Sanctity of Life Sunday

brew · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 9:06 am Post subject:

I said the same thing when microman said it, but look at www.johnstonsarchive.net and see if there aren't a couple of states with rates at 30%. Most aren't that high, but the states with highest birth rates (CA and NY) are that high along with a couple of other states. They have data by state, county, country, etc. Some of their numbers are based on CDC numbers and some are based on numbers from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so I think they are reasonable.

CDC numbers also back it up showing that in the 2007 reporting period NYC reported 676 abortions to every 1,000 live births for residents. For all reporting areas the ratio of abortions to live births in 2007 was 192 to every 1,000. Most studies seem to think that the reported statistics are low based on the fact that CA severely underreports and that there are unreported abortions in every state that aren't captured whereas most all live births are captured.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

How do they get those numbers though? Do they include people traveling away from home to do their abortion someplace nobody knows them, or away from protest crowds?

I live in NY. And I have along the number of 20 or so close friends. One has had an abortion.

And me and my group are as "liberal elite" as they come. (well, almost. I own guns and am an amazing shot with a pistol, rifle, and shotgun...)

I am having a VERY hard time believing these numbers. I wonder what the economic breakdown would be?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Hmm... seems like the numbers, though varying by site, seem much higher than I would have expected. Not sure what to make of this...

brew · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 9:50 am Post subject:

All of the numbers show totals by state and then also total resident abortions by state, so I think they take into account the transient nature of it. It is substantially higher in the northeast and West than I expected and somewhat lower in the southeast than I expected.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

microman · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 11:23 am Post subject:

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

It is interesting that so many women used contraception, got pregnant anyway and chose an abortion as the final solution. I've looked into some of these numbers several years ago, but mostly the abortion rates. When you brought those into the discussion it wasn't shocking to me.

Something kind of funny to consider in my mind, is that so many people bash abstinence as a form of BC, but if you looked at the numbers you just posted, if 100% of those women (and the men they were with) practiced abstinence, there would be zero pregnancies and zero abortions. Novel thought, huh? I know there are all kinds of arguments about how that is unrealistic, can't be done, people have needs, etc., but if that was the method used, the results would be pretty dramatic. Just a food for thought illustration.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Let me calm down a little and tone it down.

IN my mind, there is no gray area either, when it comes to the decision. But I recognize that realistically, there IS a gray area. Here's an illustration:

If a friend told me that she was 1 month pregnant and she didn't think she was going to carry the child to term, I would ask her if she thought about adoption.
Then, if a week later, I saw her getting into her car and I asked where she was going, and she told me she was going to her OB and she was going to terminate her pregnancy, I MIGHT ask her to reconsider, but likely I would respect her decision, though I would not like it. I would not try to detain her and physically prevent her from leaving.

If someone was about to smother a 2 month old infant in its crib, I would react with the utmost violence and do whatever I had to do to restrain them to save that infant's life.

This tells me that, even though for me PERSONALLY there isn't a gray area, I KNOW that there is a grey area in reality.

Does that make sense?

Mr. Top Hat · Outlaw Joined: 03 Sep 2005 Posts: 237

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

I understand what you're saying and the point that you are trying to make. There does come a point where you have to make a decision whether violence is "right" or justified. Some of that depends on how society views it and the laws that are in place. Most of society today accepts the toddler scenario as murder and the abortion scenario as not murder. You trying to compare the two as a representation of how I feel about them isn't realistic.

If I killed a man that was brutally attacking a toddler, I would be viewed as a hero and likely never be charged with a crime. If I killed a clinic doctor that was performing an abortion, I would be charged with murder. In both cases I will have killed another human being for something that could be considered justifiable by someone that believes in abortion being murder like I do. Unfortunately, society has set up rules that I should follow. I believe in justifiable violence and also believe in obeying the law of the land.

I'm sure you understand what I mean, so let me ask you something...

Taking it from the viewpoint of my beliefs we've already discussed, what would you say a person like myself should do with regard to an abortion clinic?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

NO, it's unrealistic.

You can't fight a million years of evolution with abstinence only eduction. This is patently RIDICULOUS.

Only a handful of people can even pull it off.
And IMO, they are people with low libidos to begin with anyway.

Ah, UNTIL MARRIAGE. All pregnancies after marriage are wanted?

And yes, many people have waited until marriage. But many more have "failed" even when they determined to wait. People have violated this societal norm even when they knew that the consequences would be as serious as death.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

The short version is, you jsut said that the threat of going to jail is enough for you to allow someone to murder a child.

finkle · Wakeboarder.com Freak Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 4067

Unrealistic does not mean impossible. Yes, abstinence is unrealistic. We as humans are naturally drawn to sex. It's our animal instinct. Just like my lab naturally loves to retrieve, swim, and work a field, I like to have sex. It's just engrained in you and every other animal on this planet. It's how the species survive. Add to that, our natural reproductive peak is 17-22 +/- a year or so. So when you propose abstinence, you are asking people to go against everything their body is telling them to do. Abstinence is unnatural. People are going to have sex. Not everyone but most people. Then again, a lot of people are abstinent not by their own choosing. Laughing

ie. extreme gamers.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

I'm not sure how else to put it so it is understandable. All I can say is you aren't getting it. Almost everything you are saying shows me your perception is exactly backwards to what I'm trying to convey.

Let me try something else. Let's go back to the attack on the toddler scenario. If you are faced with that scenario and you have the option of stopping it by subduing the guy or by killing him, which would you choose? I would personally choose the subduing. Why should he be killed when he can be stopped?

Killing is wrong in my belief and if there is a way around it, I'm going to take that approach.

Following the logic you're portraying, I should go on some rampage and go kill every woman that has had an abortion and every clinic doctor that has performed one. Would that be the right thing to do?

microman · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject:

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I just can't get my mind around it.

I would subdue the guy if possible.

Why don't you subdue women about to have an abortion then? Tie them up, keep them in your church basement until they have the child, then set them free and put the child up for an anonymous adoption?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

I respect the laws of our land and I won't break them just to defend or stop something I don't believe in. In the toddler scenario, the law allows me the right to stop it. In the abortion scenario, it doesn't allow me to do so. That's about the simplest way I can put it.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

microman, every form of birth control fails to prevent teen pregnancy when not used as directed. Mr. Green

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

brew · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject:

I'm not sure why you two are still going in circles. The point you make here is what my thoughts are and I think similar to what Okie is saying. I may be wrong though.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jan 26, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject:

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

We're not talking about social norms (women being second class citizens)

We are talking about a human drive that is fundamental to the survival of our species, and largely responsible for it.

They do teach abstinence as the only option that is 100% guaranteed to result in no chance of pregnancy.
But it is simply not realistic to fail to teach about birth control and not expect that you will have kids, a lot of them, who do not remain abstinent.

And personally, I don't think i want my kids remaining abstinent until marriage. I don't expect, or want, them to get married until they are in their late 20s.

To compare woman's lib to conditioning people to abstinence is absurd. You aren't even comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing apples to school buses.

You like to wax nostalgic about "better" times. Do you actually think there EVER was a time when kids delayed sex until their mid to late 20's?

Do you REALLY think this is a reasonable thing to expect people to be conditioned to? I'm sure some can, but it is simply not realistic, and it has nothing to do with the culture or what we accept. It has to do with biology and the things that have kept our species alive.

Absurdity.

jason_ssr · Posted: Jan 27, 2012 4:59 am Post subject:

We are talking about human behavior, and behavior is influenced by society norms. I dont think there was a time where kids werent having sex, but I think there was a time where people were paranoid about getting pregnant. So much so that they would obstain in a situation that lent itself to a perceived greater risk (both founded and unfounded). Now, you have the morning after pill, termination isnt the taboo it once was, and if you decide to keep it you have an opportunity at reality show stardom. These things have stripped away much of the perceived risk that once helped regulate the risky activity.

The comparison to womens lib was comparing the idea of instilling a belief in a society despite current or long standing norms, not comparing a human need for procreation. A great example in our generation is how the AIDS epidemic changed the landscape that had been in place since the 60's. IMO there was a great shift from the free love party scene. Society had its view changed from a "do whatever you want" to a "be really careful who you are with and how you are prepared". I think that fear changed ALOT of behavior.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

jason_ssr · Posted: Jan 27, 2012 6:55 am Post subject:

Again, not talking about stopping sex. I guess the best way I cant explain it is placing importance on mitigating risk of unwanted pregnancy. I think all the available avenues make mitigating that risk less of a priority.

Im not saying anyone takes abortion or the morning after pill lightly. I think they take mitigating risk lightly because these options, albeit difficult ones, are available.

AIDs did change the common practice as you admitted. You also admitted to understanding it was short lived. So how am I contradicting myself? It was an example of a historical fact from our lifetime. its much more easily related than giving some example for the 1500's.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster