Debunking Abortion Myths

[M.Dancer]

M. Dancer

I'd like to know why/what justified the abortions. Mother's health at risk, complications straight during pregnancy ect. This will put it into better perspective.

if you look at the link here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16476&view=findpost&p=554019

...only 6% are because of a medical reason. 1% are for rape. The rest are lifestyle choices.

[Oleg Bach]

Abortion is all about the severe control of the human breeding stock - for instance in the states - 6 year olds will now at one super leftist school be given condoms - and the parents can do nothing about it. That is like controling the parents through the product of their genitals - and then in turn controling the children through their genitals --those that endorse such crap are all about controling others - under the guise of benevolence for woman - and children - when in fact they don't really care about people - they just care about controling people - abortion is not about freedom - it is about control of woman by sinister forces.

[Remiel]

Dancer, Eddie suggested that we should " ensure that the best possible decisions are always made. " Let me say it again with emphasis, " that the best possible decisions are always made. "

My philosophical point was that a system that actually produced this result would hardly be one of choice, at least in the very fallible world we live in right now. For any situation, it stands to reason that there is in theory a single " best possible " decision, and if it is " always " must be made, it is not a choice. Perhaps my use of the terms was more granular than was necessary to bring up in this discussion, but if you are not playing loose with meaning I believe my critique is in fact correct.

[Remiel]

...- abortion is not about freedom - it is about control of woman by sinister forces.

In many developing countries, pregnancy is the tool of by which sinister forces control women and girls. Something like 33-50% of girls under the age of 20 in developing countries are married and have children, which is helping to keep those countries buried in the cycle of poverty.

[myata]

There's nothing wrong with "debunking" any myths, but if we do it in an ad hoc manner we'll miss an opportunity to understand the long reaching implication on our society's principles. The statement that is being made is no less than that society could impose limits over sane and fully capable individual's control over their own body. Restricting abortion would obviously create a precedent fully applicable to other cases where society may have interest in individual's body, like already mentioned examples:

1) Blood, tissue or organ donation

2) Certain lifestyle releated conditions and diseases

3) Certain practices dictated by tradition or morals

4) In more extreme applications, genetics based policies

Before considering restricting other individual's rights toward their own body it would be good to understand full implications of that. One does not have to always agree with another individual's choices; but that is very different from restricting those choices through law that would have implications for everybody.

[Bonam]

Something like 33-50% of girls under the age of 20 in developing countries are married and have children, which is helping to keep those countries buried in the cycle of poverty.

Actually a significant portion of women marrying and having children by the age of 20 was and remains to be common in most parts of the world, with the exception of North America and Western Europe over the last few decades. The early 20s are generally the physical prime of one's life and so are the optimal time for being able to put in all the effort needed for producing and raising children. Of course, with societal and technological support in advanced societies that is no longer as much of an issue and so parents can successfully have children in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s. Additionally the lengthening span of education makes it detrimental to have children in our society before at least the mid 20s. But there really is nothing wrong in principle with marrying and having kids as early as the age of 18-20.

[bloodyminded]

There's nothing wrong with "debunking" any myths, but if we do it in an ad hoc manner we'll miss an opportunity to understand the long reaching implication on our society's principles. The statement that is being made is no less than that society could impose limits over sane and fully capable individual's control over their own body. Restricting abortion would obviously create a precedent fully applicable to other cases where society may have interest in individual's body, like already mentioned examples:

1) Blood, tissue or organ donation

2) Certain lifestyle releated conditions and diseases

3) Certain practices dictated by tradition or morals

4) In more extreme applications, genetics based policies

Before considering restricting other individual's rights toward their own body it would be good to understand full implications of that. One does not have to always agree with another individual's choices; but that is very different from restricting those choices through law that would have implications for everybody.

Very well said.

[Remiel]

But there really is nothing wrong in principle with marrying and having kids as early as the age of 18-20.

In principle, I agree. However, in reality, rarely are things simply enough for that to work out.

[myata]

Anybody arguing for restrictions or limitations on abortion has to come up with a rational explanation of what limits of individual's control over their body - including of course, their own body, they would be willing to accept. Otherwise they equate themselves with any number of moralistic, religious and/or intellectual zealots seeking to impose their views, beliefs, etc on others through force (e.g of the law). Nothing new there.

Fortunately in this country we're (relatively) free of the remnants of that sort of control, and I like it that way. But if some of us consider moving away from this position, I'd like to point out that abortion is not the only aspect of individual life these folks would love to regulate. Some of them have problems with your use of birth control, others would seek to influence your choice of partner, and so on of course for the "best result possible" - but in their exclusive interpretation. Not like it's news or revelation or didn't happen before.

[Guest American Woman]

Since “in 2005 the percentage of abortions provided [in Canada] after 20 weeks was less than one percent (0.56 per cent),” obviously they are a rare occurrence, and women aren't just flippantly waiting to casually make a 'life style decision,' especially in light of the fact that statistics in this very thread claim that 6% of abortions are due to health issues and 1% are due to rape. That means even in the instances of health issues and rape, most abortions occur before 20 weeks.

[August1991]

Just because the gestational age of a fetus puts it in the "viable" category doesn't mean there wasn't a medical reason for the abortion. Referring to the abortion as "post viable" means it was past the 20 week gestation period and that's all it means.

I agree. No one should oppose abortion on the grounds that it is "killing", or the ending of a "viable" life. We as a society condone all kinds of deaths. We accept certain risks of death rather than spend money to reduce the chance of death.

For example, many roads in Canada are two-lane (eg. Highway 17 north of Ottawa). These roads are dangerous and many people die in car accidents on these roads. We could spend the money to expand these roads to four-lane highways but as a society, we spend the money on other items: for example, chocolate bars and International Summits.

So, I find the anti-abortion argument of defending life hypocritical. (Similarly, I find Palin's opposition to State health care because of "death panels" also hypocritical. It is even more remarkable coming from someone who wants to be president and presumably would send soldiers into battle to kill people.)

---

As to the late term or partial birth abortions, these typically happen in extremely rare cases when the mother (parents) have exhausted all other possibilities.

----

Women and men, by choosing each other as sexual partners, in effect choose the children they may have. We are naive if we pretend that this choice is not fundamental to our existence.

Edited June 26, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Since “in 2005 the percentage of abortions provided [in Canada] after 20 weeks was less than one percent (0.56 per cent),” obviously they are a rare occurrence, and women aren't just flippantly waiting to casually make a 'life style decision,' especially in light of the fact that statistics in this very thread claim that 6% of abortions are due to health issues and 1% are due to rape. That means even in the instances of health issues and rape, most abortions occur before 20 weeks.

You're right. Further, I take issue with the "lifestyle decision" phrase that is continually used. It is designed specifically to scorn and belittle, and it doesn't take into account the huge gravity involved with a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy, and the lifelong consequences of such an event.

[Guest American Woman]

...I take issue with the "lifestyle decision" phrase that is continually used. It is designed specifically to scorn and belittle, and it doesn't take into account the huge gravity involved with a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy, and the lifelong consequences of such an event.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Furthermore, it's really ironic, because when people have children they can't afford, and are dependent on the state, it's not seen as a "lifestyle choice." It's seen as a 'what the hell are they doing having children they can't afford so I have to support them with my taxes' choice. They are seen as irresponsible.

[bloodyminded]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Furthermore, it's really ironic, because when people have children they can't afford, and are dependent on the state, it's not seen as a "lifestyle choice." It's seen as a 'what the hell are they doing having children they can't afford so I have to support them with my taxes' choice. They are seen as irresponsible.

Hmmm, that's true, isn't it? Very hard to please these folks, who no doubt have lived perfectly exemplary and responsible lives in every aspect.

[Remiel]

I agree. No one should oppose abortion on the grounds that it is "killing", or the ending of a "viable" life. We as a society condone all kinds of deaths. We accept certain risks of death rather than spend money to reduce the chance of death.

For example, many roads in Canada are two-lane (eg. Highway 17 north of Ottawa). These roads are dangerous and many people die in car accidents on these roads. We could spend the money to expand these roads to four-lane highways but as a society, we spend the money on other items: for example, chocolate bars and International Summits.

That seems silly to me. We do not live in a police state, thus we are taking a risk that some people may be subject to crime. That does not mean that knifing someone in the back is acceptable because it was a forseeable occurence. What makes abortion problematic is that it is like killing. But killing is not the only consideration, which you did hint at.

[M.Dancer]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Furthermore, it's really ironic, because when people have children they can't afford, and are dependent on the state, it's not seen as a "lifestyle choice." It's seen as a 'what the hell are they doing having children they can't afford so I have to support them with my taxes' choice. They are seen as irresponsible.

It is still a lifestyle choice whether you see it that way or not. In the case of those who have kids to up their welfare benefits, or have kids just because they are too syupid yo use birth control, they have chosen a lifestyle, some of bone idleness, others as baby factories.

[bloodyminded]

It is still a lifestyle choice whether you see it that way or not. In the case of those who have kids to up their welfare benefits, or have kids just because they are too syupid yo use birth control, they have chosen a lifestyle, some of bone idleness, others as baby factories.

Sure, they might be "baby factories," or they might be complex human beings living lives that you have no capacity to understand. I wonder which conclusion sounds more resonable.

[August1991]

That seems silly to me. We do not live in a police state, thus we are taking a risk that some people may be subject to crime. That does not mean that knifing someone in the back is acceptable because it was a forseeable occurence. What makes abortion problematic is that it is like killing. But killing is not the only consideration, which you did hint at.

Sorry, Remiel. Innocent Canadians died because Stephen Harper chose to spend the $1.2 billion on these 2010 Summits rather than spend the money on expanding part of Highway 17 to four lanes.

When it comes down to it, the government can spend money ensuring Canadians don't die in car accidents, don't die in abortions - or have the money to eat chocolate bars, or pay for international summits.

When Harper chose to spend $1.2 billion on these summits, Canadians died on roadways and unborn children died in abortions. As a society, we make choices and it is foolish to pretend that we don't.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, they might be "baby factories," or they might be complex human beings living lives that you have no capacity to understand. I wonder which conclusion sounds more resonable.

I think which sounds more reasonable would vary depending on how reasonable the person answering the question is.

[bloodyminded]

I think which sounds more reasonable would vary depending on how reasonable the person answering the question is.

Just so.

[Molly]

Wymmin don't needno stinking reasons..reasons are a tool used by the patriarchal military argicultarl comples to oppress wimmyn...

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/facts/Why_Women_choose_abortion.html

The stats are old but if still applicable, only 6% of terminations can be attributed to a medical need.

A plain fact with no empirical data to back it up.

What portion of post-22 week abortions fall within that 6%? Could it possibly be... all of them?

[Remiel]

Sorry, Remiel. Innocent Canadians died because Stephen Harper chose to spend the $1.2 billion on these 2010 Summits rather than spend the money on expanding part of Highway 17 to four lanes.

When it comes down to it, the government can spend money ensuring Canadians don't die in car accidents, don't die in abortions - or have the money to eat chocolate bars, or pay for international summits.

When Harper chose to spend $1.2 billion on these summits, Canadians died on roadways and unborn children died in abortions. As a society, we make choices and it is foolish to pretend that we don't.

You have lost me, August. I do not think you are even really replying to what I posted about on your previous comments.

[WIP]

It is still a lifestyle choice whether you see it that way or not. In the case of those who have kids to up their welfare benefits, or have kids just because they are too syupid yo use birth control, they have chosen a lifestyle, some of bone idleness, others as baby factories.

And regardless of whether or not it is a lifestyle choice, all those who play the anti-abortion/mandatory childbirth card have a moral obligation to support the new offspring from the "baby factories," since they want to close off all other options!

[M.Dancer]

And regardless of whether or not it is a lifestyle choice, all those who play the anti-abortion/mandatory childbirth card have a moral obligation to support the new offspring from the "baby factories," since they want to close off all other options!

Morals are subjective at best, laughable most of the time...I reject moral obligation as legally non binding.

[M.Dancer]

What portion of post-22 week abortions fall within that 6%? Could it possibly be... all of them?

Doubt it.