Erosion of Access to Abortion in the United Sates

Here is an interesting paper for those who like to read reports
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s.../2007/4.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=abortion

Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life there are some interesting observations in this report

 

The more erosion the better!

 

Yes, and the more your taxes rise to pay for the masses of unwanted babies born, the more you will complain!
You want to ban abortion but you don't want to pay for the babies. You can't have it both ways!

 

Has there really been an erosion of access, or are other factors contributing to the fact that the numbers of abortions are trending downward? Is it not a good thing that the number of abortions are trending downward?



I tried to read the paper you referenced, but it is so full of leftist pro-abortion terms and political correctness that it made me want to barf. Don't believe me? Here I give you an example:

• In the opening paragraph it acknowledges that the article is, "From a pro-choice perspective".
• The term "unsafe abortion", implying that where abortion is illegal, abortions tend to be unsafe, but where it is legal, it is safe. Nothing can be further from the truth. Where abortion is illegal, they should not be performed. If they are not performed they cannot be unsafe. Where it is legal, it is unsafe. There is no such thing as a "safe" legal abortion.
• The use of the term, "anti-choice". I think the prefered term is pro-life, but I guess the writer being a pro-choicer, she thinks that make anyone opposing her philosophy "anti-choice". Being that I don't have a twelve year olds mentality like the writer of your article, I won't refer to her as "pro-death."
• The writer uses useless statistics that are not verifiable and then immediately devolves into a delusional paranoid rant calling pro-lifers insidious.
• She claims that elective abortions are inaccessible for some women in the U.S. Really? Who are these women? What are their names? Where do they live? Who is denying them their Constitutional rights? Why has no one been prosecuted for this crime?

Most people, liberals and conservative alike, feel that need for abortions should be lessened. Are you arguing that it would be better if the numbers of abortions would increase?

 

and why should my taxes be raised?? why are the parents not being held responsible to pay for their children? Maybe if people were required to pay for their own irresponsibility then there wouldn't be so many children not being taken care of.

 

It is a good thing if the number of abortions is being reduced because there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. That could be a result of improved access to contraceptives or education. It is NOT a good thing if women are being forced to bear more children they don't want.

Abortions WILL be performed. It is true that where they are illegal they are unsafe, and where they are legal, they ARE SAFE, safer than childbirth. We agree that we would like the need for abortions to lessen, when the need lessens, the actual numbers lessen. We don't want the numbers to lessen because women don't have access to safe abortions.

It IS insidious to attempt to deny women safe abortions knowing women will have them unsafe or not, why not try instead to reduce the need for abortions?

 

So you think that adoption should not be allowed?

 

What I think is truly insidious is this notion that an abortion is safer than a full term pregnancy. Safer for whom? Not the person being aborted obviously!

 

There is no person.

 

How many times do I have to repeat this? "Personhood" is not something that will probably EVER be objectively defined. Science simply isn't able to determine what qualities determine "personhood." So what PN views as a "person" you do not, Mak. That doesn't mean it's definitely not a person, it only means you don't agree with his view of what a person is.

 

The law says it isn't a person. The law trumps science everytime.

 

I'd love to see a link to this legislation which clearly defines an unborn as "not a person." Would you be so kind as to find that please? Considering that your position is making the claim, it's quite a reasonable request.

 

Over here, a fetus is not a person until it is born and has taken a breath. I assume American law says the same, because if the law over there says the fetus is a person, abortion would be illegal.

 

Your position makes an enormous assumption. Your argument was clearly "the law says it is not a person." I would love to see that argument supported with a link and a quote emphasizing the line in the legislation which determines that a fetus is not a person. Until then, I remain very skeptical and your argument remains unsupported and invalid.

Edit: to help you out, I just read the entire "Abortion in Australia" article on Wikipedia and it doesn't mention anywhere the concept of fetal "personhood" being accepted or denied relating to abortion being allowed or not.

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia

 

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Why-cant-a-foetus-be-a-victim-of-crime/

Its a blog of sorts, I remember one of the cases.

http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au/Articles/VLRC_RCA_final_submission.pdf

"Birth is the moment in whic the fetus obtains the full moral rights of a person"

 

So a blog claims that Victorian law doesn't recognize a foetus as a human being until it has taken its first breath, but I'm still not seeing any actual legislation to support this claim. Also, Victoria is not Australia. It's a part of Australia--a very small part, but it is not all of Australia. So even in the event that the blog's claim is true, it does not fully support your initial claim.

 

I was talking about Victorian law. I believe (from memory) we are the only state to rule a fetus a person when a breath has been taken. The law has been like that for years.

Btw Victoria is a state and I wouldn't call it small...

 

It is indeed a state, but considering the map, it's certainly not one of the bigger states



Anyway, in the United States, the law does not deign to define what "personhood" is, so PatriotNews' opinion of the unborn being a person is still a valid opinion. I don't think he lives in Victoria.

 

The law says it isn't a person, but if you kill it, it never will be a person, whereas if you leave it be, it will. If I could travel through time and kill your mother years before you were born, you will have never been a person either. So did I kill you as a person or just prevent you from ever becoming a person? Well, it doesn't really matter now does it, because it has the same effect.

 

Errrr - geography is not the same as population - particularly here in Australia. The health services district I work for is about the size of Victoria and only has around 36,000 people

 

It can be considered a person in potentia

But arguing about "personhood" is useless because THAT is not the problem with laws relating to abortion

The problem is the "Health" clause

 

This is a very bad argument. By the same logic, using contraception or even refusing sex is murder. It has the same effect too.

If I could travel through time and prevent your mother from having sex, or persuaded her to use contraception, you will have never been a person either. So did I kill you as a person or just prevent you from ever becoming a person? Well, it doesn't really matter now does it, because it has the same effect.

 

If it can be made nearly impossible to buy a gun in certain liberal areas of the US through regulation, then I have no problem with making baby killing harder to get to.

 

Right, by the same logic, you have proved what I have already proved. I already existed. Then you travel back in time to make me not exist. And if you traveled back in time and made my mother get an abortion, then I will also not exist. Only difference in the latter is that I was also in existance when you made me not in existance. Just like all abortions, you are killing someone that already exists.

 

You was also in existance in the first case - as a sperm and egg.

It really depends on what exactly is considered "I", or person. If its biological life, then abortion kills already existing "one".
But we can make the case that so does contraception or refusing sex, since gametes are also biologically alive.

If its the mind which makes us person, then abortion does not kill already existing "one", but still only potential for him (mind) to appear in the future.