Francine
Well-Known Member
That's not total numbers, that's per capita, which filters out overall population. For whatever reason, fewer individual women are making the decision to abort.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any anti-abortion liberals?
- Thread starter Mathematician
- Start date
That's not total numbers, that's per capita, which filters out overall population. For whatever reason, fewer individual women are making the decision to abort.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Which we can hope has something to do with better sex-ed and better availability of contraception methods. In other words; a drop in "unwanted" preganancies to begin with.
Fluffy
A fool
lilithu said:
Agreed but lilithu's question was to do with the percentage of abortions performed as an alternative to contraception and not about how many abortions were being performed.
I agree. I am unable to find similar statistics for the UK but, regardless, I think that sex education is the only way forward.lilithu said:Fluffy's numbers speak to that and are a lot higher than I had thought they would be.Based on the reasons given, it's clear we need more comprehensive sex ed.
Texas Lynn
Member
I would like to see clinics and doctors performing voluntary sterilizations at young ages. Present practices prevent them from doing so.
Also, no prison inmate who is not sterilized or sterile naturally should ever be permitted a conjugal visit, a furlough, or parole except in extreme circumstances.
Also, no prison inmate who is not sterilized or sterile naturally should ever be permitted a conjugal visit, a furlough, or parole except in extreme circumstances.
stacey bo bacey
oh no you di'int
I'm against killing of any kind: war, death penalty, abortion...whatever it may be. I realize most liberals are pro-choice but that's the one liberal idea I have not been able to agree with. I've considered being personally pro-life but just being pro-choice as far as everyone else is concerned (like I would never do it but who am I to say someone else can't?) But that feels very wrong in my heart. I've just accepted that I'm pro-life.
Drawing some arbitrary line where life begins doesn't make sense to me. Some think abortion is ok up to a certain point, but you're either alive or you're not.
I've been debating this subject for as long as I can remember whenever it came up in conversation, so I don't ever really wanna do it again. :areyoucra I do feel very strongly about it, but it's not worth belaboring. It will be an ongoing debate forever, in my opinion. So that's just my humble opinion and I'm stickin' to it!
Drawing some arbitrary line where life begins doesn't make sense to me. Some think abortion is ok up to a certain point, but you're either alive or you're not.
I've been debating this subject for as long as I can remember whenever it came up in conversation, so I don't ever really wanna do it again. :areyoucra I do feel very strongly about it, but it's not worth belaboring. It will be an ongoing debate forever, in my opinion. So that's just my humble opinion and I'm stickin' to it!
jabberwockybruno
Member
I think the answer is simple. If people think abortion is murder (which is what I think), it should be treated as murder the same way murder is currently defined. The way we define murder right now, is that not all acts of killing are not equal.
If I kill in self defense or am insane then I am not found guilty. Just as there now exceptions for murder, abortion should be considered as murder except for the exceptions.
An obvious is example is if a woman gets pregnant because of rape. She should be allowed to legally get an abortion if she wants, in the same sense that a person is allowed to kill to defend himself.
If I kill in self defense or am insane then I am not found guilty. Just as there now exceptions for murder, abortion should be considered as murder except for the exceptions.
An obvious is example is if a woman gets pregnant because of rape. She should be allowed to legally get an abortion if she wants, in the same sense that a person is allowed to kill to defend himself.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
Each life is a miracle. IMHO, there should be one approved method of abortion. That would be pregnant mother suicide. It would make a person have to think about how bad they really wanted to end an innocent life if their own had to expire with it. That's just my opinion though.
jabberwockybruno
Member
I don't know what that means.
whereismynotecard
Treasure Hunter
I think I'm pretty liberal in most senses. I am for gay rights and all that, but I am very against abortion. I think the only time an abortion should happen is if it would kill the mother to stay pregnant. Otherwise, take the morning after pill every time you have sex, and you won't have to worry about murdering a developing baby when you decide you don't want to be pregnant. People need to use condoms and birth control if they don't want to be pregnant. And if you totally 100% don't want to be pregnant, maybe you should get spayed. 
or just not have sex.
or just not have sex.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
I think in a more perfect world abortions would be extremely rare: reduced to situations of extreme emotional distress (victim of rape; where in many cases birth defects and spontaneous abortion are common), medical emergency (mother's life in jeopardy), and cases of horrible birth defects that are tested for early on (if you are willing to carry to term, then I think you have to live with that decision, so some sort of cut off date has to be agreed upon, but families should not be required nor influenced to carry to term something on the order of Trisomie 13... Some people just are not prepared to accept that their child will only live 2 years and a great many of those days will consist of living in pain and serious body malformation).
In that self-same world abortions are perfectly legal. As long as both parties agree then nothing more than your own conscience (and perhaps societal disdain) will keep you from getting one. It always struck me as a bit hypocritical to call yourself pro-life and then go out and blow up an abortion clinic (with people inside/nearby) or shoot abortion doctors. Everyone should be pro-life, and that means minimizing death for all people as much as possible.
But with all this in mind I have trouble reconciling such ideas with the fact that something which is no more complex than a frog has more rights and assumed value than a cat or dog and nature will spontaneously abort in many cases ("miscarriage" is just another way of saying self induced abortion). Either all life is sacred or no life is sacred. If sentience is sacred, then you might even have to wait until someone is 1 years old before they "count." Its not inconsistent to respect certain forms of life more than other (sacred is a quasi-religious term; it denotes value which is wholly other: as in not dependent upon secular power/authority), but then if it is mere "respect" that we show, then we end up on a slippery slope with most people (how do you determine who deserves what amount of respect; and should a mother's decision be respected more than an embryo). And if nature is willing to abort (for whatever reason), then it cannot be against the laws of the cosmos for an abortion to happen... So where do you draw the line and what justification is there for the line?
MTF
In that self-same world abortions are perfectly legal. As long as both parties agree then nothing more than your own conscience (and perhaps societal disdain) will keep you from getting one. It always struck me as a bit hypocritical to call yourself pro-life and then go out and blow up an abortion clinic (with people inside/nearby) or shoot abortion doctors. Everyone should be pro-life, and that means minimizing death for all people as much as possible.
But with all this in mind I have trouble reconciling such ideas with the fact that something which is no more complex than a frog has more rights and assumed value than a cat or dog and nature will spontaneously abort in many cases ("miscarriage" is just another way of saying self induced abortion). Either all life is sacred or no life is sacred. If sentience is sacred, then you might even have to wait until someone is 1 years old before they "count." Its not inconsistent to respect certain forms of life more than other (sacred is a quasi-religious term; it denotes value which is wholly other: as in not dependent upon secular power/authority), but then if it is mere "respect" that we show, then we end up on a slippery slope with most people (how do you determine who deserves what amount of respect; and should a mother's decision be respected more than an embryo). And if nature is willing to abort (for whatever reason), then it cannot be against the laws of the cosmos for an abortion to happen... So where do you draw the line and what justification is there for the line?
MTF
dragynfly0515
Satan Worshipper
I don't like the term "pro-life" used in reference to the abortion debate. To me it paints people of dissenting opinions as "anti-life", which we all know is not the case. After all, aren't we the ones sick of the wars and revenge killings?
Instead I prefer to call myself an anti-abortion liberal. I believe ALL killings outside of defence of the self or another are wrong (in regard to humans, and to a lesser extent animals -- but that's for another topic).
However, like the flash terms used in reference to where people throw their support behind, I do not associate myself with conservative 'pro-life' organizations. I do not call for the execution of abortion doctors, I do not want to intimidate mothers whom have had abortions done, I do not want to revert back to the failed policy of abstinence only, and I do not want mothers faced with likely death to be forced through their pregnancy.
What I do want is more support for struggling women. I believe in investing money in the research of ectogenesis so that we could replace most unwanted pregnancy abortions with artificial womb transfers. I also believe in making post and pre maternal psychological help cheaper, if not free (Socialist! Socialist!) for all pregnant mothers and their SOs.
Of course, being anti-abortion, I also want to see the practice of abortion destroyed. That might not settle well with most of my liberal brothers and sisters, but I just feel that it's an unacceptable practice, unless when the mother's life is in danger.
My Conservative Republican wife and her ultra-Conservative Republican family assure me that I am a Liberal, but abortion is the one topic that we seem to agree on. I just think there are better ways to implement birth control, especially in this high tech day and age.
:candle:
Crys
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
people who are using abortion as birth control need spanking....
for beign stupid.
Wear a condom!
southdetroit
New Member
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean a form of sterilization that's reversible :sarcastic
Draka
Wonder Woman
Why should it be reversible? Some people are very adamant that they do not want to have children. I've known people who have wanted to get sterilized and were turned down because they were under 30 or something and had no children. Duh. That's the point. They don't want to reproduce. It shouldn't matter if they have already or not. I'm sure Texas Lynn wasn't referring to kids getting sterilized for crying out loud. But if someone is a legal adult then why shouldn't they be able to make that decision? As is, if a 20 y/o goes in to the doctor wanting to get a vasectomy/tubes tied they are turned away. The doctor won't do the procedure. As long as the patient is completely informed of all the repercussions and they sign off on it, why not do it? because the patient could end up changing their mind? that is on them, not the doctor. If the patient is informed of all the options and the repercussions of those options and they still want to be sterilized then that is their decision isn't it?
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
I am anti-abortion in the sense that I think it is wrong to take a life. However I do believe abortion should be an option for people. They should get the choice. I just don't believe it is the right choice.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Thats great that it would never be the right choice for you.But for you to insinutate that it wouldnt be the right choice for me to have an abortion is really reaching and quite frankly arrogant.How in the world would you know what a "right choice" for me is?
And if you think its so wrong to "take a life" for Gods sake start feeding the starving children that are here.But HEY thats the "choice" of people to feed or not feed starving children now isnt it?Its none of your business its just "wrong" for "them" not too..NOT YOUR PROBLEM!!!!!
I see..
Love
Dallas
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
All I am saying is that I think taking a life is wrong. The reason I think it should remain a choice is for women who have been raped or are in danger from the pregnancy. I am not saying they would be making the wrong choice. I think it is a wrong choice when they just don't want the baby. When Wings got pregnant if we really didn't want the child or couldn't support him we would have found another option. I don't think resorting to killing is really necessary when there are other options.
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
Also how do you know I don't donate money to feed starving children? I think it is pretty arrogant of you to assume that I think it is someone elses responsibility.
It is only arrogant if you insist that right and wrong are solely a matter of personal taste.