Ask any Dem what % of abortions are due to rape, incest, and medical necessity and wait for the crickets to chirp.
The DNC have killed
- Thread starter Two if by Sea
- Start date
1.5%. Not a democrat, but that's the number. Actually, most Democrats I know aren't afraid to say it's a woman's choice.
They do emphasize the conditions that would make most people feel it's necessary or at least understandable to show that you can't just make it illegal across the board and that politicians often aren't thinking about situations that a doctor and patient would be in.
Likewise though, the stress by the pro-life movement is on abortion that rarely happens and almost always is more complicated than abortion on demand: Third trimester abortions.
They also stress late second trimester abortions that are also rare.
Over 91 percent of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks. The fetus at this point is 1.5 to 2.0 inches in length and the size of a fig. You never hear about the process of abortion at this stage. 99% of all abortions are done by the 25th week of pregnancy.
So 98.5% of abortions are not "necessary" and are based on "convenience" or "Oooops!"?
I could argue the morality issue but in reality, I'm not a woman so I have never been faced with that decision. But I'm strongly opposed to abortions being covered by health plans or funded by tax-payer money.
And I also believe that if someone chooses to have an abortion based on convenience or "Ooops", their right to have children later in life should be questioned.
Bullshit, that’s exactly what they are doing is glorifying. If all they’re doing is giving pills, they could just mail them. But no, they have to drive a huge mobile center and make a whole production out of it.
And not many people will argue with victims of incest/rape getting abortions, including me, but how many of the people getting abortions at the DNC were raped? My guess is none.
And now, you people have taken it to such an extreme, you want to pass laws making it legal to destroy a newly born survivor of an abortion attempt
No. 1.5% are incest or rape. I didn't look up others. Mother's life being in jeopardy, fetus that's not viable (some have said that's not an abortion, but it is an abortion actually by definition), etc. Those would be other things.
About the last sentence, are you Christian? No problem if you're not, but that would seem pretty unforgiving.
Anyway, have a good day.
To be clear, I did not. Was I flippant with the alien comment? Yes, clearly a bad attempt to keep a dark topic at least initially less-gruesome. My point was the total # or % that result in pregnancies and thus the relative # that end up being aborted. My point & the data stands: It is low, relative to both the # of rapes & # of abortions.
Incest is trickier...my gut tells me the reports are often due to pregnancy, so we may not have any idea on how prevalent it actually is. But, I'd also argue that incest is rape, too.
To summarize: The amount of discussion of abortions due to rape/incest vs. the % that occur for those reasons is unbalanced. I think it's often used as a shield to avoid a more nuanced discussion of the subject.
I'm not sure I assumed anything? I simply shared.
I didn't address my policy desires on this. But, it has nothing to do with frequency. That said, I have no issue with rape/incest exceptions. Do I believe that even that life is sacred? Yes. Do I wish the mother would choose to keep the baby, even under those gruesome circumstances? Yes. That even the most horrible things imaginable can still result in unbridled joy & incredible blessing? Yes.
Do I want the government to force further unwanted trauma from what is possibly the worst trauma a person can experience? No.
Thus, I'm in favor of that exception. But, not because of how frequently it does or does not happen.
FWIW, I was simply being precise on the % for each, for clarity. Although, as I addressed somewhat above, it might be a distinction without a difference.
According to Yale Medicine, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. A medical abortion is a medical procedure that ends an undesired pregnancy. Abortion is not the same as miscarriage. Miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends on its own before the 20th week of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, can occur for many reasons.
Furthermore, Oxford Constitutional Law says Abortion is commonly defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause the death of the embryo or fetus.
Note that a pregnancy ending on it's own, but requiring medical intervention for the mother's help is still a miscarriage & not what has largely been recognized as "abortion" for decades, even though there has been recent intentionally misleading information put out to confuse & muddy the waters...which was my point in what you quoted.
I don't think that's "obvious". For example, Harris once voted against protections for babies born alive after botched abortions.
Beyond that, what I believe your referring to is his quote that Democrats want to “take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth” during presidential debates.
Abortions that late are often not “medically necessary” as is routinely claimed. One 2013 study concluded that “data suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Another 2019 study agreed that “most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.”
Given the context, I think it's clear that your assertion here re: the term 'miscarriage' is flawed.
"Abortion as a celebration of life."
"My abortion made me happy."
"Many people who have abortions celebrate their experience."
FWIW, my participation in this thread was to short circuit most of what I argue are flawed arguments for abortion.
What you wrote above would be another novel on what is already a too-long post. Not ignoring your comment...but, not going to address it here. Maybe another day.
This is a totally different discussion. But, it is fundamentally flawed to categorize something as a "basic human right", which mandates the services of any professional individual or group.
I believe that this is an inherently flawed argument, that involves a multitude of other complicated issues and also mischaracterizes the 'same people' you reference. But similar to above, will defer to another day.
Sorry...that's a overused and silly argument that doesn't make the point you think it does. There are obviously pro-life women, and assuming men are weaker creatures who couldn't handle pregnancy if they had to is no better than thinking of women as weak vessels for carrying children.
Additionally, during that “White Dudes for Harris” call, Buttigieg made a revealing point:
“Men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion.”
What he's arguing here is the ability of men to have recreational sex with whomever they want but avoid becoming tied to the results of that behavior thanks to abortion.
Men who don’t want the responsibilities that come with being a husband and father don’t have to shoulder them. They simply have to pay or pressure their one-night stand to visit to the local Planned Parenthood.
Yes, even men can suffer the emotional consequences of abortion, the same as women whose bodies and emotions also pay the price.
This ideology hinges on using women for their bodies and discarding any children that come as a result. It’s dystopian, imo and is counter-intuitive to the argument you make above.
You could have stopped at "Correct." I was responding to the OP who started the thread on a false premise without doing any research. He was specifically referencing the mobile clinic and saying it was associated with the DNC and was providing on-site abortions.
If you want to argue a different point by saying that the Dems shouldn't support or promote Planned Parenthood, then that is a separate topic that may warrant a different thread.
Speaking of a topic that needs a separate thread, I am surprised by all the anti-abortion Republicans. If women are forced to have children they do not want or cannot support, guess who is going to be paying for that child. Most likely US (the government)! So beside the fact that women should do what they want to do, allowing abortion makes good fiscal sense!
That was long. I think I'll go back to American Carnage by Tim Alberta. Good book if you like to read.To be clear, I did not. Was I flippant with the alien comment? Yes, clearly a bad attempt to keep a dark topic at least initially less-gruesome. My point was the total # or % that result in pregnancies and thus the relative # that end up being aborted. My point & the data stands: It is low, relative to both the # of rapes & # of abortions.
Incest is trickier...my gut tells me the reports are often due to pregnancy, so we may not have any idea on how prevalent it actually is. But, I'd also argue that incest is rape, too.
To summarize: The amount of discussion of abortions due to rape/incest vs. the % that occur for those reasons is unbalanced. I think it's often used as a shield to avoid a more nuanced discussion of the subject.
I'm not sure I assumed anything? I simply shared.
I didn't address my policy desires on this. But, it has nothing to do with frequency. That said, I have no issue with rape/incest exceptions. Do I believe that even that life is sacred? Yes. Do I wish the mother would choose to keep the baby, even under those gruesome circumstances? Yes. That even the most horrible things imaginable can still result in unbridled joy & incredible blessing? Yes.
Do I want the government to force further unwanted trauma from what is possibly the worst trauma a person can experience? No.
Thus, I'm in favor of that exception. But, not because of how frequently it does or does not happen.
FWIW, I was simply being precise on the % for each, for clarity. Although, as I addressed somewhat above, it might be a distinction without a difference.
According to Yale Medicine, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. A medical abortion is a medical procedure that ends an undesired pregnancy. Abortion is not the same as miscarriage. Miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends on its own before the 20th week of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, can occur for many reasons.
Furthermore, Oxford Constitutional Law says Abortion is commonly defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause the death of the embryo or fetus.
Note that a pregnancy ending on it's own, but requiring medical intervention for the mother's help is still a miscarriage & not what has largely been recognized as "abortion" for decades, even though there has been recent intentionally misleading information put out to confuse & muddy the waters...which was my point in what you quoted.
I don't think that's "obvious". For example, Harris once voted against protections for babies born alive after botched abortions.
Beyond that, what I believe your referring to is his quote that Democrats want to “take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth” during presidential debates.
Abortions that late are often not “medically necessary” as is routinely claimed. One 2013 study concluded that “data suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Another 2019 study agreed that “most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.”
Given the context, I think it's clear that your assertion here re: the term 'miscarriage' is flawed.
"Abortion as a celebration of life."
"My abortion made me happy."
"Many people who have abortions celebrate their experience."
FWIW, my participation in this thread was to short circuit most of what I argue are flawed arguments for abortion.
What you wrote above would be another novel on what is already a too-long post. Not ignoring your comment...but, not going to address it here. Maybe another day.
This is a totally different discussion. But, it is fundamentally flawed to categorize something as a "basic human right", which mandates the services of any professional individual or group.
I believe that this is an inherently flawed argument, that involves a multitude of other complicated issues and also mischaracterizes the 'same people' you reference. But similar to above, will defer to another day.
Sorry...that's a overused and silly argument that doesn't make the point you think it does. There are obviously pro-life women, and assuming men are weaker creatures who couldn't handle pregnancy if they had to is no better than thinking of women as weak vessels for carrying children.
Additionally, during that “White Dudes for Harris” call, Buttigieg made a revealing point:
“Men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion.”
What he's arguing here is the ability of men to have recreational sex with whomever they want but avoid becoming tied to the results of that behavior thanks to abortion.
Men who don’t want the responsibilities that come with being a husband and father don’t have to shoulder them. They simply have to pay or pressure their one-night stand to visit to the local Planned Parenthood.
Yes, even men can suffer the emotional consequences of abortion, the same as women whose bodies and emotions also pay the price.
This ideology hinges on using women for their bodies and discarding any children that come as a result. It’s dystopian, imo and is counter-intuitive to the argument you make above.
Why is it non-Christian to think that someone who aborts one child (again, under the convenience or Ooops scenario), and then decides later on that they want a child should be under scrutiny?
Congratulations on being Jewish. At least we agree on the “image of God” scripture reference.
I guess I misunderstood your comments about lions, tigers and snakes?
Help me out here. I am not a very smart man.
There are numerous people who would adopt the babies. I know of many who have flown overseas to adopt. Wow. Good fiscal sense. You are way down a slippery slope with that comment.
"Forced to have children they do not want or cannot support"????
Opposing abortion = forcing women to have children?
I'm pretty sure there is a way to avoid having children, besides abortion.
It doesn’t matter to me what the percentage is. Most are okay with it for cases of incest/rape/mother safety. I did see the percentage at one point of women that regretted having an abortion and it was somewhere around 80% and most suffered mental/emotional problems that required treatment.
I understand both sides, and one side can’t be proven with temporal evidence, although there is plenty of scriptural evidence (most dems do not recognize Gods authority, and that’s their right). For me, since neither side can prove the other wrong on mutually accepted criteria, I choose life because it voids the doubt. If pro abortioners are wrong, they just murdered a baby, if I’m wrong, nobody has been murdered. Since nobody is sure, I choose life.
My main point I the post is this, any of these women getting abortions could just have easily gone to a clinic and had the procedure or get their pill. But they had to advertise this like a Las Vegas production and shove it everyone’s face, as they want us all to conform to their way of life. As always, it’s about control.
It’s a sickening display on so many levels. If PP was serious about reducing suffering, they could have devoted all that money to preg prevention. If these almost mothers prevented their pregnancies instead of aborting their child, it would probably have meaningful impacts on their future mental health.
These govt organizations are using these pregnant women. Govt doesn’t care about individuals. It uses the ones that fall for their tyrannical concepts and laws. This whole PP showing is unnecessary, damaging, and they propagandize these ideas to the detriment of any person unfortunate enough to fall for their lies.
I am not anti-abortion, I am against killing conceived human life.
I did not force the woman to have unprotected sex. I have more confidence in women being responsible.
Of all the alternatives, why push killing your offspring? Why not just prevent it?
Unbelievable that someone will try and defend abortion unless there is an issue with the child, incest, or rape. And even then you are taking a life ..says a lot about the person trying to defend it….If you believe in it you believe in it, but trying to defend it is just plain sickening!
But you weren’t seriously suggesting the government should have the power to take away their right to have a child were you?
I thought it was a fig
11 week old fetus.... does this look like a puppy? a giraffe? a clump of cells?....look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself "that's not an unborn child.. c'mon man.
Well let's trust the science on this then. The first forms of 'life' on planet earth were single celled organisms. As 'life' become more advanced they became multi-celled organisms.
Therefore, an embryo is not only life but it is an advanced form of life?
It’s a reasonable formulation but far from the only one. If it was purely based in calculating the existence of a cell, then there are many as advanced creatures we kill every day without considering ourselves to have murdered- or even committed a moral wrong.
I think we do the whole debate a disservice to not acknowledge that there are legitimate differences of opinion.
Bottom line is that Dems want you think that abortions resulting from rape, incest, and medical necessity are the norm, which is complete bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that 70% of abortions are due to irresponsible behavior and someone wanting to get rid of a problem they don't want to deal with.
What??? Promoting abortion with slash wagons at the DNC is a far cry from rape. Apples and oranges
