Abortion

Do tell.

That's fair, so long as you understand that that is a moral judgment you are making without any comprehension of the circumstances surrounding such decisions.

FreeDuck wrote:

Do tell.

Demographics.

If one representative segment of the country account for 12% of the population, yet also account for 36% of abortions provided, then that might affect the population growth of that particular demographic.

Possible.

FreeDuck wrote:

Do tell.

Demographics.

If one representative segment of the country account for 12% of the population, yet also account for 36% of abortions provided, then that might affect the population growth of that particular demographic.

Possible.

JustWonders wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Do tell.

Demographics.

If one representative segment of the country account for 12% of the population, yet also account for 36% of abortions provided, then that might affect the population growth of that particular demographic.

Possible.

If something were causing a certain demographic to be over represented in the number of abortions, that indicates another problem altogether which should be addressed independently.

That's a hard row to hoe. First, you'd have to show how we all share the burden. Are most abortions paid for by state and federal health insurance? Is it a significant cost? If healthcare cost represents a legitimate societal interest, couldn't we legislate obesity, too much sugar, and athletics?

Yes, but I was only commenting on your statement that it affected no one but the woman and her family.

If abortion is seen as primarily a values issue to Democrats, say, then could it be assumed that more women of the Democratic persuasion opt for abortion than Republican women?

How do you get this from his remarks. He's only said that he would go to extremes to prevent an abortion, but gave no indication of his willingness to be a parent, and even less indication that he would be a very good one.

There are also a lot of men out there who think they get to decide the future of a woman just because he was lucky enough to boink her. There are some who think that "whatever it takes" includes aggressive, illegal, and immoral acts. For many men, it's more about preserving their perceived power over "inferior" women than it is about committing to raise a child.

What are you getting at?['quote]

Just throwing ideas out there of how it could affect more than just the individual and her family....however indirectly.

FreeDuck wrote:

That's a hard row to hoe. First, you'd have to show how we all share the burden. Are most abortions paid for by state and federal health insurance? Is it a significant cost? If healthcare cost represents a legitimate societal interest, couldn't we legislate obesity, too much sugar, and athletics?

In Wisconsin, people with Badger Care have great insurance which is available to low income people (there are a couple of other requirements but I don't know exactly what they are). My tax dollars pay for Badger Care. Even if it isn't Federal Insurance paying for abortions they give tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Keeping the kid is probably even worse as far as tax dollars being spent. I remember when I was in school, my wife (girlfriend at the time) was working 3 jobs (at night at a digital printer, the school newspaper, and the campus library) and taking out loans to pay for school. Her Junior year they raised tuition and she was worried that she couldn't afford her senior year. She went to the financial aid office to see if there was any more help anywhere for her and the answer she got was, "If you had a dependent we would be able to get you more aid." Now, here is a hard working, responsible girl who nearly got priced out of school while anyone with a kid out of wedlock gets school paid for.

Somebody is paying that cost. And it is just one small example.
I really don't think that it is that difficult of an argument.

FreeDuck wrote:

What are you getting at?['quote]

Just throwing ideas out there of how it could affect more than just the individual and her family....however indirectly.

Quote:

There are also a lot of men out there who think they get to decide the future of a woman just because he was lucky enough to boink her. There are some who think that "whatever it takes" includes aggressive, illegal, and immoral acts. For many men, it's more about preserving their perceived power over "inferior" women than it is about committing to raise a child.

You are making assumptions that are obviously tainted by your experience with men.

First of all, I'm married so I won't be "boinking" some random woman. But even if I did, that would be OUR baby, not just hers. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about "preserving power", I just refuse to allow a baby that is half-mine be aborted.

I find it funny that you mention using "immoral" ways to stop a woman from having an abortion. Aren't you the one condemning pro-lifers for trying to impose their morals on society????

BTW, I don't care what the rest of women do. You can have abortions until your blue in the face. I'm just talking about my baby.

JustWonders wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

What are you getting at?['quote]

Just throwing ideas out there of how it could affect more than just the individual and her family....however indirectly.

The Democrat/Republican line was an example of that? .

There's a doozy of an assumption right there.

And what makes you believe you have the power to refuse it?

Am I? Quote me. Nevertheless, what I had in mind when I wrote that were things that are nearly universally held as immoral, so you can breath now.

Can I ask a question?

If those in favor of abortion say that the majority of the country support them,why are the afraid to put it on a ballot?

Even if the USSC overturns Roe v Wade,that still wont end abortion.
It will kick it back to the state level,allowing the voters of each state to decide what they want?

What is wrong with that?
If abortion is that popular,or that much in demand,then I would think that the abortion rights group would want the public to vote on it.

I dont call the group that favors abortion "pro-choice",because they arent.

I told them that I was pro-choice,but that I wanted the choice to be for life,not death.
I was told that I was not "pro-choice",because I dont support abortion,unless medically neccessary.

mysteryman wrote:

Can I ask a question?

If those in favor of abortion say that the majority of the country support them,why are the afraid to put it on a ballot?

Even if the USSC overturns Roe v Wade,that still wont end abortion.
It will kick it back to the state level,allowing the voters of each state to decide what they want?

What is wrong with that?
If abortion is that popular,or that much in demand,then I would think that the abortion rights group would want the public to vote on it.

I dont call the group that favors abortion "pro-choice",because they arent.

I told them that I was pro-choice,but that I wanted the choice to be for life,not death.
I was told that I was not "pro-choice",because I dont support abortion,unless medically neccessary.

I tell you what's wrong with that: Special interest groups would dominate
such state elections, and we all know that the voter turn out in any given
state is rather low (around 40 %) and teenagers who would be most
affected by such an election outcome as they cannot vote due to the age requirement of 18 years.
Besides, why should men have the right to vote on an issue that will effect a woman for the rest of her life.

If there ever was such a ballot, mysteryman, wouldn't it be only fair,
if we all could vote on mandatory vasectomies for those repeat offenders
who are partially to blame for an unwanted pregnancy. As jp said,
it takes two to Tango, why not take responsibility for the leading role?

Birth control is never just a one way street.

It was a question I've thought about, certainly. Of course, we'll never know, but I wouldn't rule out that there's a slight possibility it could affect a political demographic.