Horror of Abortion!

Post Reply New Topic

one, i am not citing a standard nor a proposal, i am citing data available freely in its raw form, collected by a lot of different people(when it comes to the matter of illegal vs. legal incidence rates)
the incidence rate when measured from the 80's to 2008 (being the latest, one very 3-6 years inbetween) pr. woman shows little correlation with a slight tendency towards less abortions pr woman, meaning that while there are too many exceptions to state a rule the countries with the lowest incidence rates pr woman in the world are where its legal, as you will also notice these countries usually have a lower birth rate that when coupled with what i have already said explains why,

as fr your lower comment, it only shows you didnt read the material, what came from the UN?
by page and position please, form an academic such as yourself that should be no trouble.

the only research i have seen was by biased researchers as clearly indicated by their publications.

One of the studies you linked to was published by the WHO which is the health arm of the UN. The member states of the UN on the grounds 'of its sponsors’ clear intent to use this proposal as a means to promote legalization of elective abortion worldwide' (www.c-fam.org/docLib/20091217_AAPLOG.pdf). Despite the fact that the member states of the UN specifically told them not to, the WHO included the rejected report and used it as the basis of their own report. I have been over this with number5; who cited the WHO article on page 19; I rebutted it with references on page 20.



The UN tells us that this is impossible to determine. (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The World’s Women 2005: Progress in Statistics, 2006, 21.)

Even the WHO criticized it; talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. (World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA, and World Bank, Maternal Mortality in 2005, 2007, 1). Despite all of the open questions relating to the gathering of statistics, both you and they insist that they are authoritative. Which is why the UN member states questioned their motives of adopting the position they did. Especially since they declared their goal, that of increasing the legality of abortion, (Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Sexual and Reproductive Health: Laying the Foundation for a More Just World Through Research and Action, Biennial Report 2004-2005, World Health Organization, 2006, 21. & UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Highlights of 2005, 2.)

I still say that there are enough methods of terminating a pregnancy available that the least total amount of human suffering may likely come from a combination of legal abortion, stridently universal welfare for children, and a heaping helping of available council for women who find themselves unexpectedly expecting.

Making something illegal does not make it go away. It just makes it less safe.

i thik you misunderstand what the un is, they are a diplomatic entity consisting of all countries,
also these numbers are not a one of thing, they are suported elsewhere, most are based on regional surveys.
either way if your new position is its impossible to survey how can you say there are more abortions?

but yes this debate is worth nothing, in reality teh best way to help the issue is by contraceptives and good sex ed.

And? Prostate cancer isn't something one can predict, and what exactly are they suffering from if they are treated? Inability to reproduce? From what I know not many men in their sixties or seventies want to reproduce. But if they do they can ask not to be treated. As for those who don't complain about it then they should be treated. Obvious.

I think you ought to read the studies. The WHO report is based upon the extrapolation of maternal morality and serious injury figures, that relate to abortion. Surely you can understand that a US government department establishing these figures within their jurisdiction than Planned Parenthood attempting to do the same in places like West Africa and totalitarian states. No one has seriously questioned the accuracy of US figures. The WHO and others criticized the sourcing of the figures by Planned Parenthood. Your position simply assumes that all statistics on the same data set must be the same no matter where they are sourced from; which is just not credible.

If you really want to oppose abortion, then arrange things so that abortion is the less attractive choice to other alternatives. When women no longer want or need abortion, it will go away.

In the ideal case the only reason to abort is to avert a direct physical hazard to the life of the woman carrying the fetus. It will be done because of an objective medical emergency and not for convenience or avoidance of social disapproval. That is the ideal case.

ruveyn

You make a good point about utility and need triumphing all. It's certainly an explanation, but not a justification.

Onward science! I think is something we can agree on here.

Self defense is always a justification. We all have the right to live. If so, we all have the right to defend our lives against hazards against our lives.

ruveyn

as presented earlier one of the most effective means is ready availability of contraception and healthy sex habbits.

balanced sex ed and free condoms from a certain grade should take care of that (the idea isnt new though)

Sex education would prevent abortion in my opinion.

It would prevent a lot of them, *if* it was combined with ready access to contraception.

I agree although I was pretty lazy about using condoms when I was younger even though I knew all about pregnancy and stds.

Having cheap/free access to things like contraceptive shots or Norplant would have helped a lot when I was younger. I finally got Norplant at 18 and it lasted past when I stopped having sex so now I don't have to worry about that any more unless I was raped.

If what 91 is saying is accurate, I really could care less what the UN's report says because they have already committed plagiarism and likely committed fraud as well.

To sum it up, your source has no credibility and actually hurts your case, cause it shows pro-abortion people are perfectly willing to lie to make abortion sound acceptable.

Not really. There would be situations where a problem with the fetus endangers the mother physically and it must be aborted to save the mother. For example; ectopic pregnancies. Such situations exist independent of sex education.

ruveyn

That's only about 1% of all abortions.