pro-lifers kill women

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
when you reduce access to abortions, women die. when you increase access to abortions, *and* access to contraception, abortion rates plummet.



Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.

It did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate over the last decade.

But unsafe abortions, primarily illegal, have remained almost static.

The survey of 197 countries carried out by the Guttmacher Institute - a pro-choice reproductive think tank - found there were 41.6m abortions in 2003, compared with 45.5 in 1995 - a drop which occurred despite population increases.

Nineteen countries had liberalised their abortion laws over the 10 years studied, compared with tighter restrictions in just three.

But despite the general trend towards liberalisation, some 40% of the world's women live amid tight restrictions.


On some continents this is particularly pronounced: well over 90% of women in South America and Africa live in areas with strict abortion laws, proportions which have barely shifted in a decade.

Researchers also noted that while liberalisation was a key element in improving women's access to safer terminations, it was far from the only factor.

Even in countries where abortion is legal, lack of availability and cost may prove major obstacles. In India for example, where terminations are legally allowed for a variety of reasons, some 6m take place outside the health service.

The costs of unsafe abortions, which can include inserting pouches containing arsenic to back street surgery, can be high: the healthcare bill to deal with conditions from sepsis to organ failure can be four times what it costs to provide family planning services.

Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions - leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without a mother - and 5m develop complications.

In the developed world, legal restrictions did not stop abortion but just meant it was "exported", with Irish women for instance simply travelling to other parts of Europe, according to Guttmacher's director, Dr Sharon Camp. In the developing world, it meant lives were put at risk.

"Too many women are maimed or killed each year because they lack legal abortion access," she said.

"The gains we've seen are modest in relation to what we can achieve. Investing in family planning is essential - far too many women lack access to contraception, putting them at risk."

Double Dutch

Western Europe is held up as an example of what access to contraceptive services can achieve, and the Netherlands - with just 10 abortions per 1,000 women compared to the world's 29 per 1,000 - is held up as the gold standard.

Here, young people report using two forms of contraception as standard.


Even the UK, which has a relatively high rate, fares well in comparison to the US, where the number of abortions is among the highest in the developed world. The institute says this rate is in part explained by inconsistencies in insurance coverage of contraceptive supplies.

In much of eastern Europe, where abortion was treated as a form of birth control, abortion rates have dropped by 50% in the past decade as contraceptives have become more widely available.


And globally, the number of married women of childbearing age with access to contraception has increased from 54% in 1990 to 63% in 2003, with gains also seen among single, sexually active women.

But there were still significant unmet contraception needs, and a lack of interest among pharmaceutical companies in developing new forms of birth control that provide top protection on demand, the institute said.

Josephine Quintavalle of the anti-abortion Comment on Reproductive Ethics said stopping women falling pregnant in the first place was an area where minds could meet.

"Abortion - back street or front street - is not the answer. Ensuring women have the means to end their pregnancies is not liberating them - they should be able to make real choices before they fall pregnant in the first place," she said.

"But that shouldn't necessarily mean taking pills every day. There will always be problems with access and cost, particularly in countries where people struggle just to buy food.

"What we need is to better understand our fertility - if there are just 24 fertile hours in a month, we need to work out a cheap, effective way for women to know when they can fall pregnant. That would be freedom, and that's what we should aim for."



the data is clear. being pro-choice is actually being pro-life. it saves lives.
 
I agree, Irvine, but I really don't think the anti-choice factions will ever be convinced by or even consider this data. It's much easier to be condescending & judgemental of the strumpets that get themselves pregnant than to consider that (although not a popular decision) the death of a fetus is better than bringing another unwanted child into the world. :sad:




(So there is no miscommunication in my comments, please read: "....the strumpets that get themselves pregnant..." with the highest amount of sarcasm allowed by law.)
 
the death of a fetus is better than bringing another unwanted child into the world.

It's funny how people who think this way are already born. Do you know how many people would be offended by that, people who weren't exactly wanted when they were born? :|


It's much easier to be condescending & judgemental of the strumpets that get themselves pregnant

That is the most inaccuarate generalization about pro-lifers/anti-choice I have ever heard.
 
It's funny how people who think this way are already born. :|
Well, I'd ask those who aren't born yet except I don't think anyone's developed a way to do so. :slant:

That is the most inaccuarate generalization about pro-lifers/anti-choice I have ever heard.
It was intended it to be a gross generalization - hence the sarcasm disclaimer.
 
It's too bad that this thread got off to this kind of start (with the title even) given that the article has very useful information to perhaps begin a real and constructive dialogue.

The_Pac_Mule, what was your reaction to the article itself?
 
I think some of the findings were biased that didnt take into account other things, but some of the other points were good and I agreed with, such as a need for a better understanding on when and how you can get pregnant, and how to prevent it in the first place. :)


On a totally unrelated note, it finally dawned on me that my stupid nickname I had when I was 8 years old also translates into a really stupid username :lol:
 
It is queer how people that are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty, and vice versa...and people that believe in banning cigarette smoking are for legalizing the smoking of Marijuana...vice versa. The list of inconsistencies goes on.

The truth is people only support their own self interests, which people loathe to admit; due to the fact they have been taught from childhood to be ashamed of self interest. I believe “self interest” is the noblest of causes to fight for. It is the root of all mans God given freedoms.
 
It is queer how people that are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty, and vice versa...and people that believe in banning cigarette smoking are for legalizing the smoking of Marijuana...vice versa. The list of inconsistencies goes on.

The truth is people only support their own self interests, which people loathe to admit; due to the fact they have been taught from childhood to be ashamed of self interest. I believe “self interest” is the noblest of causes to fight for. It is the root of all mans God given freedoms.

That is utter nonsense. I am pro-abortion because a) the fetus isn't a human until it is born, has no conscience, conciousness, awareness or cognition. b) It is better for the fetus to not be born or develop into a human if it cannot be properly cared for. The death penalty is different, because there is no way anyone can really be sure that a crime fitting of the death penalty has been committed. people admit to crimes to take the fall for others, or courts get decisions wrong, so how can the state murder a person with no certainty. Neither of these suit my own interests because I have no experience or contact with the ramifications of either. I am anti-cigarettes, but I am also anti marijuana, so you are making some fairly sweeping generalisations there
 
That is utter nonsense. I am pro-abortion because a) the fetus isn't a human until it is born, has no conscience, conciousness, awareness or cognition. b) It is better for the fetus to not be born or develop into a human if it cannot be properly cared for. The death penalty is different, because there is no way anyone can really be sure that a crime fitting of the death penalty has been committed. people admit to crimes to take the fall for others, or courts get decisions wrong, so how can the state murder a person with no certainty. Neither of these suit my own interests because I have no experience or contact with the ramifications of either. I am anti-cigarettes, but I am also anti marijuana, so you are making some fairly sweeping generalisations there

You would change your mind in a heartbeat, if you witnessed an abortion, in which the fetus's heart slowly stops as it gasps for breath.
 
Again, how about we stick to the premise that widely accessible contraception, fertility education and abortions REDUCES abortions and related deaths...
 
You would change your mind in a heartbeat, if you witnessed an abortion, in which the fetus's heart slowly stops as it gasps for breath.

No I wouldn't. Don't you tell me how I would think. It wouldn't feel a thing. I would rather have it end before it could feel pain, or cognate what was happening, then it live a life of trauma, mistreatment, possible abuse, whatever it may be subjected to as an unwanted child. Most of the time that situation isn't the parents choice, and it is especially relevant now given that so many couples can't even afford to properly care for and raise a child. Speaking of your generalisations about what others think, isnt it funny how th pro-lifers are always anti-contraception. Put her on the pill, or slap a johnny on him and there is no real arguement.

Would you change your mind in a heartbeat if you had watched a woman die giving birth to a child they can't care for or was an unwanted pregnancy? How about the life of the husband after?
 
and people that believe in banning cigarette smoking are for legalizing the smoking of Marijuana...vice versa. The list of inconsistencies goes on.
Interesting, I've never this person.



The truth is people only support their own self interests, which people loathe to admit; due to the fact they have been taught from childhood to be ashamed of self interest. I believe “self interest” is the noblest of causes to fight for. It is the root of all mans God given freedoms.
I believe this to be true for many. Mostly Republicans, be definition it's mostly self interst. And I'm sure many Dems too...

But I also know A LOT of people where this is complete bullshit.
 
a women would not have bled to death if the baby had been born.

Oh come on!!! This is rubbish! a) If she had fair access to abortions she could have had it done safely and not died. b) If she carried it to term, she may still have died giving birth which would be the ultimately trgedy she dies, and the baby has to live without its mother
 
It is queer how people that are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty, and vice versa...and people that believe in banning cigarette smoking are for legalizing the smoking of Marijuana...vice versa. The list of inconsistencies goes on.

The truth is people only support their own self interests, which people loathe to admit; due to the fact they have been taught from childhood to be ashamed of self interest. I believe “self interest” is the noblest of causes to fight for. It is the root of all mans God given freedoms.

Can I ask: Judging by your name, you are someone who believe in people's access to firearms? Well, your statement above would be the ultimate hypocrisy. You are ok with dangerous people having ready access to firearms and committing mass murder like all f the school shootings, or killing people like my avatar, Mr Lennon, yet aborting an undeveloped, and pre-human fetus is a problem for you?

Sort out your own back yard before you start tlling others how to keep theirs
 
Oh come on!!! This is rubbish! a) If she had fair access to abortions she could have had it done safely and not died. b) If she carried it to term, she may still have died giving birth which would be the ultimately trgedy she dies, and the baby has to live without its mother

you are against the ropes, and you resort to a limited case in which the life of a woman hangs in the balance. I thought this was an argument for the case of convenience?
 
you are against the ropes, and you resort to a limited case in which the life of a woman hangs in the balance. I thought this was an argument for the case of convenience?

hahaha, against the ropes! You are nothing if not funny.

I am relating your inane comments back to the topic at hand. I am trying to keep you on topic, because we are talking about mortalities giving birth, contraception and the negligible effect of placing restrictions on abortions, not whether you want to pontificate about seeing aborted fetuses.
 
Can I ask: Judging by your name, you are someone who believe in people's access to firearms? Well, your statement above would be the ultimate hypocrisy. You are ok with dangerous people having ready access to firearms and committing mass murder like all f the school shootings, or killing people like my avatar, Mr Lennon, yet aborting an undeveloped, and pre-human fetus is a problem for you?

Sort out your own back yard before you start tlling others how to keep theirs

If you cannot fight for your own self interests, then what good are you fighting for anyone else?

Yes, I believe in the right to bare arms. How do you think America became the most orderly civilization in history?


I gotta go now. I was nice debating with you.

I am quite aware of who John Lennon is. I only saw the Beatles movie "HELP" at the movie theater, when it was first released, as a kid.
 
If you cannot fight for your own self interests, then what good are you fighting for anyone else?

Yes, I believe in the right to bare arms. How do you think America became the most orderly civilization in history?


I gotta go now. I was nice debating with you.

I am quite aware of who John Lennon is. I only saw the Beatles movie "HELP" at the movie theater, when it was first released, as a kid.

I think claiming America is the most orderly civilisation in history simply because of firearms is a HUGE stretch. Imagine if they hadn't been killing each other how orderly it'd be! Doesn't your constitution state that people have the right to bare arms when forming an urban militia, rather than to take into schools and murder students? Didn't you watch Bullet the Blue Sky on the Boston DVD? Guns are the single dumbest thing in the world. You wouldn't need them to protect yourself if others didnt have them either. I come form a country where we have incredibly strict gun restrictions. The number of times you hear of shootings is probably once a year, maybe less.

Re the first line of your post, that is such a cop out. You cant challenge me like that, then when I do the same, justify it simply because you believe it
 
Interesting, I've never this person.
me either. :shrug: i don't like cigarettes, but then again i don't like pot either. but it's their own bodies, if someone wants to smoke either one i don't care. as long as i don't have to choke while i'm eating in a public restaurant (which i don't as smoking's banned everywhere but 21+ bars).

as for abortion, well, i like knowing i have the option should i need it.
 
I thought this was an argument for the case of convenience?

Talk about assumptions & generalizations! Who in this thread has said a word about abortion as a "convenience" - except you?

Here's the way I felt about it when I could have gotten pregnant & the way I still feel about it now that childbirth is no longer a physical option for me: I hoped I would never find myself in the position of being pregnant & having to make the decision to go forward with an abortion. But if I had, I would have wanted to know that there was a safe, legal facility that I could go to. Would it be emotionally draining? Certainly. Would it be physically painful? Possibly. Would it haunt me later? Likely. But it would be MY decision & MY choice and MY burden to bear. Same as the women who've already had abortions have to deal with their own decision & consquences.

Do I agree with 'convenience' abortions (to use your term)? No - if you find yourself in the position to ever need more than one abortion in your life, you either have some very extinuating circumstances or you need to keep your clothes on until you learn how to take PREcautions. But that's just my opinion - it doesn't grant me authority to tell another woman she shouldn't do so.
 
My best friend's mother almost aborted him because it was convenient and his father left when he found out he'd knocked her up. Everyone tried to convince her to abort him. She almost did. It'd just been legalized. Needless to say, he's glad things turned out the way they did, even though he had a very difficult, sometimes loveless childhood. I don't generally respond to these threads because sometimes the reasoning for pro-choice is smarter--but fuck all reason when emotions on things like this get involved. I wouldn't have my best friend. He is very pro-life, knowing this. How many other extremely good friends might we all have had? I guess the logic states that if people grow up in a difficult, sometimes loveless environment, they will be (depressed? criminals? dregs?) a sad state. My best friend turned out pretty good coming from that background. I'm rambling like an idiot now, though. This sort of thing is never black and white or even gray. It's reason, emotion, and perception.
 
Yes, I believe in the right to bare arms. How do you think America became the most orderly civilization in history?


Orderly.jpg


DON'T TREAD ON ME!




Get it?




It's an orderly with Bare Arms.





Too soon?






Sicy, no need to add.
 
Back
Top Bottom