Abortion exceptions

[Jerry Gallo]

On 5/26/2019 at 3:46 PM, spartan max2 said:

I'm not sure what this is suppose to show me or what you are trying to assert?

The U.S has a population of 327 million.

After getting rid of the 15-19 we had around 600k abortions.

65 percent of unintended pregnencies ending in abortion makes sense, isn't that the point of abortions ?

Someone I know got pregnant while on birth control. 

You got to be more clear on your point I'm confused ?

The rate of unintended pregnancy for adult non-cohabiting single or divorced women is 80%, for married women it's 24%. 3.33x

The rate of abortion in those cases is 65% and 23%. 2.83x

Extrapolating the numbers, rate of abortion among adult non-cohabiting single or divorced pregnancies is 52%, for married women it's 5.5%. 9.45x

You said unprotected sex with the idea they'll just get an abortion is unlikely, not normal, a small minority. A half million abortions, 44% of all abortions, along with the above stats don't seem to reflect your claim of not normal, unlikely or small minority.

[Big Jim]

6 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It would probably be closer to the truth to say that they know but the numbers reflect poorly so it isn't disseminated- kinda like the civilian death toll in our middle east conflicts.  There is political capital to be had on both sides of the abortion issue.  They don't really want to diminish it's importance with something as trivial as the stats on the actual fate of the kids.

Here is a quick google: https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Average age of child waiting to be adopted: 8 years old.

Average race: Black

Majority sex: Male

428,000 in Foster Care with only 135,000 adopted every year. (Compare that with the number of abortions each year and either this system collapses or 10x as many people need to step up and start adopting.) 

Earlier you said: "Edit to add:  I don't think anyone really cares about kids put up for adoption or in foster homes, hence the lack of data. "

There's apparently plenty of data, just as I had suspected.  You had no trouble finding it.  So I don't think either of the things you claim are true, that there is a lack of data or that it's kept hidden.  I'm not sure what your agenda is or why you think the fate of children is trivial.  One thing that was clear from the link you provided was that the majority of children needing to be adopted were black and the majority of parents stepping up to adopt were white.  Blacks are also choosing abortion at a rate almost 3 times more than their representation in the population.  If there is any conspiracy to downplay all of the associated statistics, as you claim, this may be at the crux of it.  It shines a light of irresponsibility right where no one wants to admit it exists.

[strunk64]

20 hours ago, Michelle said:

" could see some of our lawmakers introducing such bills" ? Typical scaremongering. Nothing like that would ever pass. 

Maybe education is the answer. Nothing is unavailable to anyone in the US.

https://lab.express-scripts.com/lab/insights/drug-options/2019-national-preferred-formulary-better-access-better-value

I order from them for all of my heart medications and they are much cheaper. It does take a little effort to explore all your options.

If abortion is outlawed eventually what do you think is next? Birth control obviously. Forced pregnancies, especially among married couples. Open your eyes. In this era, this atmosphere, it could happen. The changes start slowly and no one will believe they could happen, then things start to change and get more restrictive. It's funny that people can go through life, not seeing whats changing and ignoring the signs of change. If we let them restrict abortion to the first 6 weeks nationally, the next move is outlawing abortions. Then the above mentioned birth control methods (" all IUDs, some birth control pills, and Depo Provera could fall into this category, since Depo Prevents the uterus from building a lining for the egg to implant in. Also, the emergency contraceptive Plan B would be less available. ") because they prevent implantation of the egg and the morning after pill. Then the barrier methods will be outlawed. I wonder what would happen if women then went on strike and men couldn't get sex. Maybe that is what needs to happen to convince men that they have to take some responsibility too.

[Tatetopa]

23 hours ago, Michelle said:

Vasectomies don't kill another living being. Women aren't being forced to have their tubes tied. They are the ones responsible for their bodies. They don't have to allow themselves to become pregnant. It's all in their control at this point in time.

Yes that is true, but I get the feeling that for many men, women and especially pregnant ones are completely disposable.  They throw them out the window like used soda bottles and drive on to the next conquest.  Vasectomies for men that impregnate and abandon their child can be found by DNA testing. A vasectomy is not too severe a punishment for an irresponsible man. It save the lives and misery of many unborn and unwanted children.  

[Michelle]

23 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes that is true, but I get the feeling that for many men, women and especially pregnant ones are completely disposable.  They throw them out the window like used soda bottles and drive on to the next conquest.  Vasectomies for men that impregnate and abandon their child can be found by DNA testing. A vasectomy is not too severe a punishment for an irresponsible man. It save the lives and misery of many unborn and unwanted children.  

No doubt about it.

I've considered what the world would be like if all babies were "fixed" at birth so they couldn't accidentally have children until they make a serious commitment to do so. If they both decide they are ready to be parents the procedure could be reversed free of charge.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Michelle

[Gromdor]

6 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Earlier you said: "Edit to add:  I don't think anyone really cares about kids put up for adoption or in foster homes, hence the lack of data. "

There's apparently plenty of data, just as I had suspected.  You had no trouble finding it.  So I don't think either of the things you claim are true, that there is a lack of data or that it's kept hidden.  I'm not sure what your agenda is or why you think the fate of children is trivial.  One thing that was clear from the link you provided was that the majority of children needing to be adopted were black and the majority of parents stepping up to adopt were white.  Blacks are also choosing abortion at a rate almost 3 times more than their representation in the population.  If there is any conspiracy to downplay all of the associated statistics, as you claim, this may be at the crux of it.  It shines a light of irresponsibility right where no one wants to admit it exists.

America as a whole considers the fates of these children as trivial.  A good number of the children in the system never get adopted.  My agenda is the fact that I think the whole abortion issue is just a political divider issue and that no one-  Pro-Life or Pro-Choice truly cares about the children as much as they do about the abortion issue or there would be more publicly known data about the adoption rates and number of children waiting for it.  No one is adopting all the children we have now, no one will adopt the million extra either.

[+joc]

Should women have the right to abort their babies up and until said baby turns into an adult at age 18?

Why not...they haven't really accomplished anything at age 2 or 3...or even 4 or 10.  In fact children don't really make any worthwhile accomplishments to civilization.   Shouldn't we just post-birth abort all the one's who are up for adoption for over a year?

When  your kid is 5 you don't really know if it is going to turn out to be a good person or a bad person.  

At age 1 you don't really know either.  And you don't know at birth.  And you don't know half way through the pregnancy.  Nor do you know at 6 weeks.

What do you think a 13 year old would say upon being told it was about to be aborted?   

Life begins at conception.  It doesn't begin anywhere else.  

[Jon the frog]

On 5/25/2019 at 7:56 PM, Tatetopa said:

Responsible men should not rely solely on women to take precautions.

 

Yep, it's responsibility to both !

Edited May 27, 2019 by Jon the frog

[Jodie.Lynne]

On 5/25/2019 at 11:26 PM, Michelle said:

They are the ones responsible for their bodies.

Agreed, so why not allow them to make this decision for themselves?

[Jerry Gallo]

19 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It would probably be closer to the truth to say that they know but the numbers reflect poorly so it isn't disseminated- kinda like the civilian death toll in our middle east conflicts.  There is political capital to be had on both sides of the abortion issue.  They don't really want to diminish it's importance with something as trivial as the stats on the actual fate of the kids.

Here is a quick google: https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Average age of child waiting to be adopted: 8 years old.

Average race: Black

Majority sex: Male

428,000 in Foster Care with only 135,000 adopted every year. (Compare that with the number of abortions each year and either this system collapses or 10x as many people need to step up and start adopting.) 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport22.pdf

Your point is well taken, but not as dire as the stats indicate at first glance. Only 110K are eligible for adoption, most of the rest have not yet had parental rights terminated. And of those 110K, 10K are in group homes or institutions, the rest are in some sort of "cared for" environment. 

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

America as a whole considers the fates of these children as trivial.  A good number of the children in the system never get adopted.  My agenda is the fact that I think the whole abortion issue is just a political divider issue and that no one-  Pro-Life or Pro-Choice truly cares about the children as much as they do about the abortion issue or there would be more publicly known data about the adoption rates and number of children waiting for it.  No one is adopting all the children we have now, no one will adopt the million extra either.

Can't argue with this. But I do think that it's a slippery slope to justify abortion using this approach. I think we're still missing what is in need of address...unintended pregnancy. Whether we talk abortion or adoption, we are talking about effects, not causes. Feminism rightly removed a lot of the stigma women faced in the 60's and 70's, but a byproduct of that is the unintended pregnancy culture. Yet when you ask a feminist to address the unintended pregnancy phenomenon they helped create, they usually respond in anger with a non-answer. I agree both sides likely care less about the children than what they portray, it's their tactics and purpose that is the real divider and when we start to discuss that, it gets heated and threads get shut down.     

[Jerry Gallo]

9 hours ago, Michelle said:

No doubt about it.

I've considered what the world would be like if all babies were "fixed" at birth so they couldn't accidentally have children until they make a serious commitment to do so. If they both decide they are ready to be parents the procedure could be reversed free of charge.

Once upon a time, they had something that kept things to a minimum...marriage. Today, according to the CDC, 86% of abortions are to unwed mothers. The nuclear family was square, boring, restrictive of women's rights. Look at the impact in inner cities and rural communities of the single parent phenomenon...devastating. And yet, the crusade to continue and expand that culture grows. Sometimes we get what we ask for and then rue the results. 

[Eldorado]

Some related "abortion news"..

"Violence and disruption against abortion clinics in the US increased to its highest levels since the 1990s last year, a report by the National Abortion Federation has found.

"The increase in violence was attributed, at least in part, to president Donald Trump and his administration’s rhetoric.

"The report noted a significant increase in obstruction, vandalism, and trespassing, with 1,135 incidents of trespassing recorded in 2018 - the most since the NAF began tracking the crime in 1999.

"There were also 3,038 instances of obstruction, a 78 per cent increase compared to the previous year, and nearly 100,000 instances of picketing."

Full report at the UK Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-clinic-violence-rate-family-planning-obstruction-picketing-pro-life-a8930296.html

"Anti-abortion legislation is sweeping across some of the southern states in America while violence and disruption against abortion clinics in the US continues to rise, demonstrated in a viral video at Kentucky's last abortion clinic.

Six states, including Kentucky, have only one abortion clinic left. The video, originally filmed in April but has since gone viral, shows a woman with her face covered trying to make her way through a throng of anti-abortion protesters."

Video and report at Indy 100: https://www.indy100.com/article/women-abortion-clinic-video-kentucky-religious-protesters-abuse-online-8930741

[Rlyeh]

33 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Once upon a time, they had something that kept things to a minimum...marriage. Today, according to the CDC, 86% of abortions are to unwed mothers. The nuclear family was square, boring, restrictive of women's rights. Look at the impact in inner cities and rural communities of the single parent phenomenon...devastating. And yet, the crusade to continue and expand that culture grows. Sometimes we get what we ask for and then rue the results. 

The good ol' days when homosexuals were mentally ill and spousal rape was a right.

[Jerry Gallo]

7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The good ol' days when homosexuals were mentally ill and spousal rape was a right.

So, just to be clear, the only way to combat those two issues was to kill a million babies a year in the womb and celebrate it?   

[Rlyeh]

22 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So, just to be clear, the only way to combat those two issues was to kill a million babies a year in the womb and celebrate it?   

And as you've implied the only way to combat that is to make women chattel. 

I'd be upset too if I shared the mental capacity of a fetus.

[Jerry Gallo]

50 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

And as you've implied the only way to combat that is to make women chattel. 

I'd be upset too if I shared the mental capacity of a fetus.

See, this is the only thing you activists have, misrepresenting the words of the opposition. Never said the word "only" about anything. The only issue here is that you are incapable of explaining why 86% of abortions involve unmarried women and how to combat it. Get back to me when you can.

[skliss]

The outcome of it being harder to obtain an abortion is people being more responsible about birth control. The horror!

As far as adoptions, that needs to be addressed. I have two cousins who went thru adoption hell in an attempt to adopt babies. One finally gave up and remains childless.  The other was disqualified to agency adopt because as a teen she had a bout of anorexia. She tried private adoptions....unbelievably expensive.... and each state has different rules. After paying for medical expenses she had two mom's take their babies back, one after 6 months. She was devastated, almost gave up completely because she thought she couldn't go thru that again. She and her husband finally, after years of anguish managed to adopt two boys. 

As for foster care, it also needs looking into. My son's school friend was a foster care to adopt. His parents had 2 children then foster care to adoption 3 more. The big issue is that the minute you adopt all financial help stops. Many who are willing to foster can't afford to make it a full adoption which also has the risk of the kid being reassigned. Why get attached just to have the kid taken away. That's how it becomes a business rather than a home.

[Tatetopa]

14 hours ago, Michelle said:

I've considered what the world would be like if all babies were "fixed" at birth so they couldn't accidentally have children until they make a serious commitment to do so. If they both decide they are ready to be parents the procedure could be reversed free of charge.

There would be a certain balance to it, but  it does seem awfully invasive.

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Yep, it's responsibility to both !

I totally agree.  Currently a man can still run away.    Financial responsibility should be the least consequence he faces and might also be a big deterrent.  How many men say that a baby needs two parents or that a baby raised without a father is at a disadvantage, but still do not act to censure their peers who are responsible for this dilemma? 

[skliss]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

I totally agree.  Currently a man can still run away.    Financial responsibility should be the least consequence he faces and might also be a big deterrent.  How many men say that a baby needs two parents or that a baby raised without a father is at a disadvantage, but still do not act to censure their peers who are responsible for this dilemma? 

Why is it you only bring up a financial responsibility in regards to the men in this situation? What about the responsibility of not getting someone pregnant in the first place? As the mother of 2 boys we've had that discussion. Responsibility for birth control rests with both adults. Even if a girl tells you she's "on the pill" you should still take prevention steps on your own. Why is abstinence an evil word? 

[rashore]

9 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Once upon a time, they had something that kept things to a minimum...marriage. Today, according to the CDC, 86% of abortions are to unwed mothers. The nuclear family was square, boring, restrictive of women's rights. Look at the impact in inner cities and rural communities of the single parent phenomenon...devastating. And yet, the crusade to continue and expand that culture grows. Sometimes we get what we ask for and then rue the results. 

Once upon a time people were encouraged to marry young and expected to start having children in wedlock right away. Also along that time, unwed women who found themselves pregnant were often sent off to somewhere (vacation to X place, or seeing X family abroad and the like for excuses) and sequestered to have that child in secret- or at least as secret as it could be kept. Maternity homes, private and quite a bit through the church also hid these unwed mothers away. Of course those babies went away too- to orphanages or to be adopted. Once upon a time unwed mothers were something not to be talked about, and daughters could be stowed away for months of pregnancy confinement without the neighbors asking too much. Or if they took a bad fall or an illness before it was noticeable- well, if it showed up on the medical records, that's between the doc, and the parents, and not so much the unwed mother.

Once upon a time, if a man got a woman pregnant, he was expected to marry her and follow through with the pregnancy too, regardless if he wanted/was ready to, or up for marriage or not- a lot of men were forced into marriage and fatherhood rather than the choice of abortion just as much as a lot of unwed mothers that didn't get sent away or had their wanted or not pregnancy hidden. A lot of women were forced into marriages they did or didn't want because that's how pregnancy was dealt with if not... sent away.

An interesting site with some statistical info about historical adoption, abortion, fostering... lots good numbers and such: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/adoptionstats.html

Adoptions were at an ever climbing rate from 1940 till around the time that women started being able to have more access to and more legal rights to have abortions. Then the adoptions take a serious nosedive, and the abortions take a serious uptick. Along the same time and not in the link, women were granted the legal ability to have birth control for themselves- first married women, then unwed. The introduction of that in the 60's has had an overall impact too.

It may be to an extent that 86% of abortions are to unwed mothers now is because there has always been a fairly high percentage of "unwanted/can't happens" amongst unweds for a long time. Once upon a time we required them to go into seclusion and carry out the pregnancy and give the child up- then we decided to make it legal for women to stop the pregnancy before that if they chose to do so- and a lot of them did, or didn't. And at the same time, as society has gotten more accepting of single parenthood- stats are showing that single mothers have climbed up and are having more motherhood than the amount of abortions that have been going down a bit more recently.

I'm not so sure it's marriage that kept things at a minimum once upon a time. Perhaps how folks dealt with the situation in some ways. How society has dealt with it and not.

 

 

[Nnicolette]

Can't anyone see the injustice in having a miscarriage possibly carrying a decade sentence? Or the fact that many abortions occur as a result in doctors testing for extreme defects?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Nnicolette

[Jerry Gallo]

3 minutes ago, rashore said:

Once upon a time people were encouraged to marry young and expected to start having children in wedlock right away. Also along that time, unwed women who found themselves pregnant were often sent off to somewhere (vacation to X place, or seeing X family abroad and the like for excuses) and sequestered to have that child in secret- or at least as secret as it could be kept. Maternity homes, private and quite a bit through the church also hid these unwed mothers away. Of course those babies went away too- to orphanages or to be adopted. Once upon a time unwed mothers were something not to be talked about, and daughters could be stowed away for months of pregnancy confinement without the neighbors asking too much. Or if they took a bad fall or an illness before it was noticeable- well, if it showed up on the medical records, that's between the doc, and the parents, and not so much the unwed mother.

Once upon a time, if a man got a woman pregnant, he was expected to marry her and follow through with the pregnancy too, regardless if he wanted/was ready to, or up for marriage or not- a lot of men were forced into marriage and fatherhood rather than the choice of abortion just as much as a lot of unwed mothers that didn't get sent away or had their wanted or not pregnancy hidden. A lot of women were forced into marriages they did or didn't want because that's how pregnancy was dealt with if not... sent away.

An interesting site with some statistical info about historical adoption, abortion, fostering... lots good numbers and such: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/adoptionstats.html

Adoptions were at an ever climbing rate from 1940 till around the time that women started being able to have more access to and more legal rights to have abortions. Then the adoptions take a serious nosedive, and the abortions take a serious uptick. Along the same time and not in the link, women were granted the legal ability to have birth control for themselves- first married women, then unwed. The introduction of that in the 60's has had an overall impact too.

It may be to an extent that 86% of abortions are to unwed mothers now is because there has always been a fairly high percentage of "unwanted/can't happens" amongst unweds for a long time. Once upon a time we required them to go into seclusion and carry out the pregnancy and give the child up- then we decided to make it legal for women to stop the pregnancy before that if they chose to do so- and a lot of them did. And at the same time, as society has gotten more accepting of single parenthood- stats are showing that single mothers have climbed up and are having more motherhood than the amount of abortions that have been going down a bit more recently.

I'm not so sure it's marriage that kept things at a minimum once upon a time. Perhaps how folks dealt with the situation in some ways. How society has dealt with it and not.

It's funny, I read two articles this morning about adoption and both said adoption took a nosedive because the stigma of single motherhood started to fade in the late 60's and early 70's and fewer mothers gave children up for adoption and kept them to raise alone. I tip my cap to those that did, my mother raised me solo from age three, so I appreciate strong independent single moms. At any rate, guess everyone has an opinion. Thanks for the historical input, I was aware of most of what you posted, but there was a morsel or two I wasn't.

In earlier posts, I talked about adult non-cohabiting women versus teens. The trend of unwed mothers is higher today (86%) than in 1974 (74%) - so we agree unwed has always been high, but there has also been a shift in age. In the early 70's, it was a lot of teen and early 20's, probably due to lack of sufficient birth control and perhaps a lack of education. Parents didn't talk about it and schools couldn't in that era. Back then, 66% of abortions were women age 18-24, today 74% are age 20-34. So, there is still an issue or two in need of address, in spite of historical information. With more birth control options, including morning after pill, with more insight, knowledge and empowerment of single mothers, there is still too much reliance on abortion, especially beyond week eight. Too many "repeat offenders" too. I'm all for women progressing from being sent away or being coerced into marriage, but the notion of having a magic eraser to wipe away mistakes that takes the life of a child feels wrong. Doing so beyond the first trimester is abhorrent, yet advocates act like it's no big deal. And while I 100% support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 that charges perps with crimes against mothers and babies in the womb, I see many pro-choice people as advocates for that law. That's Hypocrisy 101.    

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, skliss said:

Why is it you only bring up a financial responsibility in regards to the men in this situation? What about the responsibility of not getting someone pregnant in the first place? As the mother of 2 boys we've had that discussion. Responsibility for birth control rests with both adults. Even if a girl tells you she's "on the pill" you should still take prevention steps on your own. Why is abstinence an evil word? 

Hi Skliss, I have brought up male responsibility in several other of my posts on this thread.  In fact, at one point I was advocating prison or castration for males that fathered a child and did not take responsibility for raising it.  

In the modern world, that seems like a punishment too harsh to gain acceptance.   But everybody seems to understand money, and a financial responsibility law might actually stand a chance of being passed.

My hat is off to you in salute.  I admire the way you taught your sons, and I have had the same talk and tried to raise a responsible son, in all aspects of life.  Abstinence is not an evil word, and that too is often the preferred course of action; because it saves heartbreak and sometimes lies and false promises as well as unexpected or unwanted pregnancy.  But humans being what they are, young people can be overpowered by their drives and emotions.  In those cases, contraception is the responsibility of both parties.

 

The state cannot and should not force all parents to follow your example, even if it did make for a better country.   That would send off major  alarms for all of those who hate socialism and nanny states. Interfering in parenting is not a conservative value.

But, I still maintain that the state could enforce male responsibility on those who were not fortunate enough to have a mother like you.   A law like that might stand a chance of passing, especially in the south where the new laws on abortion have been appearing.

 

[Rlyeh]

12 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

See, this is the only thing you activists have, misrepresenting the words of the opposition.

Pot meet kettle.