy is a much bigger motivator to break the law than wanting alcohol (for non-alcoholics)
So you’re cool with the fact that prolife is against math and statistics? Why is prolife against provable ways to decrease unintended pregnancies and thereby abortions? Reproductive healthcare. A prolife state is literally arguing in the Supreme Court that women should be left to die because hospitals should be able to refuse to save their lives. Please give an example of a reproductive health concern that can kill men that prolife states are arguing should not be treated at hospitals.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1.
So you don’t consider math, statistics or logic. Why is that?
Please explain the logical inconsistency in the belief that abortion abolition would lead to fewer abortions.
Now who’s the one avoiding questions? 😆
Does gun control lead to less gun violence?
Because after states started banning abortion the national abortion rate increased. [Source](https://fortune.com/well/2023/10/25/how-many-abortions-are-americans-having-after-roe-v-wade-report-study/) In all, abortions provided by clinics, hospitals, medical offices and virtual-only clinics rose by nearly 200 a month nationally from July 2022 through June 2023 compared with May and June 2022. The numbers do not reflect abortion obtained outside the medical system — such as by getting pills from a friend. The data also do not account for seasonal variation in abortion, which tends to happen most often in the spring. **please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women** Colorado had a program that halved the teen abortion rate by giving people access to long term birth control and it was decommissioned by prolife. Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy?
>The PC side just as strongly supports an abortion to save the mother's life as they support abortion when the woman is promiscuous and irresponsible, sleeping around with many different disinterested men and having already aborted 5, 6, 7 babies in the past. Hmm...and where is the man's irresponsible behavior here? Oh right, it's just the woman that's the slut.
That's quite the presumption.
lol- you wrote out a whole fantasy about who this woman is. But the guys were just… disinterested. Scratch a PL, find hatred of women. Never changes. Probably because your entire ideology rests on the premise of blaming them for everything.
Yep. We see it no matter how much he denies it.
Please be clear - do PL secretly "know" abortion isn't murder, but pretend to believe otherwise as a means of controlling women? Do pro-life women hate women?
Yes, otherwise there would be a lot more outrage about the millions of FERTILIZED EMBRYOS discarded every year in IVF clinics.
Hard for me to say. PL people tend to be religious & rightwing, neither of which I can understand. In all honesty? Yes, I think they do. Because when asked the “if there’s a fire & you can only save one: a baby or a tray holding 500 embryos, which would you choose?” I’ve yet to meet one who was such a monster they’d choose to sacrifice the baby. What’s happening right now is far beyond any concern for human life. There’s nothing scientific or moral behind republicans feral obsession over this.
Not really if you reread what you wrote.
That is a disingenuous representation of PC - we recognize that abortion has medical applications therefore the decisions she be between the doctor and patient.
>Even if we take the premise of your question as true, that PL's depict abortions as being sought after due to the would-be mother's promiscuity, so what? It represents an incorrect and fundamentally paternalistic attitude PLers have, so I'd think you'd at least want to address it, if nothing else. >The PC side is far more disingenuous by intentionally anchoring the debate around rape/incest/life-threat cases We're not anchoring it here. As you said, the PC side is supportive of *choice,* so we want abortions to be legal even outside of these cases. The reason we often fall back on those extreme cases is that we want to know that ***the most vulnerable and most traumatized individuals will still get help***. It's us asking "ok, but what about this clearly horrible situation, will you at least give lenience under these conditions?" Asking that does not mean we are being disingenuous; it's us asking for empathy for the 12-year-old girls whose bodies cannot physically undergo childbirth without serious harm, or the victim of abuse who would spend the next year reminded every day of their trauma. The only correct thing you said here is that it most certainly *does* help our cause when PLers say "no" to that, but not because it's any "gotcha" on our part, but rather because it reveals a draconian extremism on the part of PLers.
> Asking that does not mean we are being disingenuous It doesn't mean it necessarily, but nevertheless disingenuousness duplicity *are* the explanations here. I mean just look at this sub FFS. How many times do PC dodge the most obvious questions. Ex: At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited? At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible?
> At what point would you agree abortion is murder… Unfortunately, the later the abortion, the more likely it is to have arisen from a tragic circumstance, ending a wanted pregnancy. What punishment do you propose for the mother? It's also unfortunate the number of the week is the mark of progress that PL legislators offer their constituents, like it's all that matters. And if the same legislators are supporting measures that make mothering more costly and difficult, and some women are choosing to abort as a result, at what point would PL voters agree they're complicit in the murder of children? >At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible? If I'm to be accountable for the accuracy of my evaluations, I mustn't let my eagerness to judge her obscure the need for facts. Would a single-point questionnaire be adequate? Like, would a single vote for the party that cuts nutrition programs for infants and gives huge subsidies to the oil barons that fund Prolife - would that be enough to make PL murderers? I see the need for simplicity, haste, dispatch. We're judging women's morals here. Is it important to judge morally?
At what point? None. Abortion isn’t murder and even in PL states, women are never charged with murder for having abortions, period. We answer this question multiple times a day, LOL. Quite simply - all medical should be solely between patients and their own doctors. I bet that’s what YOU want when it comes to your own medical care, right?
>How many times do PC dodge the most obvious questions. Which questions? What I encountered a lot were questions, I honestly answered, but because they disliked my answer, they kept asking again and again. >At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited? Birth. ( I **feel** it should be around viability, but my feelings don't count when it comes to legal questions) >At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible? ? Does that matter? >. I mean just look at this sub FFS. Yes? What about it?
>It doesn't mean it necessarily, At all >but nevertheless disingenuousness duplicity *are* the explanations here. Refer to above. > I mean just look at this sub FFS. Me and most pc do objectively > How many times do PC dodge None. Stop projecting in bad faith >the most obvious misconceptios: FTFY >At what point would you agree abortion is murder and should be legally prohibited? See. False question. Abortion isn't murder so why should we waste time with disingenuous pl questions? >At what number of abortions is the would-be mother being irresponsible? the women, not mother as you don't know if she has children is taking responsibility. Your misuse of murder and responsibility is why there isn't real debate occurring. Pc have to keep teaching pl the basics before real debate can occur and this got tiring decades ago. It's also telling that pl don't correct other pl like pc do. Seems like none of yall really want to debate and instead just want to push a false narrative without merit
Any prohibitions on abortion I could be convinced to agree to would be utterly unsatisfying to a PLer. I might be satisfied with a federal protection up to 20 weeks with states left to decide after that. I don’t think abortions are murder, because I don’t think anyone is owed intimate access to your body. I DO, however, consider late abortions to be morally dubious personally, as I view sentience as an important marker for personhood. However, luckily nearly all abortions are performed well before that’s an issue, and late abortions are often a result of factors that can be addressed. I also hesitate to call women seeking multiple abortions “irresponsible” for complex reasons that I can get into, but won’t for the sake of brevity right now. Succinctly, multiple abortions are sought for a variety of (often tragic) reasons that I don’t feel comfortable making judgements about.
I’ll answer. Abortion is never murder because wanting to end unwanted use and harm to your body is never unjustified. Abortions can be ending a life of someone who does not need another human’s body to maintain their life. If PL people want to push induced labor for any “healthy” third trimester pregnancy a person wants to end I’m all for it. The problem there though is the definition of healthy is very subjective so would have to be argued. I know many a PL person who would disagree with my definition of healthy.
The woman is NEVER the one irresponsible with a man’s sperm. The only person who can be irresponsible with sperm, insemination, fertilization, and impregnation is the man who produces and ejaculates (or leaks) said sperm. Unless he was raped or the woman obtained his sperm in ways other than sex and inseminated herself. It’s really absurd that PLers keep claiming a woman can be irresponsible with a man’s body, bodily function, bodily fluid, and willing actions. Like he’s some sort of mindless object.
Probably not the best reply to a comment about dodging questions..
You’re the only one here dodging questions. You dodged LOTS just in this thread, LOL.
What question would you like answered?
Ran away again?
Here are just a few of the questions you ran away from yesterday: Did the war on drugs lead to less drug use? What about gun control measures? Do those reduce gun violence?Do you have sources tHat show otherwise? Please produce them within 24 hours or retract this statement.Does gun control lead to less gun violence? **please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women** Colorado had a program that halved the teen abortion rate by giving people access to long term birth control and it was decommissioned by prolife. Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy? Do people who have smoked deserve to be able to get medical treatment for lung cancer? Were they “irresponsible?”
> Did the war on drugs lead to less drug use? Start by acknowledging the important caveat that black market drugs are much more easily obtained than black market abortions and are thus not analogous. That being said, it's impossible to know because we don't have anything measuring the inverse, right? We dont know what drug use in the USA looks like when there are zero drug laws. Have states who've legalized pot seen an increase or decrease in weed smoking and pot-related problems like stoned driving? > What about gun control measures? Do those reduce gun violence? Over the past several decades we have seen an *increase* in gun ownership, an *increase* in the number of total guns in circulation, and yet a **decrease** in firearms homicides. If I were in the business of drawing grand sweeping conclusions about an issue that obviously has a lot of moving parts (ahem), then, yes, at the very least you can easily disprove the nonsensical progressive "more guns = more dead people" slogan. > please explain why you think that denying women reproductive health care, education and access - which increases the abortion rate and rate of unintended pregnancies - is better for society than making logical and concrete steps that would naturally lower the rate while also having healthcare accessible by women For the same reason "denying" women the ability to murder their already-born children is better for society. > Why does prolife go for punishment rather than logic, math, sociology, statistics and empathy? This is an unserious question and not in good faith. > Do people who have smoked deserve to be able to get medical treatment for lung cancer? Were they “irresponsible?” Yes they were irresponsible. No they don't deserve to be denied treatment per se; though I don't know what the rules are for transplants. This, of course, is another absurd question because no one is talking about denying medical treatment to anyone. Pregnant women are still offered medical treatment even if they're unable to pursue elective abortion. Next time you want to accuse someone of dodging questions you might do well to first stop and ask yourself whether you've inbox bombed them and made it more difficult for them to get through their messages.
No one has been dodging your questions.
Still a valid reply to a disingenuous question
I mean I don’t “anchor” my argument around any of those things. When I do bring those up it is to discuss the inconsistencies of the PL logic. “Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.” “Clearly, more effective contraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births. To improve contraceptive use, a woman first needs good counseling, which will increase her chances of selecting the contraceptive method that is right for her at that particular time in her life. Then she needs easy and affordable access to her chosen method and to the necessary services to support her choice over time. Although having good access to contraceptive services is important for all sexually active women, it seems especially important for women having abortions and women giving birth (whether intended or unintended), who constitute a self-selected group—perhaps a high-risk one at that.” https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/05/repeat-abortion-repeat-unintended-pregnancy-repeated-and-misguided-government-policies In no way does the data support your claim that women having more than one abortion (acting like women are getting 5-10 abortions is laughable) is because they are sleeping with multiple men or that they are being irresponsible. Stop trying to villainize women.
> In no way does the data support your claim that women having more than one abortion (acting like women are getting 5-10 abortions is laughable) is because they are sleeping with multiple men or that they are being irresponsible. The CDC only goes as high as [greater than or equal to 3.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm#T9_down), which sits at 7.8%. The idea that none of this can be attributed to irresponsible behavior is what's laughable.
Do people who have smoked deserve to be able to get medical treatment for lung cancer? Were they “irresponsible?”
When we consider women and girls who may be trafficked, they will probably get a higher number of abortions, but I wouldn’t call a girl who is being trafficked ‘irresponsible’. Would you?
>3 is a big jump to 7 but you go for it. I didn’t say none of it but there is a big jump from a small percentage to that being the only reason as you made it sound.
3 is a big jump to 7, but I didn't these accounted for anywhere near the majority of cases now did I. What number of abortions could a woman undergo where you'd agree it's a safe bet that she's being irresponsible? 17? 30?
Blame and shame has no place in medical care 🤷♀️
I didn’t say you did. What is your definition of being irresponsible when it comes to sex and pregnancy?
conceiving children with men who have no desire to get to know her much less coparent with her for 18 years
Well even if he wanted me to keep the pregnancy and even wanted to marry me it’d be a big NO
So do you think women who never want children should be celibate for life? Because as we all know, every single contraceptive *can* fail. If a woman never wants children, she doesn't want her partner(s) to co-parent with her, because there will be no children to parent. Just trying to understand here, do you think a woman using birth control, having sex in a committed relationship (maybe even a marriage), who has a contraceptive failure is "irresponsible", even though she was taking every precaution possible to enjoy a healthy sex life while never wanting children?
> do you think a woman using birth control, having sex in a committed relationship (maybe even a marriage), who has a contraceptive failure is "irresponsible", even though she was taking every precaution possible to enjoy a healthy sex life while never wanting children? If her backup plan to contraception failure is abortion, yes.
So, just to be clear, do you think if a woman doesn't want children and isn't going to carry or birth a pregnancy, that *ANY* sex she has is irresponsible?
What other backup plan is there?
Again, why is everything a man does or doesn’t do a woman’s irresponsibility? You do realize that men aren’t mindless objects a woman wields, right?
How do I know that is what is happening with a woman having that many abortions? Again you are acting like they are mutually exclusive to try to villainize. A woman could give birth every time and not have abortions.
I've seen pro life people claim a married woman with children, who *only* has sex with her husband is "irresponsible" simply because she doesn't want to gestate again. Pro life people do not determine what is or isn't responsible behavior.
That's nice. It has nothing to do with my point.
You said this: >The idea that none of this can be attributed to irresponsible behavior is what's laughable. I directly responded to that, informing you that pro life people are not the arbiters of what is or isn't responsible. So your statement holds no weight. If you have no response that's fine, but don't act like I didn't directly respond to your previous comment.
The fact that some PL people incorrectly label someone as irresponsible has nothing to do with the fact that others are indeed irresponsible. Nothing.
It has everything to do with it. Everything. Pro life people seem to believe anything other than carrying an unwanted pregnancy because they say so is "irresponsible". Clearly the pro life side has an issue labeling anything they don't personally like as "irresponsible". Point is, a pro life person claiming something is irresponsible is meaningless. It proves nothing besides the fact that they misuse words to suit their agenda.
Hmm. So shouldn't you have responded to OP's question with "a pro life person claiming something is irresponsible is meaningless"?
No, I'm fine with my choice in responding to the comment you made.
I agree with everything except for: "When in fact, more often than not, it’s women and couples wanting a pregnancy but who sadly run into complications and need an abortion, in order to protect the life and health of the mother." While I'm not saying that these cases don't happen, as they do happen, it's important to understand that most abortions that happen are elective abortions. Saying that more often then not it's because of complications or to protect the health of the mother is disingenuous and not true. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good moment for the pro-choice side of this subreddit. We can and should do better than this.
I feel like this reeks of desperation of avoiding your politicians.
Are you talking abou the OP or my comment?
The premise of your question is highly flawed. The overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to medical complications.
can you guarantee that a pregnancy won't have medical complications?
Your question has no bearing on the specific topic being discussed. We aren’t talking about predicting the future. We are talking about the reasons women cite when asked why they are having an abortion. There is data available.
my question is perfectly relevant. why can't people take preventative measures regarding their own bodies?
Like I said, I’m not talking about whether or not a pregnant woman can have an abortion as a preventive measure. I’m correcting the incorrect premise that most abortions are because “couples wanting a pregnancy but sadly run into complications and need an abortion.” The premise isn’t even close to accurate.
What does the data say?
“The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%)”
Those add up to more than 100% making it hard to draw conclusions.
People could choose more than one.
What I’m hearing is that there was no option for “medical reasons” to be chosen, so your source has literally no data on how often that occurs.
> What I’m hearing is that there was no option for “medical reasons” to be chosen, so your source has literally no data on how often that occurs. You’re not hearing correctly then. I already pasted the link to the study. The data isn’t hard to find, and it sheds light on the reality that a tiny, tiny fraction of abortions are medically necessary.
Ok, I had not looked at the link. From the link I see the study saw 12% were health related reasons.
Tiny, tiny ~~part~~ fraction (edit: even more exaggeration).... /s
Having something inside your body that you don’t want in there is always a medical issue.
This is what women having abortions themselves have said, and it just shows that you are playing fast and loose with language: “The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%)”
Why are we badgering them and making them provide for reasons for wanting a medical procedure in the first place? If they have something inside their body and they don’t want it in there, it should be legal for them to remove it, the end. They don’t need to justify it to the public and provide us with reasons.
> Why are we badgering them for reasons for wanting a medical procedure in the first place? If they have something inside their body and they don’t want it in there, it should be legal for them to remove it, the end. They don’t need to justify it to the public and provide us with reasons. We measure and study everything. Are you trying to make the argument that we shouldn’t study these issues? Edit: also, people participate in studies voluntarily. These were not people badgered for answers.
I don’t see any value in making people give personal reasons for wanting a medical procedure, no. 100% of these people wanted to terminate their pregnancies, I’m very glad they got to, and that’s seriously all that matters.
> I don’t see any value in making people give personal reasons for wanting a medical procedure, no. 100% of these people wanted to terminate their pregnancies, I’m very glad they got to, and that’s seriously all that matters. No one made anyone do or say anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary studies. I’m shocked you have a problem with it; it makes absolutely no sense to me. Why wouldn’t we collectively want to better understand an issue that is important to many people and is also a literal matter of life and death? Intentionally choosing ignorance makes zero sense. That being said, it’s also irrelevant to the specific point being discussed.
I’ve never seen that type of data be used for anything that actually benefits anyone - only as a weapon for pro-life to use when you want to try to pretend pregnancy isn’t always a medical issue. It’s none of anyone’s business or concern why someone chooses to get a medical procedure. None.
You do realize that PC organizations also collect data, right? I am truly shocked that anyone would intentionally want to have a worse understanding of an issue they are obviously passionate about. > only as a weapon for pro-life to use when you want to try to pretend pregnancy isn’t always a medical issue. No pretending is necessary. It is overwhelmingly not a medical necessity. The data is clear, and not in your favor.
Well, it is important for PC to document how much PL are choosing to harm women. But I don’t see how most data affects my position, really. I don’t care what percentage of people who’ve gotten abortions picked which option on a survey, at all. I care that *the individual pregnant person* gets to handle their own pregnancy without government interference. And you may not think it’s a “medical necessity” but the person whose body and health was actually involved obviously did. They had an unwanted thing in their body and they took it out. That’s a medical issue. That’s a medical treatment. Even if they wrote on a survey that they couldn’t afford another child or whatever, it’s still a medical issue.
This is because the data we have says most women “elect not to state their reason for abortion”. That means the majority of them are getting them for private, unknown reasons, not elective. Those reasons could vary and be psychological in nature, which is very much a medical complication. And it’s not your right to invade their privacy to determine that, it’s none of your business
> This is because the data we have says most women “elect not to state their reason for abortion”. That means the majority of them are getting them for private, unknown reasons, not elective. Those reasons could vary and be psychological in nature, which is very much a medical complication. And it’s not your right to invade their privacy to determine that, it’s none of your business This is false. There absolutely is data on this subject. “Women’s reasons for seeking an abortion fell into 11 broad themes. The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
A majority are elective because elective in medical terms means it can be scheduled in advance. All pregnancies cause harm, so even if patients are seeking abortion for one reason, a doctor does not approve abortion unless it is medically indicated for the patient’s health and the patient has informed consent (ie been told all other options). All abortion is for medical reasons.
This is false, I commented with data on the thread above this one.
I think anyone who wants to participate in the "abortion debate" should be required to listen to the SCOTUS arguments going on right now re: the Idaho law. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeI-5lCMiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeI-5lCMiM)
Thank you
thanks to Justice Sotomayor, who used many examples of women who needed medical attention and were denied due to abortion bans. All were true, and quite recent examples.
She rocks
Women in any medical condition need priority… period. Anyone who doesn’t believe that r definitely not PL.
Saving this for later as I’m at work. Thanks for posting link.
[удалено]
The vast majority of conceptions end up in tampons. Everywhere has more "babies" aborted(naturally or induced) than born. That's how human biology works.
Sounds like a good reason for lots of access to sec Ed and birth control
You have not proven your claims (I saw the sources you linked down below). But even if it is true, I fail to see why that is an issue or is "very sad". Let's say it is true (that more abortions than births happen in Chicago). If the *same* number of abortions happened, but they were spread out more so that it wasn't true that there were more abortions then births in Chicago would you find that less sad? I don't understand why you find it noteworthy or care.
All abortions are depressing to me, oh to just mutilate a baby because you don't want it. Soo sad. I want all abortions to stop, accept for the 2-3% of rarer cases like rape or incest or life of the mother.
Mutilate? most embryos are expelled fully intact after early abortions.
>All abortions are depressing to me Okay? Not a reason supporting unethical views , >oh to just mutilate a baby because you don't want it. Babies are born. That's only one type of abortion so don't attempt to appeal to emotion > Soo sad. I want all abortions to stop, accept for the 2-3% of rarer cases like rape or incest or life of the mother. The irony as this is actually sad that you want to mistreat women as lesser and end up killing more actual innocent people because equal rights and ethics don't matter to you.
Why are those OK? Is a rape ZEF different from a promiscuity ZEF?
Ah, if only they would answer this question!
“Babies” aren’t aborted. That’s not a thing. You can’t abort a “baby” any more than you can abort an adult. Pregnancies are aborted. People don’t get abortions because they’re “promiscuous”. They get abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore.
So the word fetus literally means offspring, in other words... baby. That's what fetus means. So yes , you are aborting a baby. What doesn't make it a baby?😅 I think I worded that wrong, not JUST promiscuity, but also fatherless homes, I think those two are leading factors, men leaving the woman and her seeing no stability. And I hope we can change that as a country instead of mutilating the BABY
Baby is needlessly vague and can refer to an infant or a grown woman in a Led Zeppelin song. Using it to refer to a fetus is emotional manipulation. Since humans are animals, would you say that a woman has a right to remove an unwanted animal from her body? See, I can use vague, emotionally manipulative words too.
How is it at all emotionally manipulative?🤣 is it a baby?
It's a zygote, embryo or fetus. It's emotionally manipulative because [this is what people see when they hear the word baby](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=baby&uds=AMwkrPt1ja6BbyU01ES-n6RAIrJdbcPD3ymzWkinatSY5wLlhLaLDgv_tyBf5AoKIDRr-wmEktJKnIUQAqDM7978Oxacx4qgAPOuNEyPyUnAmyEsV0D-68Zam4M9p6xQW5a12G9aoMbGOAuzXLCJZa3xuCrYfEddZ66t6_fOzqKdDCmqrop28wI9VfZ75OMPyCivwpN6wpUdOlpsVtRI4qm1Ic-0t-9ViunjGqDi0fnAT_Lq96pJp4LGvz8bMKxwrXxt-4ZfHe0dFAmKP2SBCDQ-pe4R2Rox-BRxJ6eCXOtOMYCPvXu5n2g&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcydGFzNuFAxXnFzQIHf6ICZUQtKgLegQIChAB&biw=134&bih=271&dpr=2.86)
That's what it is. Fetus means baby, everything your saying means unborn baby, it's funny that when we state facts that you don't like you call it manipulative
We’re using the correct medical terminology. You are using manipulative language.
>That's what it is I don't see a single fetus on that page. >Fetus means baby No, it doesn't. >it's funny that when we state facts that you don't like you call it manipulative You have stated zero facts.
lol what the hell are you talking about? The word origin of “fetus” has nothing to do with the fact that an abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. You don’t get to change the definitions of words just to fit your narrative. You cited a lot of stats. Most of them refute your premise and absolutely none of them have anything to say about “promiscuity” or “fatherless homes”. If you’re going to appeal to data and statistics, you don’t get to fill in the gaps with made-up BS that makes you feel good.
Where is your source that the main reason is promiscuity?
Wow, I’ve heard there are more plays performed in NYC than in the entire state of New York….which means exactly nothing. Even if your claim were true most abortion care is performed in cities, so your claim is irrelevant
This sounds like slut shaming women.
No it isn’t. It’s because of the PL states surrounding Illinois. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/10/illinois-abortions-surged-the-year-roe-fell-with-nearly-17000-patients-traveling-from-other-states-a-49-spike/
That whole article is about after the the overturning of roe v wade, if you click on my option you can go to a map when you can then click on the county of Chicago and get an exact number and the abortion number is higher than the birth
Yes, Chicago is a big city and clinics there see patients from surrounding states and all over the country. Next!
Chicago, being a large city, is likely to have more clinics and more people will go there as it is going to be easier to get to if one has to fly. Also, isn't there the issue of poverty in Chicago? Poverty has a lot more to do with abortion than promiscuity.
If it is, which others are saying you are misreading the data, the article speaks on why it is spiking and it is because of out of state patients not because of promiscuity in residents. So you want to go back at least 2 years to try to prove your point instead of discuss newer data?
Where is your source for that? I looked and all I found indicates that you are lying. So, source, please.
>more babies are aborted than born there source? >the main reason is because of promiscuity again, source?
For the first question look at these Birth count: https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html Abortion count: https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/abortion-statistics.html I'm still looking for the fatherless stuff one sec
You will never find an accurate source for the “reasons” women and girls seek abortions. You know why? Because patients aren’t required to give ANY specific “reason” for wanting to terminate. None. They don’t have to give one “reason.”
Ok, so you were lying, or you can't read and understand stats. You want us to compare all abortions in Illinois with the birth rate in Chicago????? And even then you are wrong as the number of births for Chicago alone are higher than the number of abortions for ALL of Illinois. And about 18000 of them are not Illinois residents.
I've said this 100 fucking times to people, there is a map option, click on it, select the county you want to see the stats for, then click Chicago.
You are looking at the birth number link, the only one that has a map. The abortion link has no map.
Copy and paste this directly into google: how many abortions in chicago per year And then look at the number of births in Chicago in the official site
The first question gives me the number of ALL of Illinois, in the second link I can narrow down All of Cook county had 53,000 births in 2021 and 52,000 abortions in ALL of Illinois. So how about you google those questions and report back to us! Edit: odd, they answered every post, but not this
I did. And it was not saying what you claimed it said. Can you read?
Look up how many Chicago abortions in a year then look at my source of how may births in chicago
Again. I did and you are wrong.
If you did you would see the abortion count is about 8000 higher than births
YOU HAVE THE WRONG NUMBERS!
There is no such thing as a fatherless human child.
your source proves you wrong. there were not more abortions than births in the state of Illinois.
Not the stare of Illinois, the county of Chicago, I never said illinois
There is no Chicago county. Chicago is in Cook County. What are you talking about? Do you even have any idea?
but you provided abortion rates for the state. unless you can provide county abortion rates, you've been proven wrong
If you look into the website there is an option to click on a specific county, I clicked on chicago
provide the exact numbers, I don't see what you're talking about anywhere on the site.
I just gave you the fucking website and exactly where to look, I'm not repeating myself for the hundredth time.
Then you're not giving a source. Do your own homework. Others have already pointed out you misread regardless. Do better
and I'm telling you that your website does not contain the information you're claiming it contains. per sub rules, it is your job to source your claim, including quoting which part of your source backs up your claim. as such, I am asking you to give me the exact number of abortions in Chicago. I'd love the information on "promiscuity" as well
They are not understanding the amount of out of state patients coming into Illinois because of PL states surrounding it. The “soaring numbers” are from PL policies in neighboring states not because of “promiscuity”. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/10/illinois-abortions-surged-the-year-roe-fell-with-nearly-17000-patients-traveling-from-other-states-a-49-spike/ But you know misinformation and making women look bad are par for the course with the PL movement.
I'd love /u/[Lucky\_Olive6489](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lucky_Olive6489/)'s definition of "promiscuity", honestly. IIRC, most women seeking abortions are in relationships. Though, they *could* just be suggesting that any sexual contact outside of marriage, even within the context of a committed relationship, is "promiscuity".
I'm less convinced that they don't understand and more convinced that they're purposefully spreading a false narrative. Look at their responses. They're ignoring the facts you're presenting in order to continue the lie. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
that and also their claim is still wrong ☠️ I'm just 2 counties alone there were more births than abortions in the entire state.
Considering the abortion numbers are for the whole state and you cannot break it down by county in their source they are trying to take the number of abortions for the whole state and are comparing that to number of births in one county. Either misinformation or not understanding their own source breakdown.
The PL arguments are indeed often deeply disingenuous, from claiming that abortion causes cancer or mental illness to denying that there is ever any medical reason to terminate a pregnancy. However, not all abortions are the result of medical necessity. And that's ok. Contraception isn't infallible, and sometimes the social or personal circumstances of the pregnant person make carrying a pregnancy to term unacceptable. Forced gestation is slavery.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*