Jump to content

Numbers

Abortion Information wanted...

Recommended Posts

My leanings are somewhere in the middle of the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.   For purposes of this understanding,  I've tried to remove religion from the discussion.   I'm having trouble with a few statistics from Guttmacher institute which performs information gathering for Planned Parenthood.   

"92% of abortions in America are purely elective -- done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children."

I even revisited Roe vs Wade.   I'm now confused even more.   Can anyone explain the above 92% from either side of the discussion  ?

This also seems to be a hot button topic in the election but neither side is compatible with my way of thinking.  Rhetoric is enjoyable at times but facts are necessary for me to make a decision on the lesser of two evils. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a purely sunjective matter. If you believe government has the right to intervene into the most intimate and difficult decision a prospective mother can make, than you're pro-life. If you believe a propective mother has the right to choose over her future, then you're pro-choice. I don't think there is right or wrong here on either side, but I do believe that government shouldn't intervene when there is clearly a divisive nature in the aspect of whether it's right or wrong, and leave this most difficult decision to those it affects most.

By the way, I also think every pro-lifer should have to register as an adoptive parent, because quite clearly if you're pro-life, you should also ensure that unwanted children will get raised the right way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ValleyBengal said:

It's a purely sunjective matter. If you believe government has the right to intervene into the most intimate and difficult decision a prospective mother can make, than you're pro-life. If you believe a propective mother has the right to choose over her future, then you're pro-choice. I don't think there is right or wrong here on either side, but I do believe that government shouldn't intervene when there is clearly a divisive nature in the aspect of whether it's right or wrong, and leave this most difficult decision to those it affects most.

By the way, I also think every pro-lifer should have to register as an adoptive parent, because quite clearly if you're pro-life, you should also ensure that unwanted children will get raised the right way.

 

As a subjective matter,  would it be giving someone the choice between life and death ?  Be that someone is the government or an individual ?  Can there not be a meeting in the middle or is this simply choose one side or the other ?   I am amazed at the numbers of " elective  " abortions.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO once you remove religion from the discussion you're left with a clump of cells with no more intrinsic value than a wart.  If indeed the concern is for the lives of children there are a million & one more clear-cut & effective means of protecting them.  As such I see the so-called "pro-life" cause as one more attempt to force someone's religious values on another free person.  The fact that so many of these anti-abortion types are also against not only contraception, but any attempts to ensure the quality of life for a child after it is born, leaves them without a leg to stand on.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why I'm jumping in here, but what the hell. My thoughts (not that anyone cares) are in this old unrelated thread, starting with this post, but mostly on pages 2 and 3.

 

http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?/topic/76064-dont-believe-in-the-death-penalty-merged-w-charleston-church-shooting/&do=findComment&comment=1455778

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure why I'm jumping in here, but what the hell. My thoughts (not that anyone cares) are in this old unrelated thread, starting with this post, but mostly on pages 2 and 3.
 
http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?/topic/76064-dont-believe-in-the-death-penalty-merged-w-charleston-church-shooting/&do=findComment&comment=1455778
 


Lots of information to digest. Hopefully I can sort through this mess I've made for myself. Don't know why I can't make this issue simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2016 at 11:44 AM, ValleyBengal said:

It's a purely sunjective matter. If you believe government has the right to intervene into the most intimate and difficult decision a prospective mother can make, than you're pro-life. If you believe a propective mother has the right to choose over her future, then you're pro-choice. I don't think there is right or wrong here on either side, but I do believe that government shouldn't intervene when there is clearly a divisive nature in the aspect of whether it's right or wrong, and leave this most difficult decision to those it affects most.

By the way, I also think every pro-lifer should have to register as an adoptive parent, because quite clearly if you're pro-life, you should also ensure that unwanted children will get raised the right way.

 

One of the few legitimate responsibilities of government is protecting the rights of the innocent.  Not much more innocent than an unborn child.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2016 at 5:49 AM, Numbers said:

 


Lots of information to digest. Hopefully I can sort through this mess I've made for myself. Don't know why I can't make this issue simpler.

 

The issue IS simple.  

What is it?

If it's a human life, then it's wrong to kill it.  If it isn't, why is it such a "difficult decision"?  I've never known anyone have any grief over removing a mole (a clump of cells).  Even Hillary admitted it is a "person".

Even if disabled in one way or another, I have never heard of a woman giving birth to anything other than a human baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jason said:

The issue IS simple.  

What is it?

If it's a human life, then it's wrong to kill it.  If it isn't, why is it such a "difficult decision"?  I've never known anyone have any grief over removing a mole (a clump of cells).  Even Hillary admitted it is a "person".

Even if disabled in one way or another, I have never heard of a woman giving birth to anything other than a human baby.

A. It's a mass of cells. 

B. Unless it's in your uterus, it's none of your business. 

Period. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Elflocko said:

A. It's a mass of cells. 

B. Unless it's in your uterus, it's none of your business. 

Period. 

A. Again, if it is just a mass of cells, why do women grieve over the decision?

B. As long as the unborn can't speak for themselves, I will speak for them.  The only reason I am here is because abortion was illegal in Ohio when my mom was pregnant.

Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The things about facts, Numbers, is that they are simply lumps of clay. Just data that, in and of themselves, reveal little. What makes a fact interesting, or pertinent, depends on the critical and analytical abilities one brings to a fact or an array of facts. So, epistemology matters, and human interpretation of "facts" tells us more about ourselves sometimes than any mere fact could.

Personally I am pro-life. In situations in which I have any input, that's the stance I take. Yet, as a member of a society--acknowledging that I am a part of something larger than just my own predilections--I accept that there are good arguments for allowing elective abortion by healthy women. That I might disagree with the particular circumstances that inform a specific decision by a woman to have an abortion is fundamentally no different than any objection I might have to any other decision in the social or political sphere.

That said, here are a few thoughts in random order:

--It's tough to be a woman in our patriarchal society. Women put up with so much unnecessary bullshit from men that it seems to me that our society does need more balance. If one thinks that women can be as smart as men, then we have to trust them to make wise decisions, don't we?

--There are a lot of frivolous people in the world who make overly-selfish and uninformed decisions. I'm sure that the reasons for a lot of elective abortions fall into this category. But, while you or I might not like the decision that a person comes to in a particular instance, don't we still have to accept that our society is such that we have to give people the liberty to make decisions, even if we may not like the process of that decision or its outcome? Even if that exercise of liberty may represent an impediment to, and not be in consonance with, actual larger freedom that exists in the universe? (My premise is that the lawfulness of the universe is such that genuine freedom consists of greater and closer conformance with said lawfulness.)

--What Jason said is true--lots of women grieve over the choice to have an abortion. It's a sad, if understandable element of the process. But, does it follow that the use of force by government is a remedy? Laws are meant to guide and channel behavior. One would have to weigh the consequences. Roe channels social behavior in one way, some of the statutes which restrict abortion in various States channel behavior another. Citizens engage in the political sphere to contemplate the differences. And again, while I am pro-life, I'm not personally willing to legally insist that a woman must cut herself off from a promising career, or suffer in poverty with the additional burden of caring for a child, because of legal restrictions on both her liberty and her participation in freedom.

--What T-Dub says is pertinent, too. It's been a central feature of the entire debate. They are just cells--until they are not. I do disagree with the cavalier notion that there is no intrinsic value associated with those cells. Whence life? And more importantly, whence that particular form of life we call human? And, is there a big deal between human life and other forms of life? For myself, I have no problem eating a salad and a burger, but it'd be anathema to be a cannibal.

--Lastly, we do live in a decadent society. Despite all the advantages we have from living in a world that, relatively speaking, is materially affluent, we are all too often spiritually impoverished. So, many decisions, important and not-so-important, are made from having bad data. What makes me sad is not that this happens--it's happened all throughout human history--but that it happens when it does not have to happen. We live in an Age where information is more widely available than any other time in history. We have educational systems could, if used properly, encourage people to make decisions wisely. And yet...

...the world is still full of fools who refuse to embrace that which is divine in ourselves: the ability to improve our understanding. But even while lots of decisions which drive abortions higher are based on a kind of cow-like stupidity, I think that many of the decisions to abort (or not to abort) are not taken lightly by the person who is most affected by that decision. So, for me, the question is: How do we encourage more wise decisions and discourage shallow ones?

--

Sent from my mind via the Homer_Rice brain app

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

 

--What T-Dub says is pertinent, too. It's been a central feature of the entire debate. They are just cells--until they are not. I do disagree with the cavalier notion that there is no intrinsic value associated with those cells. Whence life? And more importantly, whence that particular form of life we call human? And, is there a big deal between human life and other forms of life? For myself, I have no problem eating a salad and a burger, but it'd be anathema to be a cannibal

 

 

Let me qualify that, as beyond 3 months those cells have become something resembling a conscious human.  Maybe that has value, but how much compared to any other life? I have to wonder how many children have been adopted by the folks picketing the abortion clinics.  We place such little value on human life in so many other areas, tolerate children getting bombed, shot, starved & enslaved.. And worse. So ultimately the abortion argument doesn't register much with me.  If the mother doesn't feel capable or even willing to raise a kid, that's good enough for me.  I do wish it wasn't necessary but it beats the alternative in my mind.  The world isn't doing the best job with the kids we already have.  I suspect a generation or 3 at zero population growth would be a wonderful thing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

The things about facts, Numbers, is that they are simply lumps of clay. Just data that, in and of themselves, reveal little. What makes a fact interesting, or pertinent, depends on the critical and analytical abilities one brings to a fact or an array of facts. So, epistemology matters, and human interpretation of "facts" tells us more about ourselves sometimes than any mere fact could.

Personally I am pro-life. In situations in which I have any input, that's the stance I take. Yet, as a member of a society--acknowledging that I am a part of something larger than just my own predilections--I accept that there are good arguments for allowing elective abortion by healthy women. That I might disagree with the particular circumstances that inform a specific decision by a woman to have an abortion is fundamentally no different than any objection I might have to any other decision in the social or political sphere.

That said, here are a few thoughts in random order:

--It's tough to be a woman in our patriarchal society. Women put up with so much unnecessary bullshit from men that it seems to me that our society does need more balance. If one thinks that women can be as smart as men, then we have to trust them to make wise decisions, don't we?

--There are a lot of frivolous people in the world who make overly-selfish and uninformed decisions. I'm sure that the reasons for a lot of elective abortions fall into this category. But, while you or I might not like the decision that a person comes to in a particular instance, don't we still have to accept that our society is such that we have to give people the liberty to make decisions, even if we may not like the process of that decision or its outcome? Even if that exercise of liberty may represent an impediment to, and not be in consonance with, actual larger freedom that exists in the universe? (My premise is that the lawfulness of the universe is such that genuine freedom consists of greater and closer conformance with said lawfulness.)

--What Jason said is true--lots of women grieve over the choice to have an abortion. It's a sad, if understandable element of the process. But, does it follow that the use of force by government is a remedy? Laws are meant to guide and channel behavior. One would have to weigh the consequences. Roe channels social behavior in one way, some of the statutes which restrict abortion in various States channel behavior another. Citizens engage in the political sphere to contemplate the differences. And again, while I am pro-life, I'm not personally willing to legally insist that a woman must cut herself off from a promising career, or suffer in poverty with the additional burden of caring for a child, because of legal restrictions on both her liberty and her participation in freedom.

--What T-Dub says is pertinent, too. It's been a central feature of the entire debate. They are just cells--until they are not. I do disagree with the cavalier notion that there is no intrinsic value associated with those cells. Whence life? And more importantly, whence that particular form of life we call human? And, is there a big deal between human life and other forms of life? For myself, I have no problem eating a salad and a burger, but it'd be anathema to be a cannibal.

--Lastly, we do live in a decadent society. Despite all the advantages we have from living in a world that, relatively speaking, is materially affluent, we are all too often spiritually impoverished. So, many decisions, important and not-so-important, are made from having bad data. What makes me sad is not that this happens--it's happened all throughout human history--but that it happens when it does not have to happen. We live in an Age where information is more widely available than any other time in history. We have educational systems could, if used properly, encourage people to make decisions wisely. And yet...

...the world is still full of fools who refuse to embrace that which is divine in ourselves: the ability to improve our understanding. But even while lots of decisions which drive abortions higher are based on a kind of cow-like stupidity, I think that many of the decisions to abort (or not to abort) are not taken lightly by the person who is most affected by that decision. So, for me, the question is: How do we encourage more wise decisions and discourage shallow ones?

--

Sent from my mind via the Homer_Rice brain app

Wonderful explanation.   As always you leave me with a thoughtful question.   "How do we encourage more wise decisions and discourage shallow ones?"  

In short,  my conflict in understanding is somewhat normal.   However,  this does not help with a heavily weighted topic for the election. 

Let me answer your question in short also.   Informed Education.   The how to implement would have to be established on a Federal level.   Individual states have not given me reason to be optimistic that they are capable of making the right decision. 

Thanks again for the input. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Numbers said:

"How do we encourage more wise decisions and discourage shallow ones?"

We have removed the stigma and reality of what abortion is by insisting it is nothing more than a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It's more than that, despite the opinions expressed by some that it's nothing more than a clump of cells. If someone gets an abortion because they were too irresponsible to do what's necessary to prevent the pregnancy, they should feel bad about it, and people shouldn't excuse it as inconsequential. And as long as male babies are being aborted, men's opinions do matter, whether they have a uterus or not. Abortion should be stigmatized, not practically celebrated like it is today That would help cut down on it. I'm not saying public ridicule or punishment, but there should be a sense of shame for not caring enough to prevent it in the first place. (Of course rape and the rare times when birth control fails excluded)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BengalBacker said:

We have removed the stigma and reality of what abortion is by insisting it is nothing more than a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It's more than that, despite the opinions expressed by some that it's nothing more than a clump of cells. If someone gets an abortion because they were too irresponsible to do what's necessary to prevent the pregnancy, they should feel bad about it, and people shouldn't excuse it as inconsequential. And as long as male babies are being aborted, men's opinions do matter, whether they have a uterus or not. Abortion should be stigmatized, not practically celebrated like it is today That would help cut down on it. I'm not saying public ridicule or punishment, but there should be a sense of shame for not caring enough to prevent it in the first place. (Of course rape and the rare times when birth control fails excluded)

I'm not sure I would go as far as abortions being celebrated. Certainly does not seem to be stigmatized or have a viable method for doing so.   However,  by learning the entire truth and being on the receiving end of an informed unbiased education on the subject,  we may slowly reach a happy medium.   Still does not throw weight one direction or another in this election or issue 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the effort being thrown behind stopping abortion would instead be thrown behind stopping unwanted pregnancy, there would be helluva a lot fewer abortions. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CincyInDC said:

If all the effort being thrown behind stopping abortion would instead be thrown behind stopping unwanted pregnancy, there would be helluva a lot fewer abortions. 

But God doesn't want you to ejaculate without creating a baby! Quiver full of arrows, and so on. :rolleyes:

Reality is - people have been humping since there have been people. The idea of teaching abstinence only doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. Problem is, these religious nuts don't want to recognize that people are still going to :1hump: no matter how much guilt you try to heap on them. I see on other forums people talking about their kids, saying "oh my kids don't do that". Keep telling yourself that...

TDub was spot on also...

Quote

I suspect a generation or 3 at zero population growth would be a wonderful thing.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine a scenario in which myself, yourself, or the government have any right what so ever to tell you what to do with your body. At some point there is a cutoff where only health reasons(baby or womans) can allow the abortion. That would reasonably be in the 14-20 weeks range. by 14 weeks you should have stumbled across being pregnant given a couple weeks after that is when most deformities can be detected and the baby starts moving around 20 weeks i think. then things get sketchy.. im open to 24 weeks even, as after 24 weeks if you do not want the baby they can remove it and it has a chance of survival, they can put it up for adoption or whatever the hell. So honestly 24 weeks even works for me. As the argument that i have the right to remove something from my body for whatever reason i desire. if it cannot live on its own, thats not really something that should be forced on me.(as brutal as that MAY sound).

ones religion has no rights and no power over my or anyone elses life. only yours. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this is the sooner evangelicals realize that Roe v Wade is never going to be overturned, the better. Because then they may turn their attention to what DC suggests and look at ways to reduce abortions and one of those ways may be looking at Inequality and helping the poor.... you know.... Jesus stuff 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

My take on this is the sooner evangelicals realize that Roe v Wade is never going to be overturned, the better. Because then they may turn their attention to what DC suggests and look at ways to reduce abortions and one of those ways may be looking at Inequality and helping the poor.... you know.... Jesus stuff 

 

That sounds like a lot more effort than yelling at the man on the TV & passive-aggressively telling slow-moving cashiers to "have a blessed day"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

That sounds like a lot more effort than yelling at the man on the TV & passive-aggressively telling slow-moving cashiers to "have a blessed day"

Just you make sure you stay away from my Chick Fil A!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Just you make sure you stay away from my Chick Fil A!!!

 

Much like Bruce Jenner they aren't what they used to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T-Dub said:

 

Much like Bruce Jenner they aren't what they used to be

 

You ain't kidding.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Go-Bengals.com on Facebook

Go-Bengals.com on Twitter

×