Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I mean I was pro-life even when I was on the left tbh
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Not sure what you mean? PP says it prevents 579k unintended pregnancies per year. Considering unintended pregnancies are the main cause of abortions, as women who are trying to get pregnant don't often decide to terminate unless there's a medical complication, so that means PP potentially stop over half a million abortions from every needing to happen.
Even if we lowball and say only 20% of those unintended pregnancies would end up as abortions, that's over 115,000 abortions not happening due to PP per year. That's a good thing.
Well, well, well, I must say I was somewhat surprised at how terribly dickish DDM was to DMB. He brutally attacked his position with no remorse. I think it is worth taking a look at the data on abortion legislation and abortion rates and see if a causative effect can be found and that cross-referencing that information with maternal deaths in illegal abortions. I will also cross-reference the data with the increased contraceptives that planned parenthood provides. Full disclosure, I am pro-life. I was pro-choice for years and years until I finally deduced the point of personage.
I have seen a lot of bad data on this subject some of which has been posted on this thread(no offense Lazybones you are a great debater and a formidable opponent).
The entire premise of these articles is flawed. The articles use cross-country data to extrapolate no correlation between abortion policy and abortion rates. There are some immediate issues which result from this type of analysis.
1. The culture and access to contraceptives. In general, the more affluent the culture, the fewer abortions. If a mother has more money to sustain her child, she is likely to abort it. Also, many of these low-income countries have fewer contraceptives. Given the fact that neither of these variables is accounted for the data becomes are less convincing.
2. To truly find the effect of abortion laws, one must see the abortion rate before the ban after the ban and use a regression analysis to discount other variables.
With those two issues in mind, let's take a closer look at the data. We need a study which looks at abortion laws before or after their enactment or removal and observes the change with a regression analysis. Luckily, Web(2007) does just that. They found,
This legislation transpired mainly at the state level,
The study also analyzes the majority of the empirical research. There has not been THAT much data on the subject but based on the scope of the research and the methodology as detailed in the report; I contend it is the best study we have at this point. But the study itself looks only at the national abortion rate. If we look individually at states and analyze abortion's effect there, the results become far more marked. To quote Web(2007),
DDM was extraordinarily unfair in dismissing DMB's allegations. As far as illegal abortion deaths go, I question the amount of carnage. The issue with a lot of this data is that it analyzes developing countries. Even if we take these numbers at face value(which I doubt we should), abortion deaths still trump illegal motherly deaths. If we look at states that have enacted anti-abortion legislation the parental consent statute alone reduced abortions by 15% among minors. One law has that much of a reverberating effect. In 1980, Massachusetts had 375,213 adolescent abortions. A 15% decrease would save 40,774 unborn babies. That is one legislation in one state. If we illegalized abortion entirely in all 50 states, I would imagine that the numbers of killed babies would drop by at least 10%. That number drastically outstrips the number of illegal abortion deaths in developing countries. 68,000 women worldwide die from illegal abortions. In 2014, there were 652,639 abortions a year. 10% of that number is 65,263. So, the cost-benefit analysis quite clearly favors the pro-life position. I am quite disappointed at how flippantly everyone disregarded DMB's excellent argument.
My main issue with abortion is I've seen dipshits say it's not murder cuz it's not a life. But then say if someone beats down a woman who is 3 months pregnant and she loses the kid it is murder.
Momma don't decide if it's a life or not. Nobody who feels the latter situation is murder but abortion isn't is to be taken seriously.
Some interesting numbers: since Cecile Richards was in charge of PP the number of abortions we've had...if you take the number of non suicide related firearm deaths per year, it would take over 600 years to match the number of babies aborted under her.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
Last edited by Surtur on Jan 27th, 2018 at 02:15 AM
TBH, I truly doubt we would have many illegal abortion deaths. I think most mothers who truly needed it would find a black market doctor or go overseas. We would just have a serious decline in abortions.
I appreciate the level headed reply to my underlying point.
To address your point, no, that's incorrect. I do not think you understand how the poor and less privileged have to function, day-to-day. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The rich and middle class may be able to afford going out of the country for an abortion. But the lower-middle and lower classes just cannot afford the cost and time to leave the country for abortions. When you are paid hourly and live paycheck to paycheck, affording time off of work, for even sickness, is just not acceptable.
I agree that some "black market" doctors will perform it which would increase the safety (legit doctors performing it for whatever their reasons: organized crime, money, humanitarian efforts because they disagree with government policy, etc.). But that's not how all elements of black markets work. According to the numbers, quite a few women die from illegal abortions every year. These are the facts we have to deal with.
Instead of 1 dead person, we now have several negative scenarios:
1. 2 dead people (which this is across my bottom line).
2. Permanently damaged woman who can no longer have children.
3. A damaged reproductive system that may deform or cause other problems trying to have babies in the future.
4. The loss of multiple human lives because the mother can no longer have any future babies.
If we look at a developing human life as a potential life, I also consider potential future babies as potential life. Destroying the ability for a mother to have any future babies due to an illegal abortion is a similar loss of potential life for that mother.
What is your position? Make all abortion illegal? Make abortions legal up to 3 years old? Something in between?
Back to your old levelheadedness. My issue with those numbers is that they mainly based on developing countries where 97% of these unsafe abortions occur. There are social, religious, and political obstacles which exist in those countries. The point of personage, for me, is six weeks as that is when the brain waves begin. I would support legislation which illegalizes abortion beyond that point.
I hold a similar position. However, your position is even earlier than mine. Your 6 week number will force many women in a place like the US to seek unsafe treatment. So your policy would cause the death or or harm to many women.
How do you feel about that? Does that change your position? Would you focus on avoiding the point of abortions to begin with?