Because any woman may NEED an abortion at any stage - why do you think women have third term terminations? And I am reporting every time you alter my replies
Fortunately this only applies to YOUNG girls, correct? So this is not a reason to allow later-term abortions for females older than about 15.
And again what is the cost? Can teens get this without parental consent? What is the access to this as it is NOT every medical officer who can or will do implants. What are the side effects? https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/contraceptive-implant/about/pac-20393619 https://www.healthline.com/health/birth-control/birth-control-implant-cost#with-insurance The most effective way to is to make LARCs cheap affordable and accessible BTW the majority of women seeking abortions are in their mid twenties early thirties and they already have at least one child
I have not altered your replies. Maybe you mean I have only been quoting part of your post, the part of your post I am responding to. If that is the case, you're just being petty.
Be aware I usually do not reply to posts that I have reported to save the moderators more work. From this point on unless you leave my replies intact do not expect a reply from me
Sounds to me, Bowerbird, like you feel you can't win the debate on your own merits, so instead you're going to try to get a moderator to delete my posts, over something meaningless and petty.
That sounds like pro-choicers aren't very confident in their argument that women need these abortions.
We are confident that its not up to anyone else to define the need of a woman to terminate. She defines her own need, in her own timeframe. Its none of our business and its none of yours. We won't speculate just because you want us to.
This is about abortion, and in the USA >95% of abortions are for convenience, not due to rape, incest, life of the mother, birth defect. The bottom line is that if women and men had to deal with pregnancy instead of murdering the baby then men and women would be more careful, there would be fewer abortions.
In many areas teens can get birth control without their parents knowledge. In many loony left areas teens can get "gender transition" treatment without their parents consent. women in their mid-20s to early 30's with children should know what happens when they have unprotected sex. They know what sex can produce. They have no excuse for an abortion of convenience.
In theory, if they actually use them all and use them correctly, yes. Those aren't the actual failure rates in the real world though, and I'd suggest that is in great part because not everyone does have easy access to a full range or birth control options and not everyone does have easy access to clear information about what the options are and where they can be accessed. If you're going to propose stricter and more uncompromising restrictions on abortion, I think you have a moral responsibility to recognise and acknowledge these limitations, understand that they're not all simply the fault of the women (or men) themselves and so also propose other realistic and practical ways to address the issues of unwanted pregnancies. There is no excuse to murder anyone. If you consider abortion to be unconditionally murder, you can only propose and complete ban with literally no exceptions. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take, but it would give you even greater responsibility to address the realities of the bigger picture. That isn't sex education though. It certainly isn't contraceptive education for obvious reasons. That is like suggesting teaching children about wars is teaching them safe and effective gun use and telling them to kill people. No, and I specifically said that your grandchildren may well be too young to need technical sex education like explaining contraception. The point is that you claimed there is already a lot of actual sex education on TV already and yet the only example you've mentioned isn't sex education and isn't targeted at the cohorts who need it. So as long as your child knows everything they need to (in your opinion), everything is OK with the world? Unless you're personally offering to provide sex education to every other child too, this isn't any kind of meaningful answer.
My point in all of that was that sex education is pervasive, its at all age levels and activities, so pervasive that is has saturated even entertainment for young children. <> Personally I believe all abortion is murder with one exception - the life of the mother. Why? Its clearly a human at 22 weeks, thats the accepted point of viability. One of my children was born at 24 weeks, all she needed was humidifed air, no special interventions or venitlator etc. The question is when before 22 weeks does it become a human? Since its unknown, the safe and rational assumption is that its a human at conception. Regarding rape and incest, we don't punish innocent people. We dont punish a person for a crime she did not commit. The baby resulting from a rape did not commit the rape or any other crime. The solution to rape is not to kill the innocent baby who had nothing to do with the actual crime. On severe birth defect, we don't kill people who have serious medical problems. People seriously injured in war or accident who need a ventilator or have brain damage are not simply killed because they are "defective" and don't produce or contribute to society. Nobody suggested Stephen Hawking be euthenized because he was a total invalid needing complete 24 hour care. If the mothers life is truly at risk then thats the only exception. Before 22 weeks, if the mother dies then the baby dies so it doesn't make sense to have both die. Then its up to the mother to make the decision. Those are secular reasons. There are religious reasons but I'm assuming you don't care about those.
I also want to say that, from the rudimentary research I have done on this topic, even up to about 16, 17, 18 weeks gestation, the majority of abortions are still done for convenience. It's not until you get to around 21 or 22 weeks that the large share of them are done for non-convenience reasons. But of course detailed records are not being kept these days. Very probably intentionally. They don't want the public to know the reasons these abortions are actually being done.
I know, and I'm saying your point is factually wrong. The only example you gave wasn't about actual sex education and you've not even tried to explain, if there is this pervasive access to information, why so many people (young and old) apparently remain ignorant of the practical facts. If actual sex education and information is pervasive on broadcast television in the US, surely you'd be able to give at least one clear example. Fine, and you're entitled to that opinion. It does render the actual OP "how late" question moot of course, automatically implying a complete abortion ban other than with that singular exception. As I said though, if you're taking that position, I think you also need to address the practical consequences. It is not at all clear that legal bans on abortions actually prevent them happening, especially if you also do nothing new to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the general circumstances that lead women to consider abortion in the first place. You position of "abortion is murder" is really no different to the opposite view of "abortion is a woman's right". Both points could even be true at the same time but even either one alone isn't any kind of solution to the general issue, they're actually just limitations or restrictions to what those solutions need to be. The problem is that the people on both extremes of this debate only talk about the limitations they believe are sacrosanct, none of them propose any practical solutions to work within them (and certainly not practical solutions to work with everyone's limitations). I wouldn't say I don't care, but they're only reasons for you to not have an abortion, not reasons to criminalise it for everyone else.
Its basic human nature. If you want to encourage something, then reward it. If you want to discourage something then penalize it. Its done all the time in every aspect of life. Parents, businesses, governments do it every day. The classic example is taxation. The US govt uses the tax code to perform social manipulation. If they want you to buy an EV they give you a tax credit. If they don't want you to have a platinum medical care plan they apply a tax to it. If the govt wants a business to move into a blighted area they give a tax credit and deduction. Sex/pregnancy/abortion is no different. If you want to reduce unwanted pregnancy, penalize it. If the man and woman cannot use abortion as birth control and will have to at a minimum give birth and pay for the medical and care costs, people will be more careful. If you want more unwanted pregnancies, make abortion free and unrestricted. Penalizing it does not eliminate abortion, but it reduces it. You skipped a step. The fundamental question is "when does the baby become a person?" Before that point, the issue is totally at the discretion of the mother. After that point, blanket abortion is not a womans right because another human life is at risk. Look at murder, and I don't mean abortion but an adult murdering another adult. Murder is illegal. Period. Nobody claims in order to make the act of murder illegal we must address the reason people commit murder. Its wise to try to reduce the motivation for murder, but it is not required in order to make murder a crime. The same with many other crimes. So why do we have to jump through all these extraneous hoops in order to address the fundamental issue involving abortion? We don't, thats a distraction brought up by abortionists to muddy the waters.
I never said, nor thought, those with this radical view, were the majority of Pro-Choicers (among whose number, I count myself). In fact, just above your comment, you quote my words, "those on the Pro-Choice side who-- while claiming that no woman with the means to abort beforehand, waits until after the 21st week-- nevertheless insist that all women should have that right to do so, if they did so choose, (do) not help their case, in the eyes of public opinion." I am speaking about, as I'd said, only these most vocal of the Pro-Choice movement, who we can see on this forum, for instance, responding to any thread on abortion, with the pat answer, "it's NONE of our business!" I have seen, for example, this sentiment expressed by @LangleyMan, @Aleksander Ulyanov, @The Mello Guy, and, I would've sworn, by you, as well. If that is not my mistake, I am glad to welcome you into the broad, non-extremist, majority of Pro-Choice advocates, who do not see any restriction, whatsoever, as an offense against all womanhood. I will just add that, among those who do state this absolutist position, regarding abortion, I find much agreement, on other political issues; I agree with Mello Guy, for one, most of the time, and would not classify his general perspective to be "extremist," in the least, but very reasonable, pragmatic, and down to earth. I guess that just goes to show how this particular issue can be, for whatever reasons, particularly divisive, contentious, and fostering of fractiousness.
The Womens Health Protection Act of 2021, democrat legislation in Congress, HR 3755, makes elective abortion until birth legal. The “prochoice” side very much wants abortion until birth.
The problem is that nobody chooses to have an unwanted pregnancy. While it may well involve negligence or ignorance on the part of the couple involved, any give situation is going to be based on a whole range of factors and elements. Even deciding whether the pregnancy is wanted or not can be a difficult one, even before they're thinking about next steps. Again, it is very questionable whether that is the case. There certainly isn't any kind of clear pattern across the various times and places where different rules and principles have been applied. Fair enough, I did miss that you were including that aspect. The core problem there is that the question can't be answered. There is not even any agreement on what basis the definition would be made, let alone how such things could be clearly measured or determined. Whatever answer you decide on, you will be effectively coming up with the arbitrary limit I discussed previously. It just won't work. Murder is just a killing that has been defined as illegal. There are various circumstances where killing (accidentally or intentionally) isn't defined as murder and even not defined as criminal at all. That leads on from understanding when and how killings can and do occur. Also, controversial as it can be to say, it's highly questionable whether the criminalisation of murder in itself makes any major difference in murder rates. Most murders are crimes of insanity/passion or committed by people not expecting to be caught (however naively). Regardless, I would suggest there are a whole range of differences between murder as a general concept and abortion (even if you're considering some abortions to be murders) and while comparisons can be made, it is impractical to treat them exactly the same, just as different unlawful killings aren't all treated the same (with murder through justifiable homicide and everything in between). As I said, I still don't think you're addressing anything. You're proposing criminalising abortion after some (as yet undetermined) point with the sole exception of threat to the mothers life (by some fixed definition). That isn't an answer to anything, it just raises a whole load of questions, many of them the long-outstanding ones that have never been (and probably can't be) definitively answered. I'm not an "abortionist" and I'm not trying to muddy any waters. I am trying to establish that there is already mud in water and there is nothing we can do about that. Trying to come up with a perfect answer to this question is destined to fail. We have to recognise the practical realities, complications, difficulties and conflicting rights and responsibilities so we can come up with some form of least worst compromise. In a lot of places, we have largely achieved that. The US unfortunately appears to be steering away from that at the moment.
Canada has no law against abortion and a lower abortion rate than we do. Having no law is not an extreme position.
I have already responded to this point of yours, that Canada leaves it to their medical establishment to regulate this and, because of the position of the applicable medical authority, it is a far different thing to have no law against having an abortion, beyond 23 weeks and 6 days, and finding any doctor or other person in the medical field, willing to perform it. This is their de facto legal limit (except, as in the States, in exceptional cases).
Doctors in the United States are in a self-governing profession as well. Anti-abortion laws are unnecessary and now in some instances absolute beyond the pregnancy presenting an imminent threat to the woman's life. Canada doesn't have laws telling doctors how to regulate abortion. Why can't we do the same thing? In this country, in some states we're forcing women, on paper at least, to be pregnant and give birth. The Handmaid's Tale.
