This graph makes me nauseous (1 Viewer)

[Officer Pete Malloy]

This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.

The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.

I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.

I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.

Interesting. I am very conflicted on this topic. But, if anything, that pie chart makes more more inclined to support abortion rights, rather than less.

Word

 

[Aerial Assault]

####### likes limit

 

[Aerial Assault]

By the bye, I saw this graph that really grinds my gears, but I'll thank all of you to offer no opposition to my views about it

 

[joffer]

I'll paraphrase Matt Santos:

"Abortion is a tragedy. It should be legal, safe, a whole lot less common than it is now".

 

[joffer]

Are those people that are pro-life huge proponents of contraception especially free contraception?

They should be. The only way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

There are millions of pro-life people so you will find lots of different views on contraception, capital punishment etc.I'm staunchly pro-life with exceptions if the mother's life is in danger, for contraception and education, against capital punishment. I feel that abortion is the holocaust of our age but feel powerless to do much about it because Americans (and other peoples) have spoken and they want the choice to abort. The flippant dismissal of anti-abortion views saddens me that we don't value life more and that we mock those that would try to save it. If anything that pie-chart shows the sheer quantity of aborted lives and it is staggering IMO.

So if a woman is impregnated by rape, you feel that it should be illegal for her to abort the pregnancy, correct?

Yes, unless it jeopardizes her own life. I'm aware of the limb I'm out on, but in my view the child should not pay with his or her life due to the heinous act of another. It's not a position I'd fight with much gusto but I hold it. I wonder whether I'd have the courage myself to carry a baby to term if I was a woman who had been raped. I have no way of knowing, of course, and I'd probably feel like I should have the choice to abort since I had been violated against my will. Obviously it's horrible all the way around, and there is no answer without significant collateral damage. But I'd like to think killing would be the last option.

i respect this opinion a lot never understood why the manner of conception should matter if you think abortion is murder.

 

[-jb-]

Roe v. Wade was 43 years ago. If you added up all of those other events, they might equal the same duration. Then factor in size of overall population, then factor in, per capita, how many citizens were fighting in those wars. Then compare that to how many people have been ####### for the last 43 years. How do the numbers look then?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

 

[NutterButter]

Are those people that are pro-life huge proponents of contraception especially free contraception?

They should be. The only way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

There are millions of pro-life people so you will find lots of different views on contraception, capital punishment etc.

I'm staunchly pro-life with exceptions if the mother's life is in danger, for contraception and education, against capital punishment. I feel that abortion is the holocaust of our age but feel powerless to do much about it because Americans (and other peoples) have spoken and they want the choice to abort. The flippant dismissal of anti-abortion views saddens me that we don't value life more and that we mock those that would try to save it. If anything that pie-chart shows the sheer quantity of aborted lives and it is staggering IMO.

Maybe you should try to convince the rest of the pro-lifers that free contraception will prevent many of those abortions; same objective, different approach.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

By the bye, I saw this graph that really grinds my gears, but I'll thank all of you to offer no opposition to my views about it

That graph made me laugh more than it probably should have.

 

[Christo]

How many deaths would there have been if WWII lasted 43 years?

 

[Gachi]

I'd rather a child be aborted when it's just a clump of cells than to be born into crappy circumstances.

Those of you who watch OITNB: Remember when Daya's mother found out she was pregnant? Daya wanted to terminate the pregnancy, but her mother was against it. Why? Her reasoning was basically that the child could grow up and have the potential to do good things become successful. Even though she was a horrible mother and her children were born into poverty and disfunction she STILL had that mindset.

That's how ridiculous pro-lifers sound to me. They want to force women to have children they don't want because of what the child could potentially become.

Do they know how stupid they sound?

 

[pecorino]

I'd rather a child be aborted when it's just a clump of cells than to be born into crappy circumstances.

Those of you who watch OITNB: Remember when Daya's mother found out she was pregnant? Daya wanted to terminate the pregnancy, but her mother was against it. Why? Her reasoning was basically that the child could grow up and have the potential to do good things become successful. Even though she was a horrible mother and her children were born into poverty and disfunction she STILL had that mindset.

That's how ridiculous pro-lifers sound to me. They want to force women to have children they don't want because of what the child could potentially become.

Do they know how stupid they sound?

I don't presume to know whether a child will grow up to be good or bad or cure cancer or become a criminal. But I do think once they've been conceived, they should get the chance to live and make what they will of their life. I think it is arrogant to think we should control which babies get a shot and which don't.

 

[Fennis]

Pie charts make me hungry.

 

[GrandpaRox]

And yet Tim slipped through the crack.

 

[Fennis]

And yet Tim slipped through the crack.

Who?

 

[proninja]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

First off, high five on being against capital punishment.

I guess I just don't understand why it is important that it is illegal unless it is to punish those who do it. Abortion legality is in no way correlated with incidence. You aren't going to reduce abortion by making it illegal, you're just going to make it far more dangerous for the poor, scared, young moms you say you have a lot of sympathy for and give prosecutors in red states the ability to jail these young girls who feel they have no other choice.

If you want to punish women who have them, making it illegal is absolutely the way to go. If you want to reduce abortions, contraception should be free and available a 15 minute bus ride from anywhere in the country. If you are pregnant and want to keep it, we should provide free child care while single moms go to work/school, and a per child subsidy for poor single moms who want to finish school. If someone wants an abortion, they're going to get it. If you want to reduce abortion, you have to reduce unwanted pregnancies. You attack that on one side by contraception to reduce the actual pregnancies. You attack that on the other by reducing the reasons these women want to have an abortion instead of keeping the kid.

Problem is, that would be expensive. But if you believe that abortion is a modern day holocaust, money shouldn't be a reason not to do it. If abortion is *really* as awful as the rhetoric from the right says it is, they should be willing to spend anything to stop it. We're willing to spend trillions because 3000 people died on 9/11, how much more should they be willing to spend to save the lives of 100,000,000 americans per year?

I don't believe they care about abortion as much as they say they do until their willingness to spend money on the problem matches their rhetoric. Republicans need to put their money where your mouth is or I just think it's obvious they are against abortion because it's a way to identify with a certain people group. Not because they actually find abortion as insidious as people say they do.

 

[proninja]

Sometimes I think that people haven't actually looked at the correlation between the legality of abortion and the incidence. Because everyone wants to make it illegal, but there's no global data that makes a meaningful suggestion that it would do anything to reduce the incidence.

So, my question to Republicans: What is more important? Reducing the number of abortions, or being able to punish the women who have them?

 

[Otis]

I wonder how many of them would have ended up like the neighbors in the Oklahoma video.

Seems ok to me.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sometimes I think that people haven't actually looked at the correlation between the legality of abortion and the incidence. Because everyone wants to make it illegal, but there's no global data that makes a meaningful suggestion that it would do anything to reduce the incidence.

So, my question to Republicans: What is more important? Reducing the number of abortions, or being able to punish the women who have them?

The entire issue is about people forcing their sensibilities on others.

They are totally inconsistent along their entire anti-choice path (you can read the multitude of threads here at FBGs on the subject and its plain as day).

 

[proninja]

Sometimes I think that people haven't actually looked at the correlation between the legality of abortion and the incidence. Because everyone wants to make it illegal, but there's no global data that makes a meaningful suggestion that it would do anything to reduce the incidence.

So, my question to Republicans: What is more important? Reducing the number of abortions, or being able to punish the women who have them?

The entire issue is about people forcing their sensibilities on others.

They are totally inconsistent along their entire anti-choice path (you can read the multitude of threads here at FBGs on the subject and its plain as day).

I don't think they see this. I think they legitimately think that if they could just get the evil liberals to see that they are evil, they could make it illegal, and whammo, huge ethical problem solved.

The politicians play to this. It's an implicit promise - "vote for me, and I will help solve this" but the solution creates more ethical dilemmas without actually doing anything to solve the problem. Nobody does anything to actually help the issue, it's just a bunch of yelling at poor young women who feel they have no choice but to make this terrible decision and faux moral posturing. It's awful and unhelpful.

 

[HellToupee]

I'll paraphrase Matt Santos:

"Abortion is a tragedy. It should be legal, safe, a whole lot less common than it is now".

 

[Tom Skerritt]

You guys know that the life expectancy rate has more than doubled since 1900. Science, medicine, antibiotics, and vaccines have all contributed to the likelihood that humans will live past the age of 5.

Abortions weren't all that necessary back then because people simply didn't live that long. There is a threshold to sustain human life, and we are increasingly approaching that limit. Abortions should be the least of your worries.

 

[msommer]

This pie graph depicts the number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade in comparison to the US deaths in all of the major wars in US history.

The only wars you can even make out are the Civil War, WWI & WWII. The total section of all wars combined is maybe 3% of the total.

I don't care if you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is disgusting. I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high. While abortions have been declining in recent years, there are still at around 750K - 1.2M abortions per year.

I'm honestly not looking to pick a fight, just think these numbers need to be seen by everyone to make an informed decision. The sheer volume is the equivalent of aborting the entire population of San Francisco or Austin each year.

if you are against abortion, don't have one. pretty ####### simple.

I wonder if any of those potential humans were against abortion? Wish we could ask them.

After they reach voting age, obviously.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I do think that both sides of the debate could benefit from focusing on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by allowing for free birth control and earlier sex education. A win for everybody would be to encourage anal sex because bum babies don't grow.

 

[msommer]

Problem is, that would be expensive. But if you believe that abortion is a modern day holocaust, money shouldn't be a reason not to do it. If abortion is *really* as awful as the rhetoric from the right says it is, they should be willing to spend anything to stop it. We're willing to spend trillions because 3000 people died on 9/11, how much more should they be willing to spend to save the lives of 100,000,000 americans per year?

You may be off by a zero or two because that would mean that every woman in the US had an abortion every eighteen months or so.

I don't disagree with the point, though

 

[msommer]

You aren't going to reduce abortion by making it illegal, you're just going to make it far more dangerous for the poor, scared, young moms you say you have a lot of sympathy for and give prosecutors in red states the ability to jail these young girls who feel they have no other choice.

As an aside. In the states that are reducing access to legal abortion clinics, is the number of children per capita going up?

Or are we seeing an increase in issues that could be related to abortions performed under clinical conditions?

Again not disagreeing with the gist of your argument, but trying to figure out what is actually happening IRL

I come from a society that has had free legal abortion for as long as the US has had it (May 1973). All non life threatening abortions must be performed before the 12th week (although you can apply for an exception, there are just under a thousand exceptions per year). About 15,000 abortions take place every year against 50-55,000 births. So just under 20% of all pregnancies are terminated.

Contraception is freely available, you can buy condoms at every check out counter in the supermarkets, contraceptive pills can be bought over the counter in pharmacies, sex education is on the curriculum in every school.

It would be inconceivable for the vast majority of Danes to work to overturn free legal abortion.

That said, we're not exactly a very religious lot

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Sorry bro but if these women dont want to have the kids. Then they dont have to. Get over it and yourself.

 

[the moops]

I think it is arrogant to think we should control which babies get a shot and which don't.

The only arrogant point of view is yours. We (pro-choicers) are not making any decisions as to what fetus lives or what fetus gets aborted.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Kick this up a notch...

Do men put pressure on their partners to have an abortion? If the couple is not married they typically do not want that child. And before you go shaking that finger saying too bad, if you want to understand the high abortion rate at least look at it thru a different perspective so you have more ammo to argue with.

Why do guys put pressure on their wimmens to abort? I think the court system and the way the money is mishandled and a large chunk of it is expected to automatically be produced by the man. We live in a society that wants equality but apparently women are not financially responsible for their kids or at least not thought of as having to pay half.

As of right now this is how it works in simplistic terms...

Man-$70,000 year

Woman-$30,000 year

They add up the total and they see what lifestyle is expected at this amount of income. Then they take the totals and let's say the amount the court deems to raise the child is $1,000 a month(not every kid seems to be deemed to need the same amount-wealthier the dad the more he pays). Man pay 70% since he makes 70% of the combined income or $700 a month, female is on the hook for $300 but of course it doesn't come out of her paycheck into a state fund. In fact they are going to take your money and just hand it to mommy with no real strings attached on how it should be used.

This is just a small slice of it but when a guy runs back to his fellows to tell them he got a girl knocked up, this is the story that will be told to that young man by at least one of the males standing around.

There are many things that go into this but religion should be removed. Focus on the courts and laws already in place, I think you would find the abortion rate would go down if we re-think the entire legal process, I believe you would see the numbers drop. A lot of folks do not view pregnancies as good news where others are overjoyed.

 

[the moops]

jesus effing holy hell

 

[Christo]

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And then when you forge ahead in life my male friends, guess who gets a % of everything you make plus gets a raise just about every time you do? They catch wind of you doing well they can march back into court once every couple years and ask to see your finances.

You have to become James Bond in trying to hide your finances. Swiss bank accounts, money markets in others names, its a mess.

So just rent a hooker for the night is my advice. You might think $300 for an hour is a lot but multiply $750/month if you make much over $50k and then multiply that times 216 months or at minimum you will fork out close to a 1/4 million of your income over the next 18 years.

$250,000

vs

$300

You decide

 

[Workhorse]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Kick this up a notch...

Do men put pressure on their partners to have an abortion? If the couple is not married they typically do not want that child. And before you go shaking that finger saying too bad, if you want to understand the high abortion rate at least look at it thru a different perspective so you have more ammo to argue with.

Why do guys put pressure on their wimmens to abort? I think the court system and the way the money is mishandled and a large chunk of it is expected to automatically be produced by the man. We live in a society that wants equality but apparently women are not financially responsible for their kids or at least not thought of as having to pay half.

As of right now this is how it works in simplistic terms...

Man-$70,000 year

Woman-$30,000 year

They add up the total and they see what lifestyle is expected at this amount of income. Then they take the totals and let's say the amount the court deems to raise the child is $1,000 a month(not every kid seems to be deemed to need the same amount-wealthier the dad the more he pays). Man pay 70% since he makes 70% of the combined income or $700 a month, female is on the hook for $300 but of course it doesn't come out of her paycheck into a state fund. In fact they are going to take your money and just hand it to mommy with no real strings attached on how it should be used.

This is just a small slice of it but when a guy runs back to his fellows to tell them he got a girl knocked up, this is the story that will be told to that young man by at least one of the males standing around.

There are many things that go into this but religion should be removed. Focus on the courts and laws already in place, I think you would find the abortion rate would go down if we re-think the entire legal process, I believe you would see the numbers drop. A lot of folks do not view pregnancies as good news where others are overjoyed.

And then when you forge ahead in life my male friends, guess who gets a % of everything you make plus gets a raise just about every time you do? They catch wind of you doing well they can march back into court once every couple years and ask to see your finances.

You have to become James Bond in trying to hide your finances. Swiss bank accounts, money markets in others names, its a mess.

So just rent a hooker for the night is my advice. You might think $300 for an hour is a lot but multiply $750/month if you make much over $50k and then multiply that times 216 months or at minimum you will fork out close to a 1/4 million of your income over the next 18 years.

$250,000

vs

$300

You decide

God I hope this is the kinda stuff you teach in class.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I've said this before, but I'll try it again:

Stuff like this turns off people who are undecided, or who are pro-choice but are generally anti-abortion and don't have a problem with certain restrictions on them based on stage of pregnancy, etc. I'm in the latter category. I think there are a LOT of people in this category too. We're willing to listen to ideas. But if you start referring to a penny-sized, lung-less fetus with only the beginnings of a brain and nervous system with the same words we use to describe our breathing, crying, adoring infants, you lose us immediately.

I get that you think human life begins at conception, and that's fine. But most people don't think that and they never will. If you demand that everyone else agree with your minority viewpoint and declare those who don't to be supporters of genocide, you're only going to make enemies.

Well said, and I think you and I seem to be in the same boat in terms of belief on this issue.

 

[Workhorse]

I would hazard a guess that most people who are against abortion and classify it as murder would also believe that murder should be a capital crime.

Yet they probably wouldn't agree that the staggering number of women who have had an abortion should be rounded up and killed after proof of their murder was found. Why not?

I do have to grant you that this is an interesting consistency-check. My guess is that very few pro-life people really want to see getting-an-abortion prosecuted in the same way that they would want to see murder prosecuted. (For the record, I oppose the death penalty regardless, but I'm setting that aside because I get your point and don't want to derail things).

My personal views on this are twofold. First, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for some women who find themselves in this spot, and while I would like to prevent them from doing something that I view as evil and inhumane, criminal prosecution seems to be a step too far. Second, I will give quit a bit of ground if we can just agree to outlaw most abortions and leave it at that. So, for example, I will agree not to prosecute women who have abortions, and I will also agree to allow abortions for rape/incest/healthofmother if you agree to outlaw elective abortions and shut down clinics that provide them. Maybe that's not philosophically ideal -- different folks might feel differently about some of those items -- but it would be a big improvement over the status quo from the standpoint of a pro-life person.

That's a barbaric idea. So women would have to prove that they were raped in order to get an abortion?

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

Wow, I didn't realize that there were people out there who felt this way. Learned something new, I guess.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

 

[timschochet]

And yet Tim slipped through the crack.

Really? This was your contribution?

 

[cstu]

Yes, unless it jeopardizes her own life. I'm aware of the limb I'm out on, but in my view the child should not pay with his or her life due to the heinous act of another. It's not a position I'd fight with much gusto but I hold it. I wonder whether I'd have the courage myself to carry a baby to term if I was a woman who had been raped. I have no way of knowing, of course, and I'd probably feel like I should have the choice to abort since I had been violated against my will. Obviously it's horrible all the way around, and there is no answer without significant collateral damage. But I'd like to think killing would be the last option.

i respect this opinion a lot [ ] never understood why the manner of conception should matter if you think abortion is murder.

Let's pretend it was your daughter who was raped and impregnated...her choices in your world are:

- Carry the child she didn't want to term - going a tremendous amount of physical and emotional change while the entire time being reminded of the night she was raped. Then she has to give birth (a life-threatening event) and decide whether to keep the child of her rape or give it up for adoption after suffering through 9 months of pregnancy and child birth.

- Commit a crime by getting an illegal and dangerous abortion.

 

[Abraham]

People need to mind their business. Abortion is a personal choice.

The fact that its politicized so much makes me sick to my stomach. Here in Texas the republicans have shut down over half of the abortion clinics, if they succeed with the current bill all but 7 abortion clinics would remain in the entire state. In Mississippi it's even worse.

Yet these same bozos who are so against it don't want to give a cent of assistance to the children that are born.

####### pathetic.

Agree completely. I'm not sure I think abortion should be legal, but I'm certain that dictating what a woman should do with own her body is a price I'm unwilling to pay.

 

[cstu]

If it were entirely up to me, I wouldn't allow a "rape exception." I'm offering this to the other side magnanimously in the spirit of compromise. If you'd rather just dispense with that exception, fine with me.

You're a ####ed up person if you would force someone who is raped to have the child.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I've never actually seen the numbers on abortions, but I would have never guessed it was so high.

That's because when we talk about abortion, we end up spending a disproportionate amount of time talking incest or pregnancies resulting from rape, both of which are vanishingly rare compared plain old convenience-driven abortions.

It's pretty clear there's not going to be much agreement between the 'sides', but I agree with this.

 

[cosjobs]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

No.

 

[AnonymousBob]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

God I hope this is the kinda stuff you teach in class.

I do it in different ways but I would never speak to them in that way. I do things like teach boys "No means No" and not just "No" for like 5 seconds, you don't continue once they shut you down.

I teach the boys to act like gentlemen and be super respectful of the girls.

Now about halfway thru the year, like right now, the boys start asking out loud how come the girls are not bound by as many rules and manners. And that's when I say "You're learning"

 

[AnonymousBob]

What we really need are more men arguing over this and making all the decisions.

Well men are expected to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in support, shouldn't they have a say in things? Any other walk of life when money is involved the people shelling it out tend to have the biggest voice, yes/no?

Do you feel men had a choice in not using a condom or some other contraceptive?

 

[cosjobs]

plain old convenience-driven abortions.

Oh, good lord. What an absolutely disgusting turn of phrase.

Sorry, but it's entirely accurate. Most abortions are driven by some variant of "Now isn't a good time for me to have a child" i.e. it's inconvenient. If you find that troubling, I do as well and I'm sure the OP does too.

So you feel its your place to decide for or publicly judge for the "inconvenienced" woman. That's something you should decide for her? Calling it inconvenient is ridiculously dismissive of her, her decisions and the entire situation. Not being able to go to college, having to raise the child alone, with an unsuitable or abusive natural father, or other fate is the often the key decision in the woman's life at that point. Calling it inconvenient is not only inappropriately dismissive, it reeks of plastering your sense of superior morality on someone making a real life decision, not a political talking point. Personally, I think that is a private decision for her and none of my ###### business. I may not like it or support it, but again, its her business/life not mine.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Perhaps the word inconvenient is overly dismissive sounding and you would prefer to call it an undue hardship, negative life event, or whatever. But at the end of the day, isn't that essentially what it is? A huge life inconvenience? It's a bit blunt, demeaning/insulting, but that's really what it is, no?

Sure, if you want to be demeaning and insulting to a person having to make their toughest life decision, so you can belittle them and make political talking points, go ahead