Why Do Women Have Abortions?

I think alot of the opposition to leaving a loophole open for the 7% categories is that the other 93% will suddenly squeeze into the 7%. Just like magic.

I doubt that simply banning abortion will accomplish anything.

Bombing Planned Parenthood centers and abortion clinics won't accomplish anything either.

Instead of attacking people who are contemplating abortion and attacking the brick-and-mortar representations of it, we have to give them more options and do whatever we can to convince them not to have an abortion.

I think that's a great idea, Mark! Unfortunately, in most states it's illegal to try to convince women not to have an abortion unless they already don't want to have one and specifically seek out advice on how to avoid having one. Abortion has become an issue where it's against the law to express an opposing opinion too loudly near people who you might persuade. Sad, isn't it?

At the end of the day, the choice of whether to have an abortion or not is ultimately that of the mother... whether it's illegal or not.

As prohibition and laws against using drugs have shown us, making something illegal doesn't translate into stopping the activity or behavior.

I think it was on Prager yesterday, but he was talking about how that with the improved ultrasound technology, women considering an abortion who were giving pictures of the ultrasound with all the crisp details were far less likely to continue with their plans to get an abortion.

Of course one of the abortion groups said it was abuse of ultrasound or some crap like that.

Pirate, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for providing such a great example. I've heard about states where they wanted to require all women considering abortion to just have an ultrasound, nothing else, and it was struck down as an infringement on women's reproductive rights. Information that might lead to a choice not to have an abortion is considered "anti-choice."

Here in Utah they're trying to pass a law that would allow people who express an anti-abortion viewpoint within 8 feet of someone near a clinic to be sued for punitive damages. It's based on one that's already been passed and declared Constitutional in Colorado. In Utah they've packaged it in with the same sort of prohibition near a place of worship in hopes that the Mormon majority will support it, because it will also severely restrict the protesters that literally wipe their butts on sacred Mormon garments outside the church's conferences. As offensive as that is, I still don't think it's right to restrict it.

Instead of attacking people who are contemplating abortion and attacking the brick-and-mortar representations of it, we have to give them more options and do whatever we can to convince them not to have an abortion.

I think since so many people equate abortion with murder, emphasising this alternative without making it illegal is tantamount to offering counseling or better job opportunities to murderers so they won't kill us.

History suggests we'd be safer making it illegal.

Murder is illegal.. and has been so for a long time. Murders still occur, though... and the fluctuation in murder rates over time suggests that being illegal doesn't have as big of an impact as various other factors that mitigate the likelihood of people to commit murder.

Murder and abortion aren't entirely the same, though.

To a lot of people it is, though. Morally, ethically, Biblically, whichever you prefer.

And I understand that the penalty doesn't deter all murders, but it does some - plus it helps eliminate the possibility of more murders by the same person.

I still think, though, you'd be thought crazy by trying to deal with potential murderers solely by counseling and government incentives.

I'm not suggesting that we deal with potential murderers through counseling and incentives. I'm suggesting that we deal with people who are considering abortion in that way. This is where the differences between murder and abortion come into play.

Mark: I think you're wrong in claiming that the War on Drugs doesn't reduce drug use. Prohibition drastically increases the street prices of illegal drugs, and simple economics says that increased price reduces consumption. Sure, the WoD has other side effects that may outweigh this benefit, but it certainly does reduce drug use. Likewise, prohibiting abortion would vastly reduce the number of abortions, even though some would certainly cheat the system, as King of Fools said.

King of Fools: The easiest solution to your problem is to require a court order for an abortion and to create a clear set of criteria for granting them. Would it be perfect? No, but it would be much more effective than our current system.

Barry: You're right in your characterization of many pro-lifers and their thought that abortion and murder should be handled similarly. However, unlike most murderers, women who seek abortions are not likely to be dangers to born-people. The punishment for having an illegal abortion should include sterilization.

MW: I never said it doesn't *reduce* it... I said it doesn't *stop* it. Drugs have been illegal for a long time... and yet, usage rises and falls periodically. The same with murder.

Making it illegal would "Vastly" reduce the number of abortions? I doubt it.

MW: As for increased illegal drug prices meaning less use, that's a crock. If someone wants to get drugs.. they'll get drugs. If it costs more, they'll find.. or steal.. the money.

Mark: You can't "stop" evil activity entirely, so if that's your only standard, we may as well never do anything.

As for drugs, people want sports jerseys and shoes and jewelry and all sorts of other stuff, but only a few people are willing to steal for what they can't afford -- because we throw thieves in jail. It's absurd to claim or believe that increased costs (jail time or monetary) don't reduce concumption. It flies in the face of economics.

MW: No, it's not my only standard.

Sports jerseys, shoes, jewelry, and all sorts of other stuff are not drugs and illegal substances. They are things for which there are legal avenues to purchase and use. The drugs we're talking about are not. Why would most people steal what they can buy? There are more drug users than there are common thieves.

At this point, we'd need an astounding degree of concurrence to such a ban to be able to enforce it. Brazil, a highly Catholic country whose prohibition against abortion is written into its Constitution -- it's considered murder there -- still estimates that its womenfolk undergo approximately 1,000,000 abortions per year. What would the odds be of enforcing a ban here, in a country where at least a third of the populace believes an abortion ought to be no one's business but the unhappy mother-to-be?

Abortion is a horrible thing, but, except for partial-birth abortion, legislative measures do not appear to be the best way to reduce its frequency.

Other studies indicate that the number one reason women have abortions is the pressure from the father of the child, the woman's mother or dad, or from peers. So the categories named such as expense, not ready, etc., or merely the stated reasons that have been drilled into them by these others.

In addition to the other remedies above, we need a truth in advertising rule. Women need to be told in no uncertain terms about the physical, medical, and emotional consequences of abortion. Seeing an ultra sound is another great help. But abortion mills need to have laws requiring full disclosure that this is a child, not a mass of cells. There should probably also be at least a 24 hour cooling off period between signing the contract and having the abortion.

Finally, there should a requirement to offer the individual a list of alternatives with their advantages and disadvantages. If a person is considereing a cancer, heart, brain or other operation, the doctor is required to indicate the options and consequences of the options. This is not like buying a car where the buyer just has to beware of an overzealous salesman. This is life and death, and lots of impressionable young . . . very young . . . women are being sold on this decision for the $$$$$.

It seems rather contradictory to me for the govt to be so keenly anti-abortion and at the same time not provide basic health-care to uninsured babies. Why is it that compassion and campaigning for minors' rights stop at birth?

MW: would you also condone sterilizing the potential fathers of aborted children?

jez: That's a total crock. Every baby and child in this country has free health care available until they turn at least 18 years old. It's generally providec by the states, but there's federal money in there also.

I wouldn't be in favor of sterilizing fathers, mainly because the father has absolutely no say in the abortion decision. If it were the case that an abortion couldn't happen without the father's consent, then I'd bein favor of sterilizing him... although any law that required his consent for an abortion would obviously mean that abortions were legal, so sterilization would be off the table, etc.

oh, is that the case? splendid. sorry for the error.

aborsions are not fair to the seed inside of you i dont think that it is fair that you have to kill a life to substain your dream there are other ways like adoption people who are thinking about adoption should concider it before they actually do it.............

i think its wrong to have an abortion u r killing a poor baby that doesnt have a chance b/c u have taken it away....u can give it up for adoption if u dont want it .... i mean u wouldnt want ur mom to take u our of the world ....but ur still alive so i think its so dumb ADOPTION!!!! there are a lot of ppl in this world that cant have babies and would want one

i am so totally against abortion because no women has a right to kill a baby i think it is just like murder if they didn't want to have a baby then they should have used protection and they shouldn't have went out and had sex its their own fault for getting pregnant thats why im against it.

A women has the right to do whatever she desires with her body; sometimes women are put in difficult situations, like incest, were abortion is one of their only option because of their emotional and physical feeligs after a terifying situation.

I feel it is worng,sad, and mean to have an aborion. You are killing a inecent persious baby, when all you had to do was give him/her up for adotion. I think that would be the best chocie to do. I hope and pray that one day it will all come to a end.

i think that abortion should not be bamnned it is simply up to the person that is carrying the baby wether they would like to keep it or not.

think of those people that have been raped they will have to keep it and be reminded of all the things that they would rather not remember!

Well i think people should not have abortions because put you in the babys place and think about it how they get there little arms legs and heads get ripped of well that is why i dont like it.