The Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory regarding Republican accendency. It's called the Roe effect. So legalized abortion means each generation is more and more conservative as liberals commit suicide by destroying their offspring before they are even born.
That argument assumes that women who have abortions don't go on to have just as many children as they would have had without the abortion.
An assertion so shitty and unfounded, it belongs in the conspiracy rags. Oh wait... Wall Street Journal... ofcourse. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The logic isn't that poor, but it doesn't take into consideration all variables. It is big thinking logic. The kind that leaves out the small details. Interesting thought though. Hadn't heard it before.
the statistic in bold really got me. i think it kind of defeats some of that argument. its not like people who get abortions arent having children at all. http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm Abortion Statistics - U.S. Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place. 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy. 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children. 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions. 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").
It sort of makes you sick to think that someone that kills their baby should be allowed to have another one or has other kids. I would just love to be that kid. Mommy, why is this baby not as important as me? or Could that have been me being killed mom? I just saw the sparks fly.
well if you read the first statistic there it says that 88% of abortions occur in the first 6 to twelve weeks. thats like 2, maybe three months of pregnancy. at one or two months, the woman is probably not even showing yet, or very little. so its not like her kids are gonna say "mom look youre obviously pregnant, whats the deal" they probably will just never even know about it. and i dont see why it should be sad that a woman who gets an abortion would want to have kids later. a child can destroy your life if youre not financially and emotionally capable of raising it at the time of the pregnancy, and in turn you can dramatically lower its standard of living and potentiality by bringing it into a world where you either cant raise it properly or cant afford to raise it at all. i think that to a certain extent it shows a good ability to plan and a sense of what is at stake if a woman has an abortion for those reasons. then again, im pro-choice and i dont think abortion is murder. so...here we go probably.
Should one get to have the pleasure of sex if they aren't ready for the responsibility of the potential outcome??(a baby) One would argue that you are playing god by choosing when you are ready to have a baby. Nature's created a process for man and woman to procreate their like kind. Some have said that sex is so enjoyable to keep man procreating its own species. I would say that abortion 95% of the time is because of selfish reasons. I would say that if you are going to be that selfish and refuse another life to live, breath, love, care, and in turn procreate, than you shouldn't get the choice to have any kids. You know of the procedure that can be done on a woman so that she won't have kids. The procedure that can be reversed as well? Or a male that isn't ready to have kids. There is a surgery for that also. Why don't we get some responsible people and stop blaming damn circumstances.
This is pretty intereasting. Especially considering the fact that if you don't want any more children, you can get a simple surgery done that will correct that problem for you. Get your ovaries removed, then you can have all the sex you want and not have to worry about menstruation or new children.
I have to admit, with some revulsion, that you may be correct. There is no other explanation as to why people vote against their own self-interest. The breeders will outvote their non or less breeding counterparts. Fortunately, since conservative politicians are destroying the middle class, this could be self-limiting, as conservatives become less able to support a large family. I would say that wanting to have children in a world of increasing population and diminished resources is quite selfish. If a couple gets pregnant, and decides that they cannot give the child the love and support it needs, I would say that is the opposite of selfish. I should also point out that pro-lifers also get abortions in secret, since they are total hypocrites, and that the Republicans are exploiting this issue to get elected. They have no intention of overturning Roe-Vs.-Wade. If they did so, they would lose this tool for getting the Creationist Fag-bashing Dumbfucks™ into the polls.
Notice that the line this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion".This means even illness or prenatal deformities that prevent the child from coming to term are included in the statistic. Obviously, this will inflate numbers somewhat.
its not about whether they should get to have sex, the reality is that whether you want to or not you cant stop it from happening. people are going to have sex. as a strictly moral issue, maybe youre right, but the issue is not that cut and dry. and there are many precautions that you can put in place to substantially lower the potential for a pregnancy to occur. so yeah i guess from my point of view people should be able to pursue sexual gratification without being 100% ready to deal with the possibility of pregnancy, considering our advanced state of development in terms of contraception. there is no reason other than selfishness to have an abortion and self-interest is not inherently wrong. there is no one else to consider outside of the two potential parents when you debate whether or not to get an abortion. you may think so, if you believe that human life begins at conception, but i dont. self-interest and self-preservation go hand in hand. and that last statement up there makes me glad you aren't the person who gets to decide who has the choice of having kids.
My mother falls into that catagory. She had an abortion after having two children already (my sister and I) and had her tubes tied afterwards. The reason was that she was raped by my father on that third kid. And no, I won't go into details about it. - N
I do believe that birth begins at conception. Birth has proven time and time again that once the union has begun, outside of losing the baby naturally or having complications, that birth works, is effective, and is natural. Once the process starts, the result is a baby, to child, to young adult, ect. ect... Once the union of sperm and egg happen, the baby grows until it's ready to come out. I just had a baby. He was my baby from the minute I knew my wife was pregnant. I didn't say that he wasn't human or a person or alive or whatever, because that isn't the truth. He was alive from the union, otherwise the natural process of growth and formation wouldn't occurr. It really is amazing how it all works... At the same time, I understand that sometimes the nature of pregnancy is that a lot of woman lose their baby by natural means. That sucks big time, but I do believe that even the baby that was lost means a lot to the parent that lost the baby. It was real and alive to them. A girl I know lost a baby naturally in the first month, but she still had a closeness to the baby. Don't ask me as I won't know because I am a male, but I think a woman would know.
That's fine, Quigly, but conservatives don't even want people to get birth control pills, condoms, or emergency contraception, at least not easily, which would prevent the need for abortion. If abortion is ever outlawed, then the Roe effect disappears, doesn't it? So it's in the interest of conservative Christians to keep it legal.
See, I don't have problems with preventative methods at all. I believe preventative methods date back pretty far, whether it actually worked or as superstition is another question. I had heard the Indians ate certain plants believed to help Prevent babies. Other plants would be associated with helping to have more male children. Now don't take my word for it as I don't have the time to look it up. Political Agenda's aside as there are too many variables in this equation to begin with in the Roe theory. I think the core issue is a bigger concern more than the manipulation of one party vs. another.
(Oh dear. Here we go again, attempting to educate a whole new bunch of people...) Quigly: Why? The answer to the first question is: "that embryo wasn't a grown child like you are, so of course it was less important". The answer to the second question is probably: "No, it could not have been you. You were born at a different time, why my circumstances were quite different." What proportion of sexual acts do you think result in a child? If you choose to be a "no sex until marriage" person, that's fine for you, but why impose that on other people? Which every woman tries to do... So, do you actually believe that the only time men and women should have sex is when they intend to have a baby? You're probably partly correct. On the other hand, many women do not want to unplanned bring children into the world if they know they will not be able to support them properly. Do you eat meat? Then you're selfish in that you prevent innocent animals from living, breathing and procreating - probably every day. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have kids, by your own argument. What if they want to have kids in future, but not now? What if the pregnancy was accidental, as is often the case with abortion? Let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Would you advocate that everybody ought to be surgically sterilised at birth, so that they couldn't ever have children? That could always be reversed later on it somebody like yourself decided that they qualified to have children at some stage. You seem to want to control everybody else's reproduction. Would you consent to being sterilised, with somebody else telling you when and if you could have a child? I think you mean "life", not "birth". Birth is the process of having a baby. That's wrong. A fair proportion (can't remember exactly - more than 1/3) of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, with no choice or action on the mother's part. Many embryos simply do not implant in the uterus after conception. Others have developmental problems which leads to spontaneous abortion. Nobody would say he wasn't human or alive. Human is just anything with a complete set of human genes. "Person" is a different matter. A person is a conscious, sentient creature, with a perception of itself as a living thing, and an anticipation of its life going on into the future. By that definition, at one time your child was not a person, though he was human - despite the fact that that was not how you thought of him. Correct, but irrelevant to any abortion debate. Life itself is not enough for the kinds of rights pro-lifers advocate. Do you think it means nothing to most women who choose to have an abortion? (I just want to confirm what you actually think about this, before I start in on you in ernest.) But every use of a condom, say, prevents a potential life coming into being. Why is that not a problem for you, if you really revere all life? By disallowing abortion, you prevent one party from choosing. Isn't that more manipulative than allowing a woman to make her own decision?
Do you think that people should only be allowed to have sex if they are able to care for a baby? What about in cases of rape? Should the woman be allowed to choose what happens to her body after the ordeal already placed upon it from the rape? What about if the woman has a health problem that could deteriorate if she falls pregnant? Should she not "get to have the pleasure of sex" as well because her body would not be able to sustain a foetus to term? So a person who uses contraception (be it the pill, condom or even the rhythm method) is playing God? How very.. Catholic.. of you. I see that you are quite fond of the thought of people getting their tubes tied. Isn't that "playing God" also? Did you know that sometimes the tubes reconnect and pregnancy can then occur? Yes... You would say. Yet you show no figures to support what you are saying. If we are to follow your line of thinking. Then no one should have sex except to have children. After all, if a person takes steps to not fall pregnant (contraception and/or surgery), then they are being selfish as they are preventing 'another life to live, breath, love care and in turn procreate' from even coming into existence in the woman's fallopian tube. But sometimes those surgeries also fail and the result is a pregnancy. Should the parents to be and especially the mother be forced to take care of a baby they did not want in the first place, hence why they had the surgery? Should the woman force her body to endure (yes.. pregnancy is an endurance) a pregnancy that resulted out of the mistake of another? Wouldn't someone using preventative methods be playing God by choosing when they are ready to have a baby?
