You're right on most points. I hadn't realized that it was outdated, I had actualyl just read the statistic in a book somewhere and googled "Abortion 93%" and that came up. Whether or not the question was rigged is all speculation, so you really shouldn't be saying anything in regards to that. But really Jerememy, do you truely believe that more than 30% of women getting abortions are doing it because they can't financially support the child? It seems far fetched to me.I don't know if it would be very accurate to believe statistics that are 17 years old although when it's broken down like the way those are I guess it sounds about right. So I think you could probably assume from those results that 17 years ago the majority of people having abortions were either very young or couldn't afford a baby - probably a combination of both in many circumstances. In fact I would use those statistics to say that 17 years ago up to 76% of abortions occured because the person was either very young or couldn't afford to raise a child. (obviously the actual statistic would be lower than this amount but 76% of responces could be for these reasons). I also don't really trust statistics posted on propaganda websites. Statistics are very very easy to manipulate - not just by the wording of questions in surveys (which makes a significant difference) but in the way the results are presented. I think in the case of opinion surveys you need to see exactly what the questions were, what the sample space was, where they lived and the social factors of those locations.
Of course I knew what you were talking about, but I played dumb to make a point. That point was that their are more people than just the mother involved in an abortion (Specifically, but not restricted to, the father and the unborn child), and thus it is not a womans right issue entriely.Obviously I'm talking about a person in the normal accept definition of the word "person" and not the definition used by people pushing particular views. I am sure you knew that.
Wow, thanks for the low blow. I understand that abortion can be a pretty touchy issue (Especially for those with double XX chromosomes, because your equality is constantly under assault, right?), but really, you're comment was just plain rude and uncalled for. Really, what reason did you have to say it? I'd like to hear one.Welfare pays for abortions now? I'd really like to see a reliable (unlike Dan's NRLC source) source on that. Yes, there are programs set up through Planned Parenthood (and possibly other providers but I'm not sure about that) to help women who have a low or no income. But you have to apply and qualify for that to make sure it is not abused.
Anways, yes, in some cases tax money is diverted to pay for abortion.
You're probably right, if men could get pregnant abortion would definetly be legal, but does that make it right? I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here.If MEN could get pregnant, this whole abortion thing wouldn't even be an issue. Plan B would be available from every drive through restaurant, coffee house, and pharmacy. Men wouldn't let something like a one night mistake take over the rest of our lives, and yet that is the position the male dominated legislature wants for our women.
We're talking about abortion here, not birth control, so once again I don't know what you're trying to get at. Also, explain to me how it's a womens rights issue? I understand how it is a womens rights issue in the literal sense, as in it is currently a womens "right" to have an abortion, but as far as the connotations of a "womens rights issue" go, I don't think this is one. Keep in mind their are three people involved here (Two living, one with the potential to live), and not just the woman.This IS a women's rights issue. 100% of the people having abortions are women. Why is there a resistence to support our women in this country and provide effective birth controll, without having to deal with prescriptions and activist pharacists ?
Also, I don't know what you mean by "...resistence to support our women"? If you're talking about resistence to supporting women when it comes to ending the life on a unborn baby, well I can and have told you why I'm "resisting" this.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If MEN could get pregnant, this whole abortion thing wouldn't even be an issue. Plan B would be available from every drive through restaurant, coffee house, and pharmacy. Men wouldn't let something like a one night mistake take over the rest of our lives, and yet that is the position the male dominated legislature wants for our women.
This IS a women's rights issue. 100% of the people having abortions are women. Why is there a resistence to support our women in this country and provide effective birth controll, without having to deal with prescriptions and activist pharacists ?
It's a descrimination issue because only women can have babies... If you're mad about this form fo discrimination, take it up with God... Or maybe in your case Mother NatureIt is also a descrimination issue. Why are we making laws that specifically target one sex ? That in and of itself shows that this is a controll issue. It is not a law to protect or serve the people, but rather serves to contoll one segment of the population.
Agreed 100%. Alice Paul, the feminist author, even went as far as to say "Abortion is the ultimat exploitation of women".It's not a shame that abortion is legal, it's a shame that we can't do better for our women. They deserve better options than having an abortion.
