The reasons of abortions: why women have abortions

[Estro Felino]

By the way... if I were PM in my country, I would change the law, saying that sex is not for procreation. It's to enjoy life.
And I would push the people who don't want to become parents to be sterilized for free. That is, paid for by the State.
And of course the State will pay for citizens' contraceptives. All paid for, if it deals with poor people.

And also...I would re-open the state brothels, where citizens can enjoy sex, with safe health controls.

 

[Revoltingest]

American media and cinema always need to ridicule Europeans...I see.

Can't answer the question, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

Can't answer the question, eh.

I respect your opinion.
What do you think of my vision of Social State? post #141

 

[Revoltingest]

I respect your opinion.

Not enuf to answer the question.

 

[crossfire]

I have also noticed that Britain is one of the countries with one of the highest abortion rates in Europe, especially teenage abortion rate.
That's very interesting.

That's very interesting, if we analyze it from the point of view of sociology.
It means that teenage women find some aesthetically passable boys to have sex with.
My high school memories were that the guys there were either sexually immature...or absolutely not passable.

US teen abortion rate is 5.5, comparable to Germany.
source:

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2020

CDC publishes an annual summary of abortion data in the United States. This report is for the year 2020.

www.cdc.gov

 

[SkepticThinker]

An abortion is similar to sports medicine in that it allows women to quickly get back into the game. Like in sports, if an injury was to end your season, you will lose the benefits of the game. So a quick turnaround is necessary, to get back in the game. Pregnancy can last 9 months plus and this will take you out the game. That is lost play time.

For example, some women use sex and pregnacy to hook a man. If that trap does not work out, such as in inner cities, a sports medicine abortion, allows them to quickly get back in the game to set a new trap.

Because abortion is big business, for Lefty politicians to get in on the donation game, they need to help increase business, so they can get a commission; donation. This is done through social policies such as the Teachers Union and sex education. It can even be connected to diverting tax payer resources for a money laundering bonus; get a cut. Getting back into the game is a win-win situation in this business model. This is why the US leads and why the games are stressed ahead of a potential child, with a potential child sold as a liability; setback.

If you list the reasons women get abortion its is usually connected to the games they like to play; from careers, flirting, swinging, to setting man traps. Women get nervous if sports medicine expediency is not easily available. Men are not allowed to have a say because they might undermine the political games of the industry. Desperate women are easy to influence for fun and profit, so a monopoly is useful in terms of the business end.

Holy misogyny, Batman!

 

[metis]

There is a primary reason for abortions that no one is mentioning. It is profitable for the providers. They aren't doing charity. Follow the money.

Name a job whereas the workers aren't in it for the money?

Secondly, doesn't governmental domination over a woman and what's in her body bother you or are you one of those "Lefties" who want government to intervene even in one's personal life?

 

[metis]

Why did you write "what's in it" instead of "who's in it"?

Because technically by American law it's not a person until birth.

 

[Shaul]

Name a job whereas the workers aren't in it for the money?

Why should I need to do that? I never said this was only true for abortionists.

Secondly, doesn't governmental domination over a woman and what's in her body bother you or are you one of those "Lefties" who want government to intervene even in one's personal life?

There is nothing in what I wrote that implies any governmental control of anybody's body.

 

[Shaul]

Because technically by American law it's not a person until birth.

That is an incorrect statement. According to American law the unborn could be deemed as a person or not. It depends on the context. Furthermore, we are discussing abortion in general, not specific to the United States. So even if what you had written were true it would not be definitive in general.

 

[flowerpower]

8 pages.

Has anyone acknowledged how traumatic it can be for a woman to have an abortion if they decide to have one?

Regardless of the motivation to have one?

This isn't meant be a sneering, resentful post just something I feel needs to be said.

 

[McBell]

Watch this instead

A seven year old video is not going to cut it now a days with all the new abortion laws that went into effect since the overturn of Roe v Wade.

Seriously, does Italys internet not offer up anything more current than five years old?

 

[McBell]

By the way... if I were PM in my country, I would change the law, saying that sex is not for procreation. It's to enjoy life.
And I would push the people who don't want to become parents to be sterilized for free. That is, paid for by the State.
And of course the State will pay for citizens' contraceptives. All paid for, if it deals with poor people.

And also...I would re-open the state brothels, where citizens can enjoy sex, with safe health controls.

Wait...
There is a law in Italy that states sex is for procreation?

 

[metis]

That is an incorrect statement. According to American law the unborn could be deemed as a person or not. It depends on the context. Furthermore, we are discussing abortion in general, not specific to the United States. So even if what you had written were true it would not be definitive in general.

Nope:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. -- 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

 

[metis]

Why should I need to do that? I never said this was only true for abortionists.

But your own words spoke differently as you clearly used it as a slur.

There is nothing in what I wrote that implies any governmental control of anybody's body.

If the woman can't make her own decision, then who does in this scenario, Shaul?

All you are doing is playing games, and "Honesty is the best policy."-- Sir Edwin Sandys.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. -- 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

A question: are you for or against late term abortions?

 

[Shaul]

Nope:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. -- 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Wrong,

again.

First, the citation applies only to those subject to any Act of Congress. Second, it doesn't preclude the explicit inclusion of "non-born" persons in legislation by Congress itself. Congress is not captive of the U.S. Code, but it is the other way around. The U.S. Code is a creature of Congress, not the other way around. This is clear when Bills in Congress have been introduced explicitly identifying the unborn as persons. (exempli gratia, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres464/BILLS-118hres464ih.xml ) Third, it doesn't apply to State or local laws. A State could enact legislation that includes the unborn as a person. The tenth Amendment of the Constitution gives States that power. And States have done so. For example the State of Alabama (Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama) defines the unborn as a person with respect to cases of murder, homicide, criminal negligence or assault. Nor is Alabama the only State that defines the unborn as a person for specific purposes. Here is a link to other States defining the unborn as a "person" for sundry purposes.
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims - National Right to Life
U.S. law is the composite of Federal, State and local laws. Therefore, as I wrote context determines whether the unborn is considered a person or not. You are wrong.

 

[metis]

Wrong,

again.

First, the citation applies only to those subject to any Act of Congress. Second, it doesn't preclude the explicit inclusion of "non-born" persons in legislation by Congress itself. Congress is not captive of the U.S. Code, but it is the other way around. The U.S. Code is a creature of Congress, not the other way around. This is clear when Bills in Congress have been introduced explicitly identifying the unborn as persons. (exempli gratia, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres464/BILLS-118hres464ih.xml ) Third, it doesn't apply to State or local laws. A State could enact legislation that includes the unborn as a person. The tenth Amendment of the Constitution gives States that power. And States have done so. For example the State of Alabama (Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama) defines the unborn as a person with respect to cases of murder, homicide, criminal negligence or assault. Nor is Alabama the only State that defines the unborn as a person for specific purposes. Here is a link to other States defining the unborn as a "person" for sundry purposes.
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims - National Right to Life
U.S. law is the composite of Federal, State and local laws. Therefore, as I wrote context determines whether the unborn is considered a person or not. You are wrong.

It is the Constitution of the United States that ultimately defines this, which is what I posted. To quote "Right To Life" as somehow being an unbiased source is quite "funny" in a rather pathetic way.

BTW, are you aware of the rabbinic teachings if a fetus threatens the life of the woman who's carrying it?

 

[Shaul]

It is the Constitution of the United States that ultimately defines this, which is what I posted. To quote "Right To Life" as somehow being an unbiased source is quite "funny" in a rather pathetic way.

No you didn't reference the Constitution. You referenced the U.S. Code. I mentioned Amendment X. Everything I posted is affirmed and in harmony with the Constitution, including Amendment X which I mentioned. The site I posted referenced official State laws. Your opinion of "Right To Life" doesn't change the correctness of its references. Any bias it has is irrelevant to the unbiased sources it cites. Which are official State laws.

You are just refusing to admit you are wrong, which you are in this instance.

 

[metis]

You are just refusing to admit you are wrong, which you are in this instance.

No, I'm refusing to have a government intrude on what I believe should be a woman's right to choose with her health and what's in her body. You choose "big government" and yet claim you don't.