Abortion?

[Palmolive]

Originally Posted by dani99

To me, it's a mistake so I have every right to view it as a mistake.

I know the difference. I understand that pro-choice is that you don't agree with abortion for yourself but you still think that any other person should be allowed to decide. I, however, don't think it's right. I don't think that it should be allowed, but it is. I value life.

I know that pro-abortion is that you believe that all women should get abortions. I know good and well of the differences between the two labels, thank you. I respect the right of opinion, although I don't agree. I don't understand abortion or why people would get them, but it's just how I was raised. I was brought up in a house where my mother always told me "People who abort their children are heartless idiots" and where I don't agree with THAT much, because that is a very rude way of putting it - I still think abortion is wrong.

I think my sympathy for the women and me accepting that it's going to happen no matter how much I hate it puts me on the border of pro-life and pro-choice, yes. But I have a lot more pro-life values, so I'm just over that edge.

I still don't understand how you can say its a mistake for every woman. Maybe for you it would be. But we're all individuals just like we all have opinions and i think that it's important for people to be open minded in these situations. Maybe abortion is a mistake for some people but maybe for others getting pregnent is the mistake.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by dani99

I value life.

Who doesn't value life?

[dani99]

To every woman, it's not a mistake. But in my eyes, it's a mistake for any woman to have one. Make sense? I think abortion is a mistake, because I view it as something wrong.

[Palmolive]

Originally Posted by dani99

To every woman, it's not a mistake. But in my eyes, it's a mistake for any woman to have one. Make sense? I think abortion is a mistake, because I view it as something wrong.

So therefore, you feel it would just be a mistake for you, right?

[dani99]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Who doesn't value life?

Let me rephrase that. I value all life.

But, to answer that anyways - murderers, maybe?

Originally Posted by Lygophobia

So therefore, you feel it would just be a mistake for you, right?

Well, yes. But at the same time, because of my beliefs I feel as if they are making a mistake. Everyone is going to have different values and if it goes against their values and beliefs, they deem the thing in general a mistake.

[Palmolive]

Originally Posted by dani99

Well, yes. But at the same time, because of my beliefs I feel as if they are making a mistake. Everyone is going to have different values and if it goes against their values and beliefs, they deem the thing in general a mistake.

So then you, are saying that every women in society, whom have an abortion, are infact making a mistake. And that was my point. I don't think its far for you to judge every woman who has had an abortion, by saying they've all made a mistake. Like i said, maybe to some of them, getting pregnent was the mistake.

[dani99]

Despite, it's my opinion. I don't judge the woman as a whole, just that little aspect.

[thebigmole]

Ok I'm going to be a bit harsh now. I am also going to generalize a bit.

I personally believe that women who give their children up for adoption are the strongest women you will ever meet. It takes such an amount of strength and courage to give up a child you have carried to term. I could never do it and I admire every woman who is able to.

Women who get abortions are the second strongest (again generalization not counting people who do misuse the right). The decision to have an abortion is so incredibly hard. And so many people think that all the mother is thinking about is herself but I don't think that can be farther from the truth. More than anything that mother is thinking about the quality of life her child would have. Or the effect having the child would have on her family, or the father of the baby. I think that those women who make the decision to do it are incredibly brave.

Lastly there are the women specifically in bad situations that decided to keep the baby. I'm talking about teenagers who have been thrown out of their house, or women with no money, or that have a lot of kids already that they are struggling to support. I truly believe that women in these situations that keep their child are weak, and selfish. Because the only reason they are doing it is because of their feelings. Because they would feel to guilty if they did anything else. It doesn't matter if they can't actually afford a child, it doesn't matter if it would keep them from getting an education or a job that could then help them support future children. I'm not saying it doesn't work out, it does sometimes. But there are plenty of times where it doesn't. I think women who are in those specific situations make a mistake when they choose to keep their child. However I would NEVER deny those women that choice. Because yes there's always a chance that everything could work out and if they decide to take that chance then that's their perogative. But for those not willing to chance the bad happening. For those women who choose to end one pregnancy so that they can get their lives together to maybe have more children in the future, that's just as much their right.

[Storyteller.]

Politically pro-choice, morally pro-life. That's the best way I can think to sum up my views.

[dani99]

Well, I have pretty much said all of my views and answered loads of questions (some more than once) and I have nothing more to say. If everyone else wants to keep going, that's fine. If not, we should get this closed.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by dani99

Let me rephrase that. I value all life.

You value all life, but do you value all life the same or does that value vary?

[2dreamland]

I am pro-life all way, 1000%! Under no circumstance do I believe that abortion is right.

[2dreamland]

I am pro-life all the way, 1000%! Under no circumstance do I believe that abortion is right.

[2dreamland]

sorry for double post..

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by Brandon

That's the point of labels. Pro-life means supporting life...who the hell doesn't support life? That's obviously a no-brainer. So when someone says they're pro-choice, they are essentially saying that they are not supporting life. You would think that pro-life is the obvious choice until you think...hey, people should be given that freedom. Obviously the fetus is still in development. It's not like we're stabbing a knife into a 2 year old's neck. Sometimes, things happen and you don't want to deal with the problem unless you absolutely have to. You have the choice, so exercise that choice. After all, America was founded because of desire for a kind of freedom. Shouldn't it be the same to have freedom of choice? So both sides label each other to make powerful standpoints with valid arguments. Pro life...pro choice.[/size][/color][/font]

Well, my own opinion is that the foetus in the womb isn't even a life yet. It isn't a life until it can survive outside the womb on its own. Up until then it's a parasite.

Also before anyone gets upset about me calling a foetus a parasite lets just clarify the definition
Parasite : An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
That sure sounds like what a foetus does to me.

[Ambedo.]

My beliefs have actually changed within the past couple months. I never thought I would say this, but I'm pro-choice. I would never have an abortion, but I can't put someone down for doing what they see as best for them. I just don't have the right to deny them that.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Nenya

Well, my own opinion is that the foetus in the womb isn't even a life yet. It isn't a life until it can survive outside the womb on its own. Up until then it's a parasite.

That's perfectly reasonable. How would you feel about the argument about...setting aside the debate on whether life begins at conception or after birth...that abortion is morally wrong because it is causing a loss of future?

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by Brandon

That's perfectly reasonable. How would you feel about the argument about...setting aside the debate on whether life begins at conception or after birth...that abortion is morally wrong because it is causing a loss of future?

It still wouldn't really be changing my opinion about abortion.

Also, there's the fact that the morning after pill technically takes away a loss of future so are we going to argue that should be made illegal too?

[leadersoftoday101]

I am also very pro-life although I believe everyone has there own opinion. I believe that with the access to birth control and with adoption that abortion is unnessary. I wont tell you that you will burn in hell or anything but I believe that God made everything and that he wouldnt let something happen if you were not able to hangle it. A baby no matter what trimester or how far along is still a baby. I once heard a story that a woman went ot see a doctor. She was 20 years old and already had one child. She was pregnant again and she went to see what it would take to have an abortoin. She talked with the doctor and at the end the Doctor said. Mam I would like to ask you one question. What would you do if someone shot the baby in your arms. She responded with i would cry. The doctor asked why would you cry? Because i dont understand how anyone could kill someone so helpless and innocent. The doctor said so why do you want an abortion. The woman starred at him and left without saying a word. 2 Years later the Doctor recieved a picture of a beautiful baby girl with a note also. The note said " Thank you. If it wasnt for you i would have never gotten to meet my wonderful daughter. She is so special to me and i dont know what i would do without her. To think i probably would have had the abortion if it wasnt for you." I think this is the perfect story because what is the difference between shooting a newborn and having an abortion. They are both helpless and had nothing to do with how they came to be. We should punish them for something that was out of there control. Another point is how is it what if you shoot a pregant woman you are charged with two counts of murder. But its legal to get an abortion. If the baby isnt a baby you cant murder what human. This is strictly my opinion. Everyone has one.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by leadersoftoday101

I am also very pro-life although I believe everyone has there own opinion. I believe that with the access to birth control and with adoption that abortion is unnessary. I wont tell you that you will burn in hell or anything but I believe that God made everything and that he wouldnt let something happen if you were not able to hangle it. A baby no matter what trimester or how far along is still a baby. I once heard a story that a woman went ot see a doctor. She was 20 years old and already had one child. She was pregnant again and she went to see what it would take to have an abortoin. She talked with the doctor and at the end the Doctor said. Mam I would like to ask you one question. What would you do if someone shot the baby in your arms. She responded with i would cry. The doctor asked why would you cry? Because i dont understand how anyone could kill someone so helpless and innocent. The doctor said so why do you want an abortion. The woman starred at him and left without saying a word. 2 Years later the Doctor recieved a picture of a beautiful baby girl with a note also. The note said " Thank you. If it wasnt for you i would have never gotten to meet my wonderful daughter. She is so special to me and i dont know what i would do without her. To think i probably would have had the abortion if it wasnt for you." I think this is the perfect story because what is the difference between shooting a newborn and having an abortion. They are both helpless and had nothing to do with how they came to be. We should punish them for something that was out of there control. Another point is how is it what if you shoot a pregant woman you are charged with two counts of murder. But its legal to get an abortion. If the baby isnt a baby you cant murder what human. This is strictly my opinion. Everyone has one.

Wow that doctor is a fucking asshole! I mean that story really pisses me off. It is NOT a doctor's job to give their personal opinion, unless they are asked for it. That's is a bad doctor. And also a bad analogy. There is a huge difference between a baby and a fetus. Many huge differences actually. Uh that is just so... It's like those crazy laws trying to force women to have an ultrasound before they can get an abortion. That's what's sick. Because currently the LAW is that women get the right the choose, how dare anyone not involved in that choice try to make them feel bad about acting on that right. That is attacking the right to go through the process of choosing, not even going through with the choice. You are made to feel like shit for even thinking about your options.

[WashoutThePain]

Pro-choice. If you don't want the baby, don't have it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Nenya

Well, my own opinion is that the foetus in the womb isn't even a life yet. It isn't a life until it can survive outside the womb on its own. Up until then it's a parasite.

Also before anyone gets upset about me calling a foetus a parasite lets just clarify the definition
Parasite : An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
That sure sounds like what a foetus does to me.

So, just to stress-test this claim, what's the difference between a foetus and a newborn being breastfed? At the point of breastfeeding, it's living on the mother's body and is deriving nutrients at the mother's expense. Does it therefore suddenly revert to parasite status and should be treated in the same way? If not, why not?

Sounds absurd, perhaps, but I fear you are making the distinction between various stages of development more clear-cut than it actually is.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Wow that doctor is a fucking asshole! I mean that story really pisses me off. It is NOT a doctor's job to give their personal opinion, unless they are asked for it. That's is a bad doctor. And also a bad analogy. There is a huge difference between a baby and a fetus. Many huge differences actually.

I'll be the first to admit the doctor's choice of language leaves a lot to be desired, but claiming he is a "fucking asshole" simply for challenging the mother's reasoning for wanting an abortion sounds pretty extreme in my opinion. Doctors aren't merely rubber-stamping machines, after all, and they have a right (and in many jurisdictions a duty) to satisfy themselves that the patient, for whom they have a duty of care, is fully au fait with what they are requesting. Shitting on them for the mere notion of doing that doesn't seem very rational to me. Also, aside from breathing independently and living outside the mother's body, I'm struggling to think of "many huge differences" between a foetus and a baby, so if you would care to clarify that statement it would be appreciated.

It has just dawned on me that I seem to be singling your posts out, and I apologise if that's the impression that comes across. It's nothing personal, I assure you - I think it's more that you say things which make me think "Wait a minute..."

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by dr2005

So, just to stress-test this claim, what's the difference between a foetus and a newborn being breastfed? At the point of breastfeeding, it's living on the mother's body and is deriving nutrients at the mother's expense. Does it therefore suddenly revert to parasite status and should be treated in the same way? If not, why not?

Sounds absurd, perhaps, but I fear you are making the distinction between various stages of development more clear-cut than it actually is.

I guess I see feeding as different because the baby CAN be fed on other things like bottled milk whereas in the womb it can only get nutrients from the mother.

Also, during breast feeding the mother doesn't use the milk she produces for herself whereas when the baby is in the womb it's sharing nutrients which the mother's body can use for itself but it doesn't because it has to share.

[Kate*]

I'm not really sure what I am, personally I could never have an abortion, but I don't think it's right for me to make that choice for anyone else. I would prefer that adoption be considered as an option before they make their final decision, but everyone should be allowed to make their own choice. So I guess that makes me pro-choice, but I am completely against partial birth abortion because in that case the baby is far enough along to survive and adoption is a viable option for anyone who cannot support a child.

[Solivagant]

Pro-choice.

And please fellow THers, respect my opinion and don't comment on it. I'll quickly explain why I chose that option and get out of this thread because I find these debates scary, I'll get crushed in them

Okay so I think that the circumstances matter a lot. Every pregnant woman is in a different situation, has different choices for various reasons, so it depends from person to person. Sometimes, the circumstances they find themselves in doesn't allow them to keep the child even if they want to and other times they just might not be ready for it. And the child might end up suffering if brought into the world. So even if people are getting aborted by will, it is for the better of the child, they are thinking about the child, the kind of future the child will have.

Personally, I'd never like to go for abortion, but I won't be able to help it if God forbid, the circumstances don't permit having a baby.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by dr2005

So, just to stress-test this claim, what's the difference between a foetus and a newborn being breastfed? At the point of breastfeeding, it's living on the mother's body and is deriving nutrients at the mother's expense. Does it therefore suddenly revert to parasite status and should be treated in the same way? If not, why not?

Sounds absurd, perhaps, but I fear you are making the distinction between various stages of development more clear-cut than it actually is.



I'll be the first to admit the doctor's choice of language leaves a lot to be desired, but claiming he is a "fucking asshole" simply for challenging the mother's reasoning for wanting an abortion sounds pretty extreme in my opinion. Doctors aren't merely rubber-stamping machines, after all, and they have a right (and in many jurisdictions a duty) to satisfy themselves that the patient, for whom they have a duty of care, is fully au fait with what they are requesting. Shitting on them for the mere notion of doing that doesn't seem very rational to me. Also, aside from breathing independently and living outside the mother's body, I'm struggling to think of "many huge differences" between a foetus and a baby, so if you would care to clarify that statement it would be appreciated.

It has just dawned on me that I seem to be singling your posts out, and I apologise if that's the impression that comes across. It's nothing personal, I assure you - I think it's more that you say things which make me think "Wait a minute..."

No it's fine don't worry about it. I actually agree with all you are saying, I just tend to get emotional over this issue. I'm usually a very logical person but with this topic I tend to lose that a little. I think you may have a benefit being a guy when it comes to this topic because I think guys have less of an emotional stake.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Who doesn't value life?

*chirp chirp chirp*

[AnaMZ]

To everybody saying that they're pro-life but respect that others may need to have an abortion and they wouldn't campaign for it to be made illegal... pretty sure that counts as being pro-choice yo. Choice also means that you have the choice to keep the fetus, after all.

One of those fantastic misconceptions that I run across all the time is that pro-choice means pro-abortion - nobody ever wants to have an abortion, nobody ever takes that choice lightly. I'm as much a fan of things being alive as you are (it makes me sad that I actually have to clarify to people that I don't like the idea of things dying), but I don't call myself "pro-life" because the movement that uses that term is better described as "anti-choice", in my opinion.

[dani99]

I don't respect abortion, I just don't count people who have abortions as bad people. I don't believe abortion is right and I wish people didn't get them. I don't think women should be able to choose. But, like I said, I don't down on those who make that choice. I just don't believe it's right and I wish they could have choosen otherwise.

[AnaMZ]

Originally Posted by dani99

I don't respect abortion, I just don't count people who have abortions as bad people. I don't believe abortion is right and I wish people didn't get them. I don't think women should be able to choose. But, like I said, I don't down on those who make that choice. I just don't believe it's right and I wish they could have choosen otherwise.

Well then you're anti-choice, that's that. *shrug* I didn't necessarily include you in it.

[Henry Tyrell]

Originally Posted by dani99

I don't think women should be able to choose.

You're anti-choice. Even for rape victims, incest, little girls, women who might die, women who will die?

I'm speechless. I've never met someone who honestly and openly discarded the feelings, decisions making skills, and the right to body autonomy of half of the world's population.

I have nothing more to say to you.

[thebigmole]

It's late, and I'm very tired but I feel like posting this anyway...

[Tyr.]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Who doesn't value life?

Me.

I wouldn't make the blanket statement "I value life" and then make that a hard and fast rule. It's a big, messy, grey area. I can think of a number of situations where I don't value life. I can think of a number of situations where I value life, but I'm still willing for it to be taken. It's a spectrum, not a Yes/No question.

- Yogi

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I love the fact my responses are now being pre-empted.

Much as I admire the ingenuity of the argument, it is stretching the application of "potential life" to breaking point in my opinion. The sperm and egg cells, on their own, will not become anything more than sperm and egg cells until they eventually pass out of the body. Their "potential" is therefore conditional on external factors - in this case, the conscious choice by both persons to have sex - to even come close to being realised, and even then it's not guaranteed. To illustrate, a lump of aluminium oxide has the "potential" to become, amongst other things, part of a car engine, the components of a computer or a humble Coke can. (Other brands are available...) Without the intervention of several external processes, however - not least extracting the aluminium itself - it's going to remain a lump of aluminium oxide. It won't suddenly go "Tada! I'm a Coke can!". In contrast, the embryo is like a lump of aluminium which has gone through the early processes and is now being formed into the end product - barring further external intervention or latent defects, it will become that part of an engine, components of a computer or the Coke can. That end result is predetermined, and therein lies the difference.

It just dawned on me that I've compared a developing unborn child to a Coke can in production - that can't be a good thing.

It was an experimental argument anyway.

OK Danii, at this point you have made statements that contradict previous ones many times over. Are you or are you not in favor of criminalizing abortion?

[blumemusik♫]

Originally Posted by Maloo

So only the unborn child's life is precious, not the mother's?

That's not what I'm saying at all, please don't put words in my mouth. I just don't see how you can justify killing a baby, whatever the circumstances.

It's just my belief, and until about a year ago, I'd never try to force it on other people. When my best friend was pregnant, she wanted an abortion and I stayed out of it. I told her I didn't want her to abort the child, but then left her to the decision. That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice. I am pro-life. But as much as it made me feel physically sick, I didn't think it was worth losing a friend over. Again, that doesn't mean my beliefs aren't as valid, because I would never condone having an abortion, whatever the circumstances. But at the time (bearing in mind this was about a year ago) I put our friendship above my beliefs.

Now, however, I think I'd have fought it out more. Or just stopped speaking to her. I wouldn't shove it down anyone's throat, but I'd probably make my views more clear and not hold the person in the same regard if they went ahead with the abortion (like my friend did.) I do not agree with abortion now at all, ever since an assembly we had on the subject.

Funny story, we were told to stand at a point in the hall representing our views. Pro-choice was one side, pro-life the other. I was about halfway between pro-life and the middle. Then they gave us information about abortion and it made everything feel so much more real that when we had to stand where our views were again, I was the only person that had moved further towards the pro-life side.

I am anti-war, anti-euthanasia. I do eat meat, but I think that's different (being top of the food chain is great :P)

Oh, and also I wouldn't make abortion illegal. I am still pro-life, but I know that not everyone is going to share that opinion, and the people who I can't get through to should be able to get a safer abortion rather than risk their life with an illegal one. This doesn't make me pro-choice. And I know someone will say "Oh, what's the difference between risking your life with an illegal abortion and risking your life if you're pregnant and might die?" Well my answer is simply that either way the mother 'may' die, but with an abortion, the baby WILL die.

I've argued this in front of my entire class, and had this debate with my mum. I know it's not a popular opinion, but it is my opinion.

So those are my views. I don't agree with abortion under any circumstances, and no amount of arguing or having a go at me is going to change that

[BECCALICIOUS!]

I am pro-choice.

I used to be heavily pro-life. I've been on the March for Life twice. Off topic, but it's a VERY interesting atmosphere. Members of the pro-choice community would peacefully protest as well, and I saw even my fellow classmates attack them blatantly for standing up for their beliefs, just as we were ours. The cardinal who presided over the Catholic Youth Mass one year said that everyone is pro-choice... but the choice we should be making is LIFE. It makes sense with Catholic ideology, but it may not for many others.

I used to think that I'd be strong enough. That if I were raped and got pregnant, I'd keep the baby because I couldn't bear to have it killed. When I was actually raped and had a pregnancy scare? I knew I wouldn't be able to do anything BUT have an abortion. I knew I couldn't keep the child, not because I thought it was disgusting, not because I didn't think it was life, I just knew that I was incapable of doing it.

I believe that life does begin at conception. But when does the life of that child matter more than the life of a mother? Pregnancy is still risky, not as risky as in the past when it was fairly common for women to die from it, but still burdensome on the mother. Abortion should be a choice between a woman and her doctor. The woman is the one who should have the right to decide if she wants to put her body through that.

I'm not saying abortion should be a common form of birth control. I also am not saying that abortion should just be limited to situations such as rape, incest, medically necessary, et cetera. It should be a choice that women should be allowed to make irregardless of her circumstances. Those are personal to her.

I realize now that I could NEVER choose to be pro-life in today's society, as (enter slight feminism here) prohibiting women from getting an abortion is just another way the patriarchal society tries to control women's lives.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Yogi

Me.

I wouldn't make the blanket statement "I value life" and then make that a hard and fast rule. It's a big, messy, grey area. I can think of a number of situations where I don't value life. I can think of a number of situations where I value life, but I'm still willing for it to be taken. It's a spectrum, not a Yes/No question.

- Yogi

You can't contradict yourself by answering my question that you don't value life and then saying that you do value life. When you don't value life, there are no circumstances where you do value life. When you do value life, you can answer that the value of life can weigh differently in situations but the bottom line is that you value life to a certain extent. Generally, yes, we value life.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Nenya

I guess I see feeding as different because the baby CAN be fed on other things like bottled milk whereas in the womb it can only get nutrients from the mother.

Suitable formula milk is available, certainly, but in itself requires quite a bit of effort to produce (sterilising equipment, mixing the formula etc.) which in itself consumes resources for the benefit of the newborn only. The newborn could not feed itself independent of the mother (or another suitable carer) and in that respect is no more self-sufficient - and, to some extent, no less parasitic - than a foetus. Substituting breastfeeding for another food source does not alter the nature of the relationship and the relative benefit and detriment therein.

Originally Posted by Nenya

Also, during breast feeding the mother doesn't use the milk she produces for herself whereas when the baby is in the womb it's sharing nutrients which the mother's body can use for itself but it doesn't because it has to share.

No, but the production of such milk does consume a fairly significant amount of energy (in the region of 500kcals according to Google), resources which the mother could otherwise utilise in alternative ways. Ergo, it is depriving the mother of nutrients and ergo is a parasite by your definition, if only temporarily. Hence why I feel the application of the term is perhaps technically correct in some ways but ill-advised in others.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

No it's fine don't worry about it. I actually agree with all you are saying, I just tend to get emotional over this issue. I'm usually a very logical person but with this topic I tend to lose that a little. I think you may have a benefit being a guy when it comes to this topic because I think guys have less of an emotional stake.

I understand, don't worry. Being passionate about a subject is not a problem, and with something like abortion it's bound to trigger emotions in one area or another. Funnily enough, I did get into some heated arguments about it when I was younger - I think it may have been having to debate some pretty grim subjects in a dispassionate manner for my degree which probably changed that. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing really. That aside, I think you do have a point to some extent - it is not a procedure I would ever be on the receiving end of so my perspective will be different. I do empathise with the difficulty of it though.

Originally Posted by Guile

*chirp chirp chirp*

You stay out of this.

[Coffee.]

So wait. I've got a really good idea guys. Here goes.

Pro-Life people do not like abortion. Pro-Choice people would rather not use abortion unless it's necessary, but want it as a choice. I've got an amazing idea. Let's...put more money in sex education and also make sure that it is educating students about all their choices other than abstinence, cover birth control completely under health insurance, and make condoms cheaper if not free at clinics and yet STILL leave abortion as a choice. Proof? Countries such as Belgium and Holland with the most liberal abortion laws have the least abortions because of their vast sexual education and access to birth control.

Come on pro-choice and pro-lifers, let's lower abortion rates by giving Traci a future job!

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Revolution

So wait. I've got a really good idea guys. Here goes.

Pro-Life people do not like abortion. Pro-Choice people would rather not use abortion unless it's necessary, but want it as a choice. I've got an amazing idea. Let's...put more money in sex education and also make sure that it is educating students about all their choices other than abstinence, cover birth control completely under health insurance, and make condoms cheaper if not free at clinics and yet STILL leave abortion as a choice. Proof? Countries such as Belgium and Holland with the most liberal abortion laws have the least abortions because of their vast sexual education and access to birth control.

Come on pro-choice and pro-lifers, let's lower abortion rates by giving Traci a future job!

Your idea is good but your argument falls apart due to some very large holes. For reference, the USA has a population of approx. 313, 349, 000. Belgium has a population of approx. 11, 007, 020 (3.5% USA population), while Holland has a population of approx. 6, 065, 459 (1.9% USA population). In other words, the problem is your conclusion is certainly explained by the massive differences in population but questionable whether differences in abortion law and sex education can explain your conclusion with such certainty. After all, if there are significantly fewer people in Belgium than the USA, it is expected there would be a lower abortions rate.

Population sizes were obtained from Wikipedia.