You beat me to it Dave!
I know statistics are difficult when you are blinded by your faith, but just head back up to my post with the chart showing pregnancy rate, birthrate and abortion rate.
Please take a moment to familiarize yourselves with the chart…
Done? Super, now let’s look at the data, the abortion rate has decreased since the late 1980s.
Now if abortions were the result if the decreased birthrate, then abortions should be increasing relative to births, yet we see the birth rate falling. If contraception was responsible, we should see the pregnancy rate decreasing faster than the abortion rate. (I need you to imagine me putting my hands on my cheeks with a surprised look), lookie there! That’s exactly what we see. Abortion is falling becuase the pregnancy rate is falling, even in a time when teen sex is increasing!
While I have no problem whatsoever teaching teens that abstinence is best, we should also teach teens about sex, and how to protect themselves.
Oh, and I never said that abortions dont reduce the birthrate in nominal terms, but what Ret and I were discussing is the overall decrease in the birthrate, which abortion is not responsible for.
MORE BS??? Your “charts” are meaningless. I can generate a chart in a couple of hours that “proves” that Polynesians are responsible for the outbreak of ebola in the Congo.
That’s ok, stay in your bubble.
For the record, guttmacher.org is cited both by interests on both sides of the abortion debate…
Just for the record: “The Guttmacher Institute is named after obstetrician-gynecologist [sic] and former president of Planned Parenthood, Alan F. Guttmacher in 1968.” (Wikipedia)
In addition, “…it’s funding in 1968 as part of Planned Parenthood, with its funding being solely from Planned Parenthood. Once the Guttmacher Institute was no longer connected to Planned Parenthood in 2007, the organization only received less than 1% of its funding from Planned Parenthood in 2010. Now, most of the funding is gained through private foundations based in the United States. Other funding does come from international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Bank. Over the last 25 years, the MacArthur Foundation along with Planned Parenthood’s contribution of well over $2 million, has provided funding so that the Guttmacher Institute can conduct studies internationally on the abortion rates and reproductive health of women.” (Wikipedia)
Yeah, they sound like an unbiased organization
The reliability of the source has a lot of bering on whether or not what they’re presenting is evidence, or fabrication. I don’t appreciate your implications about my motives; they’re based on assumption, not evidence. Anyway:
Isn’t it possible for that knife to cut both ways?
Except for the baby who wasn’t killed in the womb.
I might agree, if it weren’t the state doing the teaching (indoctrination).
I don’t take issue with you questioning a source, but you didn’t refute the sources I’ve given and saidi:
Now, having said that, I really like you and I respect you I think you are a good man (you and a few others), so please, sincerely accept my apology. I admit my reply was a bit snarky. I think its poor form to wave off evidence with a hand wave and I was irritated, but I have to to better than that with people like you, that despite the chasm between us when it to what we believe, I think you have conducted yourself as you wish to be treated and I appreciate that.
Anyway…If your going to refute my sources I’d hope you’d take the time to poke a few holes in my data, otherwise, there’s just no reason to even debate this stuff…
Except for the Pew label on one of them, I don’t even know what your sources are. I don’t chase down links myself for reasons I mentioned in a PM a while back.
We’re cool; I don’t see you as a snark monster. As to the rest, we’re probably at an impasse for the reason I referred to above.
I don’t disagree with you, but it’s not relevant to the question.
Which is not at odds with the argument you make in the previous paragraph.
Ending abortion would end abortion – except what occurs on the black market. Ending Roe does not refute your argument about ways to prevent teen pregnancy. You can have both, ending Roe and education.
I’m “religious right,” and I’ve personally taught my children about sex and contraception. So has the school system. It’s actually very common despite whatever it is that Alabama and other poverty-stricken conservative states have going on. I’d suspect teen pregnancy has more to do with poverty culture than teaching abstinence, but I could be wrong. That’s an anecdotal evaluation based on things I’ve seen.
Admittedly, many don’t want that. And it still has zero bearing on whether killing babies is moral and should be permitted.
You started with an attempt to analyze FC’s position with the intent to argue against it and persuade either him or others – at least that’s my reasonable assumption. That discussion at its core was about whether abortion was right or wrong. This piece of the conversation has absolutely no bearing on that discussion. You have abandoned the point you were trying to make in favor of proving the religious right is hypocritical. And I still haven’t seen where you intended to land with FC. You have changed the subject.
You may want to take note of your own responses in this thread.
Firstly, I don’t know anyone but you who has brought up “abstinence only” teaching or who is naive enough to think that there is any place in the United States where there are people who think abstinence is the only form of birth control; you clearly have an agenda in bringing that up but nothing about the birth rate, the abortion rate or the pregnancy rate has anything to do with the teaching of abstinence as the most effective way for teenagers to avoid disease, pregnancy and long term emotional issues.
And the decrease in the birth rate is obviously related to the MILLIONS of abortions that are performed, it makes no difference whether teens claim that they use birth control more; people ALWAYS answer questions with the answer that they think the questioner wants to hear or that is politically correct for the day or place that they are standing. There is nothing “scientific” about informal opinion polls where literally ANY result can be shown.
What is scientific is the falling support for abortion on demand and especially from WOMEN, if this was not a Constitutional Rights matter but merely a legislative matter and women were given the sole vote on the matter abortion would NEVER have been legalized and the majority today is larger than when this holocaust was implemented in 1972.
You theorize that blue states have more abortions because religious women sneak into them to kill their babies and you cite anecdotal polling to claim that the decreases in abortion that have occurred are the result of the same tired birth control message that has been beaten into teenagers heads since I was a teen in the late 70’s.
Abortions are falling IN SPITE of your “If it feels good do it” brethren’s attempt to mitigate the consequences of acting irresponsibly, those efforts have done nothing but kill tens of millions of innocent babies and mentally damaged millions upon millions of women who bought those lies and walked into your precious abortion mills; you don’t get to claim victory over some SLIGHTLY improving numbers that those who don’t disregard women, babies and the Constitution have earned with their blood sweat and tears for decades.
Oh, and the ones who have been on the right side of this have made this ground WITHOUT tax dollars; they have personally contributed to the entire effort while the holocaust advocates have used TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars to indoctrinate a captive audience in schools and keep abortion mills open.
That is the relevant data.
The legal Right does exactly that, that is why abortions exploded after Roe V Wade, that is why divorces exploded after no fault divorce and that is why marijuana use is rising in places where that has been legalized for recreational consumption.
Society declares what it finds acceptable and what it finds unacceptable (or moral and immoral) by the lines it draws in the sand via the Law and the accountability that goes with the Law, seat belt usage went from less than 20 percent to over 80 percent in one year when not wearing a seat belt became a stoppable offense in California.
People largely embrace the idea that what is legal is okay and what is illegal is not okay, this respect for the law is incredibly frustrating when we live in a time where there is absolutely nothing moral about the legislatures that pass Laws or the Courts that invent new laws with the swing of a gavel but the consistent behavior of citizens as laws change clearly show that the most common definitions of right and wrong in a practical sense come from human legislatures.
Quick story that made me realize this.
2 years after California passed their child car seat law I took my kids and wife to get a Christmas tree in the only pickup we had, a regular cab chevy 1/2 ton; we put the car seat for my infant son in the middle and his older sister sat in front of my wife sharing a seat belt (Illegal to share a seat belt even though at that time the law did not require a child my daughters age and size to be in a car seat).
We stopped by my parents house on the way home and my mother noticed that I was driving the pickup and we were all there nonetheless, she said " there is not enough seat belts in that truck for all of you!" and her tone was absolute disgust that I would leave the house in such an unsafe situation. I laughed and said "You drove me and my 3 siblings everywhere that we ever went for the entire time that we were living at home without ever once putting on a seat belt yourself or telling us to put one on, but now you are outraged that my entire family was buckled up but one was not technically a legal buckle?
She stopped cold and thought about it while my dad busted out laughing, but that was when I started noticing just how common it is for peoples ideas of right and wrong to shift with every legislative session, I agree with you that it should not be that way and I certainly NEVER define write and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable by the Laws of men but I rarely run into people who think like that.
As always, RET, brilliant responses–right to the point without any “window dressing”! Love it! I agree that some things become morally right or wrong based on the laws drawn up for each state. Most people, unfortunately, have dug themselves into a barren mindset of Lemmings. Can’t think for themselves. Most people know by now that Roe v. Wade was based on lies and manipulation. Both Roe and Wade have openly discussed how they were hoodwinked into lying to the Supremes in order to make abortion on demand the law of the land. Most people know that ol’ Maggie is the foundress of planned parenthood and was a racist, anti-Semite, who admired her buddy, Adolf for his beautiful “solution to the Jewish question”. But, the pro-aborts don’t care. They don’t even care that abortion affects TWO people, not just the unborn baby. Sigh.
That is exactly CSB’s argument about rights and morality. I see where your post went, and I agree with you. It’s appalling the number of people who derive their sense of right and wrong from the state. When I use the term acceptable, I am not talking about whether society accepts it. I’m talking about whether it is right or wrong. A legal right may be a justification someone might try to use, but it’s a bad justification – through my lens, not a justification at all.
Funny story and illustrates a real problem.
This is not what CSB argues. But it is what I argue.
I think being drunk is immoral and wrong, and it is largely deemed acceptable. It’s not my proper place as a citizen (government) to prevent people from being drunk. It is my place, our place, to keep drunk people off of roads.
It is not my place to prohibit suicide or even assistance among consenting adults. Abortion is the involuntary slaughter of innocents.
I’m not sure if I understand what you meant by: “Abortion is the involuntary slaughter of innocents.” What do you mean by “involuntary”?
The child is not voluntarily being slaughtered. That was a clumsy way to put it, I suppose.
Three, actually; the child, the mother, and the father.
There is a link above the charts I posted
The source is the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
Sorry then, what is the question?
The issue here is, is a newly conceived fetus a “person”, does it have rights?
From my point of view I often look at right and wrong in terms of suffering (and it’s various forms).
So the question for me is, if aborted early enough, does the fetus suffer? I think if performed early in a pregnancy, the answer is no. Abortions, when performed by qualified people in safe conditions are extremely safe, probably less risky than most kinds of plastic surgery.
What about the parent’s, can they suffer even if everything goes well?
Here I admit to being a little conflicted. I think it’s absolutely possible for someone to suffer and regret their decision to abort. For this reason, I think people considering abortion should seek counseling, both mental and financial.
The problem here is one of trust, just as 2A supporters will NEVER trust the government to enact any plan regardless, I think the Pro-Abortion crowd would never concede to counseling as a mandate out of fear that the right would try to turn it into a sermon on the evil of abortion, rather than an attempt to council somone though a difficult life choice.
Then it wouldn’t end abortion, it would end legal abortion the risks would rise and so would the suffering.
I think I’d agree to that in a general sense. I think it’s great that you’ve taught those things to your kids, just as I’ve preached abstinence as the best choice to my kids
I just don’t see it the same way you do. I don’t consider early abortion as killing a baby.
But this get’s into deep philosophical questions about what makes a person, a person. Is a 1" fetus unable to sense it’s the world in any meaningful way, really suffering when it’s aborted?
I think the problem is that it will if left to its own devices become human and the question is, should we have the ability to take that away?
I’m ok with that if done soon enough, but I don’t think that decision should be made lightly.
As I said, I think it comes down to suffering and experience. If you can abort before experience begins (and when I say the experience I don’t just mean that of the child, but that child’s interaction with others) then suffering is minimized. There are cases where suffering is reduced depending on the situation.
Here’s where we part company, I suppose. A baby BECOMES a baby at conception…period. THAT’S when it acquires a soul, for example. I realize the non-religious don’t believe in “souls” and all the concept implies, but it happens nevertheless.
“Safe, legal, and rare” used to be the mantra of the pro-abortion lobby. Well, it’s “legal” (by creative misinterpretation (or disinterpretation) of the Constitution), and it’s anything but rare or safe. Gosnell may have been an unusually egregious case, but far from isolated. Many are the victims of botched abortion in “safe, legal” clinics.