An interesting article from the New York Times. I must say these statistics floor me. While I am pro-choice, I am strongly opposed to women having multiple abortions as though it's a form of birth control instead of a last-ditch option when they feel no other option makes sense. -nab
(snip) “We don’t talk about it,” she said in a telephone interview. “People say, ‘Nobody I know has ever had an abortion,’ and that is just not true. Their sisters, their mothers have had abortions.”
Dr. Wicklund, 53, said that at current rates almost 40 percent of American women have an abortion during their child-bearing years, a figure supported by the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health policy. Abortion is one of the most common operations in the United States, she said, more common than tonsillectomy or removal of wisdom teeth. “Because it is such a secret,” she said, “we lose sight of how common it is.”
According to the Guttmacher Institute, about a quarter of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. Dr. Wicklund says that is why she believes far more people favor abortion rights than are willing to admit it in polls. For example, she said in the interview, an abortion ban that seemed to have wide support in South Dakota was put to a vote and “when people got behind those curtains and nobody was watching it was overwhelmingly defeated. Unfortunately, people are not willing to say what they really think.” (snip)
While I feel in my heart it's morally wrong, I think it's a scary choice to take away from women. Why should I make that choice for someone else? Being pregnant and alone is terrifying. I certainly don't want to see the back-alley abortion days come back. Their true feelings came out behind the curtain.
I would strongly have to question these statistics. I looked at the article and it does not specify whether these are women who have had multiple abortions and also if spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are part of that statistic.
This is a touchy topic. I do not understand how you can be pro-choice for abortion, yet "no-kill" when it comes to animals. It is OK to kill a human baby, but not an animal? All animals should be spayed/neutered, but people can continue to reproduce haphazardly? There are too many birth control options available, and even options when an unplanned or unexpected pregnancy occurs to justify, in my mind, that abortion is OK.
rmseek, you are quite the one for putting words in another's mouth and I really wish you'd stop.
I'm not sure why you feel you must question every set of statistics you don't agree with The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. I can't imagine why they would then publish innacurate statistics.
If you have questions that are not answered in that particular article, I'd suggest you spend a little time researching the facts. In that way you can find answers regarding miscarriages and anything else that you don't believe.
Now, you say that you don't understand how I can be pro-choice for abortion yet no-kill when it comes to animals. I never said that I don't believe that under certain circumstances an animal should not be euthanized. I do not believe that, nor have I ever said that.
I'd also like to suggest that you refrain from bringing issues from another topic into different threads I start. I appreciate the "passion" you have about animal welfare but everything on this board is not about animal welfare issues.
I agree this is a touchy topic and as such I didn't entitle it "Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion"? This topic is about statistics - statistics by a non-profit organization that exists only to educate the public - and how surprising it was to me to find the statistics so much higher than I would have assumed.
rmseek, you are quite the one for putting words in another's mouth and I really wish you'd stop.
I'm not sure why you feel you must question every set of statistics you don't agree with The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. I can't imagine why they would then publish innacurate statistics.
If you have questions that are not answered in that particular article, I'd suggest you spend a little time researching the facts. In that way you can find answers regarding miscarriages and anything else that you don't believe.
Now, you say that you don't understand how I can be pro-choice for abortion yet no-kill when it comes to animals. I never said that I don't believe that under certain circumstances an animal should not be euthanized. I do not believe that, nor have I ever said that.
I'd also like to suggest that you refrain from bringing issues from another topic into different threads I start. I appreciate the "passion" you have about animal welfare but everything on this board is not about animal welfare issues.
I agree this is a touchy topic and as such I didn't entitle it "Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion"? This topic is about statistics - statistics by a non-profit organization that exists only to educate the public - and how surprising it was to me to find the statistics so much higher than I would have assumed.
-nab
As to putting words in people's mouths, seems you are doing the same. I just said I questioned the statistics as it did not say how they arrived at that conclusion. As an RN with vast maternal-child experience, I am quite familiar with miscarriages and do not need to spend my day googling . As such, the vast majority of patients that we see for "reproductive issues" have had spontaneous abortions(miscarriages) and not elective abortions. That is why I wonder if the statistics are not misrepresented. I did not say, not factual-you can have an abortion as I said above-a miscarriage is considered an abortion(spontaneous), just as the ones performed with vacumn suction to terminate a pregnancy by choice are abortions. Do you understand?
I do not know why you feel you have to be so defensive and argumentative with everything I try to say. I know you have not agreed with me on other forums, yet you would not even listen to what anyone else had to say. At least Yvonne, who I think works at the SPCA was willing to listen and admit that changes do need to be made (the system). And the only reason I brought animal welfare into this discussion was because of the sanctity of life, in my opinion human or animal. It seems you only want to hear your own voice and not consider that other people have thoughts and feelings too. Perhaps that is why you keep coming up with a different forum topic everyday, just to hear yourself talk. If you want to talk on forums like an adult, then act like one and quit whining every time someone has a different opinion. Look back at your manners forum and take some of your own advice. Have a good day.
If you are pro choice you have a very low value of life. Therefore have you considered ending your own? Abstinence works!! If a person doesn't want to become preg. or end up with S.T.Ds then learn behavior modification. People should have a moral obligation to themselves to live in such a way as not to become a burden to themselves, family, or society.
As far as statistics go, it's just numbers that can be manipulated to reach the desired conclussion that the number cruncher wants.
Whether a person is a drunk, or morbidly obese, does God knows what kind of drugs, can't keep his or her legs closed, or chooses to engage in some kind of activity that they know is dangerous, it's all a matter of behavior. If that person can't control their actions then why should my time, courts, tax dollars, or cheeseball forum be tied up by some left thinking indoctrination? To many people are taking God out of the equation of life and thinking these immoral acts are just status quo. WELL I ain't buying what you're selling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are pro choice you have a very low value of life. Therefore have you considered ending your own? Abstinence works!! If a person doesn't want to become preg. or end up with S.T.Ds then learn behavior modification. People should have a moral obligation to themselves to live in such a way as not to become a burden to themselves, family, or society.
As far as statistics go, it's just numbers that can be manipulated to reach the desired conclussion that the number cruncher wants.
Whether a person is a drunk, or morbidly obese, does God knows what kind of drugs, can't keep his or her legs closed, or chooses to engage in some kind of activity that they know is dangerous, it's all a matter of behavior. If that person can't control their actions then why should my time, courts, tax dollars, or cheeseball forum be tied up by some left thinking indoctrination? To many people are taking God out of the equation of life and thinking these immoral acts are just status quo. WELL I ain't buying what you're selling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you MEAmerican. Hopefully you made the point I was trying to. That statistics can be misleading if you don't know where the numbers came from. Personally, the woman who wrote the article is an abortion doctor. Therefore I would think she would want people to think "eveyone's doing it.'" With the number of pregnancies (both planned and unplanned) that we see, I would have to say that just ain't so. And as I said earlier, I think all life is special and there are other alternatives.
While abstinence certainly is the best way to make sure you don't get pregnant, it's simply not realistic. A parent can talk to their teenagers until they're blue in the face but when the hormones start raging and peer pressure kicks in and girls want to pretend they're "in love" and boys want to pretend they're "men", they will forget what momma and daddy told them about abstinence and do exactly what they want to do, which is have sex.
MeAmerican seems to think that "just say no" would work. But irresponsible people (kids AND adults) won't say "no" if they want to say "yes", and they do. They want to say yes because there's something missing in their lives and having unprotected sex makes them feel like they're getting it.
I absolutely agree with you that "people should have a moral obligation to themselves to live in such a way as not to become a burden to themselves, family, or society". But just saying that, and believing it, will not make it happen in real life. People are creatures with free will and our desires sometimes take us to places we KNOW we shouldn't be going but we choose to do it anyway.
And knowing that, as we all do, then what is the answer after the fact? If people know they have a moral obligation to behave "properly" but do not, and the result is among other things a pregnancy, then what happens at that point? You can rant and rave about bad behavior and irresponsibility and moral decay but in the end there's a pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby that she herself allowed to happen, so what then? We all know the answer. Another unloved child born into the world, perhaps to be neglected or abused or raised in poverty. And on and on it goes.
So by having danger music do you think it would help keep people out of trouble? Your point of view is shallow, simple and again, immoral. You're completely entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled not to buy what you're selling. And yes proper education and parents setting a healthy Godly example is the best line of defense.
That being said, who then does the burden of responsibility fall upon? So many want to force feed society that abortion and other immoral acts are perfectly acceptable behavior. IT'S NOT.
Parents have the job of using any means necessary to insure their children have every oppurtunity available to them, to be untarnished. by bad decisions. Lead by example! It is truly sad that so many of the examples are negative and that don't make it right. Two wrongs don't make it right. Because a child was wronged by unhealthy up bringing, and makes a bad decision and becomes preg. To take another childs life is absolutely absured.
May God bless you and all your decisions regardless of how mislead a person is. Have a nice day!!
Nab
Hate to say it but a few people and I think you know who, are just trying to antagonize you, ignore them. Meamerican came over to the Dog thread and just wanted to start something. I think we have mutual friends and hope we get to meet in person soon. Ignore the negativity, they want your response. Only if it's truly intelligent in manner ignore it. To call you names and question your morality is downright wrong. These people can sit at their desk and say mean things all day because no one can see them, it's called cowardice. Now just sit back and wait for them to fire back at me, and you know what I'm going to do, nothing, it drives them crazy!
'Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid.' John Wayne
