# Fewer People Are 'Pro-Choice'



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Mostly attributed to education.

http://joemiller.us/2014/11/cdc-bri...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-cd9020778a-230980529

The Centers for Disease Control released its national abortion report on Friday and the new figured show the number of abortions in the United States has declined to a historic low. From 2010 to 2011, the total number and rate of reported abortions decreased 5% and the abortion ratio decreased 4%, and from 2002 to 2011.

Although 730,322 babies lost their lives in abortions in 2011, the latest year CDC has produced figures for, that represents a decline of about half since the highs of more than 1.5 million in the late 1980s, when the effect of legalizing abortion in 1973 finally took its full effect.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Maybe it because less women are getting pregnant, in the first place.



> Fewer teens than ever had babies last year -- 26.6 per 1,000 women, down 57 percent since 1991, according to an August report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that analyzed data back to 1940. For women 20 to 24 years old, the birth rate also reached a record low, a separate analysis showed, while a decline continued for those 25 to 29 years old.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-16/fewer-millennial-moms-show-u-s-birth-rate-drop-lasting.html


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

It's understandable, when you consider the women who want abortions had them, and didn't have girls who would want them too. Sort of diminishing return on planned parenthood's investment if you will.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

The new CDC report also indicates the abortion rate has also declined to a historic low. At their high decades ago, approximately 1 in 3 pregnancies ended in an abortion &#8212; resulting in brochures, banners and billboards proclaiming that fact and greying out every third baby displayed in pictures of newborn children. Thanks to pro-life laws, educational efforts, pregnancy centers and the actions of pro-life groups that have resulted in closing down abortion clinics, now just 18 percent of all pregnancies in the United States end in an abortion. 


Read more at http://joemiller.us/2014/11/cdc-brings-good-news-abortions-decline-historic-low/#yzGmxhqix34v8i8J.99

Some time ago we were arguing abortion-imagine that-& someone said if the conservatives are so against it why aren't we doing something. The education movement was just beginning.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Now if we could do something about the fact that nearly half of all babies are born to Medicaid recipients, and 40 percent are single mothers! :facepalm:


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I wouldn't say it's because fewer people are pro-choice, just because abortions are declining. One can be pro-choice and still not want an abortion (or even have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place).


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> I wouldn't say it's because fewer people are pro-choice, just because abortions are declining. One can be pro-choice and still not want an abortion (or even have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place).


So if fewer people are having abortions its just b/c there are less pregnancies? 
How many less? enuf to confirm the stats?

72% of black children are born to single moms, WG.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I say it's because too many people have become "politically correct"... Too many people want to worry about how others live.... 

People should just live and let live.... You can't ever know how your forced decisions will affect other's lives.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

IMHO the perception has changed, it used to be viewed almost as a rite of passage among some young women, they in a way felt like they were part of an enlightened, empowered group. Now after many years they are figuring out the consequences involved and the ease of avoidance. OnE young woman told me she felt that women had bought into the slick advertising for a billion dollar industry, she had an abortion in college.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Well unlike many conservatives I actually want smaller government. And that means a government that isn't empowered to make moral decisions about an individuals own body. I never understood that hypocritical position by people claiming to want smaller government and more individual rights, but want the government to dictate what you can do with your body, what you can put into it, and etc.

That social conservative/religious right stuff belongs way over on the LEFT, where it started.


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

This is a very controversial subject where religion and the meaning of life is considered by many to be from the moment of conception.

I wonder how many people feel this way support orphanages with their own money on a regular basis?

As for myself I do not feel I have the right to tell any woman what to do with her own body.

I do feel that we shouldn't have to pay for a woman who continues to get pregnant and add to the welfare roles. It has been documented that some women get pregnant to get more welfare money. Some cities have a cap on how many welfare children are eligible. Have more children you get no extra money. 

In this day and age a women doesn't have to get pregnant. That is her choice.

JMOP


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

NJ Rich said:


> This is a very controversial subject where religion and the meaning of life is considered by many to be from the moment of conception.
> 
> I wonder how many people feel this way support orphanages with their own money on a regular basis?


I do. I support orphans in Sierra Leone, Tijuana, and a boys ranch near me.

I don't know what to call myself. Science, you know that stuff liberals claim conservatives and the "overly religious" ignore, says that science begins at conception. So I think abortion is wrong. However, I'm Libertarian enough that I'm not for giving the gov't enough power to stop at least some of them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Mostly attributed to education.
> 
> http://joemiller.us/2014/11/cdc-bri...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-cd9020778a-230980529
> 
> ...


I wonder how long it will take for Obama to claim credit for this?


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

I respect you for that. I suspect you are one of a very few here.......

That said, I always wonder why so many people support other countries programs and not here. 

I hate it when actors and actresses make a big display adopting children from other countries when we have such a big problem here in the US. :shrug:


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Just 18% still seems likes a huge number to me. I remember back in college that a classmate proclaimed to the whole class, like it was an accomplishment, that she had gone down to a vacation area and had an abortion. I was stunned by the lack of emotion in her voice, lack of connection to the child that was disposed of. 

I was on face book last night and a friend posted a picture of a little baby nursing with an oxygen tube in its nose. The little one was looking up at its Mom. Even though the quality of the photo left something to be desired the message, to me, was beautiful. Another friend replied, while it didn't offend her, she would not repost it. For Pete's sake, that's what breasts were made for! 

I sincerely believe the absence of affection for the children conceived, has influenced the lack of affection/responsibility once they are born. Those realities leave the media with an unlimited source of horror stories to try to catch our attention now and in oncoming decades...


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Eagle-eye said:


> Well unlike many conservatives I actually want smaller government. And that means a government that isn't empowered to make moral decisions about an individuals own body. I never understood that hypocritical position by people claiming to want smaller government and more individual rights, but want the government to dictate what you can do with your body, what you can put into it, and etc.
> 
> That social conservative/religious right stuff belongs way over on the LEFT, where it started.


I too want smaller, less intrusive government. But, I also want laws against murder.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I wonder how long it will take for Obama to claim credit for this?


Actually, although it's too soon to tell just yet, the Affordable Care Act may make a noticeable reduction in the abortion rate by making LARCs (long-acting reversible contraceptives) available even to poor women. 

It's been theorized that European women have traditionally had lower abortion rates because they've had better access to long-acting contraceptives like IUDs and hormone shots, which are less subject to user error. LARCs change the default setting from, "Do nothing and get pregnant," to "Do nothing and DON'T get pregnant"! There is no pill to forget, no condom to skip in the heat of the moment. 

The only problem is, these very reliable forms of birth control tend to be more expensive, putting them out of the reach of women without insurance. (My current IUD cost $2,000 in 2011. An uninsured woman in my position probably would have opted for a less expensive -- and less reliable -- form of birth control.) The ACA mandates that ALL forms of birth control be available without co-pays or deductibles. This should go a long way toward helping women who wish to avoid pregnancy obtain the BEST and MOST RELIABLE methods! 

Ordinarily, I'm not a big fan of government subsidies, but in this case, I'm willing to make an exception, because a stitch in time truly saves nine. It is much more cost-effective to provide a poor woman with excellent contraceptive coverage than to help her raise a (possibly unwanted) child to adulthood! I'm pretty certain there is also a savings in terms of human misery as well. It seems foolish for a society to be stingy in this regard.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I sincerely believe the absence of affection for the children conceived, has influenced the lack of affection/responsibility once they are born.


When you look at surveys of women who have had abortions, you'll notice that one reason frequently cited for the abortion is that the woman already had a child, or children, and believed having another would impair her ability to provide for the ones already born. 

My heart goes out to anyone who has felt compelled to make that choice.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> So if fewer people are having abortions its just b/c there are less pregnancies?
> How many less? enuf to confirm the stats?
> 
> 72% of black children are born to single moms, WG.


Wouldn't common reasoning cover this? 

Here's stats for black women, who apparently getting pregnant less often also.



> The pregnancy rate among black teens decreased 48% between 1990 and 2008, more than the overall U.S. teen pregnancy rate declined during the same period (42%).[1] Sligh


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States#By_race


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

NJ Rich said:


> That said, I always wonder why so many people support other countries programs and not here.
> 
> I hate it when actors and actresses make a big display adopting children from other countries when we have such a big problem here in the US. :shrug:


Generally I agree, but sometimes there is a back story you don't know. There are unmet needs close by so that's where most of my time and financial support goes. 

My Sierra Leone connection started with my mother doing one of those $20/month save the children programs. That morphed into our family sponsoring that kid when he became an adult and 6 others from his camp for immigration to the US. One of the immigrants was a 3 year old who became an unofficial adopted part of our family. 

But my fave project is a Boys Ranch which raises 50 boys on a farm. The boys live in 5 homes, each with a married couple who provide the parental role. The boys work on the ranch, raise livestock for food and to show at the county fair (where I met them), garden, attend church, participate in home work and tutoring sessions to keep their grades up. It is as good as it can get outside of being raised by loving parents in their own home. And the ranch takes $0.00 from the gov't in any sort of direct support. It is a Libertarian's dream of how charity and community support should work.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I too want smaller, less intrusive government. But, I also want laws against murder.


Agreed, but recognizing this is a world where I'm not always going to get what I believe to be the best solution, I'm willing to work for a next best solution. So things like a day after pill may be just as much murder to some as a 3rd trimester abortion, the pill is a compromise I can live with.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

And more men are behaving responsibly - using birth control. And there is a scientific reason for this.

The reality is that when a pregnancy occurs the man is 100% responsible for the pregnancy just as the woman is 100% responsible for the pregnancy. This is not a 50/50 deal. 

Men are 100% responsible for everything consensual that they do with their penis and women are 100% responsible for everything consensual that they do with their vagina. Men are responsible for all of their sperm and women for all of their eggs. 

Sex is not a sport. Its purpose is for procreation. It is vastly enjoyable because nature designed it this way so that we would participate. And humans have found ways to enjoy it even more by preventing pregnancy with different methods of birth control. But no method other than sterilization is fool proof so every time you participate you spin the roulette wheel. 

Men's attitude towards "hit and run and deny everything and demand proof" pregnancy has changed with the advent of DNA testing. Today when you impregnate someone they can legally identify the father so this scientific proof means child support. And if the mother or father does not want or support abortion then the only sure way to avoid this is to practice stringent birth control while engaging in sex.

I personally think that DNA testing is wonderful as a child can never be denied by a father again and on the other hand a man will never have to raise a child that is not his - unless he wants to.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

While I'm glad to see that the abortion rate is down, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with who is, or isn't, pro-choice&#8230;

Most people who vote pro-choice have never had an abortion.


----------



## harvestmoon1964 (Apr 24, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Now if we could do something about the fact that nearly half of all babies are born to Medicaid recipients, and 40 percent are single mothers! :facepalm:


curious what people would think of a requirement that medicaid or welfare recipients be on reversible, long term birth control while they are on these programs?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I would support that philosophy Harvestmoon1964.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> curious what people would think of a requirement that medicaid or welfare recipients be on reversible, long term birth control while they are on these programs?


In years past, I would have agreed that was a reasonable condition. But then I came to understand that the inexorable goal of gov't is to have ever greater power and control of the people. 

The policy demonstrates the slippery slope of gov't interference. First the gov't starts handing out money without clear constitutional authority. Then puts what seems like very reasonable sounding restrictions to limit the hand outs. And step by step, you end up with a gov't that decides who gets prego and when. 

If you had that mandatory birth control policy on Medicaid, wouldn't the same logic later apply to Obamacare? 

And then there would come a time when the people realized that only poor folks are taking the Obamacare subsidies and thus having their child bearing regulated, so to be fair to all, everyone on insurance is subject to the policy. Or the gov't inflates the Ocare subsidies to the point that most everyone is taking a subsidy. 

And what does the gov't do if a person illegally gets prego? Jail? Forced abortions a la China? Confiscate the child to be raised in a gov't approved facility? Withdrawal of all welfare and subsidies won't work because the do- gooders will say it is punishing the innocent children. 

If you don't believe this is the way of gov't, look at what came of the very humane and compassionate sounding law that requires private hospitals to give away services for the indigent. How does the gov't justify forcing a private company to give away it's product? An unconstitutional law then became some of the politician's justification for Ocare, to insure these poor folk to remove the financial burden from hospitals.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> And more men are behaving responsibly - using birth control. And there is a scientific reason for this.
> 
> The reality is that when a pregnancy occurs the man is 100% responsible for the pregnancy just as the woman is 100% responsible for the pregnancy. This is not a 50/50 deal.
> 
> ...


Are you referring to some other country? Cause it ain't this one.



> In 2013, 59 percent of high school students who had sex in the last three months said they used a condom during their last sexual encounter, down from 63 percent in 2003, according to the report.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/condom-use-among-montana-u-s-teens-declines/article_f96118a1-2cc2-5484-b4eb-aeea5c1c19da.html#ixzz3KaUVKsYK
​
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:y&q=u.s.+teenage+sex+on+the+rise+condom+use+down+stds


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

emdeengee said:


> And more men are behaving responsibly - using birth control. And there is a scientific reason for this.
> 
> The reality is that when a pregnancy occurs the man is 100% responsible for the pregnancy just as the woman is 100% responsible for the pregnancy. This is not a 50/50 deal.
> 
> ...


 The DNA test may show paternity but it can not force anyone to pay child support. How many people are waiting on court ordered child support that is not being paid? I would hazard a guess that maybe some people reading this thread knows someone that is waiting for past due support.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

While many women and children may be awaiting forced child support at least there is hope for it. You can't make a man or his extended family love a product of sex(child, THEIR bloodline) at least hopefully the governmental system can take steps that he takes financial responsibility for his participation. 

When I had sex ed in HS in the 60's they taught us about birth control. Since then there has been a massive effort to teach birth control and other aspects of sex ed at an earlier age and more extensively. Why are we having so many women/girls getting pregnant when they say they do not want a child? Is it stupidity, laziness or maybe a search for affirmation and love in a society that doesn't hold those values in high regard?

I do not feel anyone is compelled to abort their child because they have already had 1 or more children. Exception is China. What they should be compelled to do is a better job at birth control or in our family, sterilization.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

It's ridiculous to judge someone else's experience and feelings on whether they look sorry or whatever enough. Like they would share their inmost vulnerable self with the evaluator.

All that does is make the judger look spiteful, and there but for the grace of god go you.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

the lower rate may have been affected by the morning after pill. I know a few ladies whom are Christian and are involved in churches use the morning after pill.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> IMHO the perception has changed, it used to be viewed almost as a rite of passage among some young women, they in a way felt like they were part of an enlightened, empowered group. Now after many years they are figuring out the consequences involved and the ease of avoidance.


I've observed a change in older women's attitude about abortion. I think is has to do with the fact that now we're talking about their grandkids, not their own kids. What that means is that there are no consequences of responsibility any longer, and it's a lot easier to tell someone else what to do.


----------



## Maura (Jun 6, 2004)

I agree that with men taking responsibility for pregnancy, the rate of unwanted pregnancies is bound to decrease. âDonât worry, Iâll take it outâ is replaced with âwait, I gotta get the rubberâ. I remember when almost every movie involving a man and woman included the man reaching for a condom. It became more representative of being a man when Tom Hanks and others were obviously using a condom. Add to that (as written in above post) that DNA allows the child to get financial support from its sperm donor, and itâs suddenly no longer a âwomanâsâ issue.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> curious what people would think of a requirement that medicaid or welfare recipients be on reversible, long term birth control while they are on these programs?


I would support that if it applied to men and women equally, but unfortunately, at present there is no such method of BC available for men. And requiring it only for women would seem unfairly discriminatory, IMO.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I personally think that DNA testing is wonderful as a child can never be denied by a father again and on the other hand a man will never have to raise a child that is not his - unless he wants to.


Umm, not so. :teehee:

In some states, any child born to a married couple is presumed to be the product of that union for all legal intents and purposes. It doesn't matter if DNA tests say otherwise.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I've observed a change in older women's attitude about abortion. I think is has to do with the fact that now we're talking about their grandkids, not their own kids. What that means is that there are no consequences of responsibility any longer, and it's a lot easier to tell someone else what to do.


Well I have found that attitude among young women, my age 35 and younger (college age). They see the huge responsibility involved. The attitude of taking control of their lives is important to them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Eagle-eye said:


> Well unlike many conservatives I actually want smaller government. And that means a government that isn't empowered to make moral decisions about an individuals own body. I never understood that hypocritical position by people claiming to want smaller government and more individual rights, but want the government to dictate what you can do with your body, what you can put into it, and etc.
> 
> That social conservative/religious right stuff belongs way over on the LEFT, where it started.


It's already not an argument that its YOUR body. Its NOT your body it is the body of another human being. The left loved the abortion law so much it 1st started with: "its only a blob of cells". And was so unhappy when that was disproven.
Then it was "women can do what they want w/their bodies". Til someone told then it wasn't their bodies + you cannot do w/your body as you please. Like, you cannot sell your liver. You cannot cut off your arm. Even suicide is against the law in most state.
Now its "women's health". Until in TX, f.i. women's health is being protected by laws that regulate abortion clinics...like a doc has to have hosp privileges in order to admit a woman when things go wrong, like hemorrhage. As well as restricting abortions to under 20 weeks b/c SCIENCE has determined unborn feel pain at 20 weeks. Hardly an issue of what to do w/your own body.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

NJ Rich said:


> This is a very controversial subject where religion and the meaning of life is considered by many to be from the moment of conception.
> 
> I wonder how many people feel this way support orphanages with their own money on a regular basis?
> 
> ...


I totally agree w/your last line.
However, for your support of orphanages, just look to the studies on who gives the most. It's certainly not the left. Conservatives give more $$, time AND blood than do libs.
The welfare part is certainly debatable. Borders on Margaret Sanger's intentions when she founded birth control institutions, etc.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, although it's too soon to tell just yet, the Affordable Care Act may make a noticeable reduction in the abortion rate by making LARCs (long-acting reversible contraceptives) available even to poor women.
> 
> It's been theorized that European women have traditionally had lower abortion rates because they've had better access to long-acting contraceptives like IUDs and hormone shots, which are less subject to user error. LARCs change the default setting from, "Do nothing and get pregnant," to "Do nothing and DON'T get pregnant"! There is no pill to forget, no condom to skip in the heat of the moment.
> 
> ...


Agreed. But I'm not in agreement for providing the AM after pill & implants that cause abortion. Someone correct me, but I was under the impression that b/c. has been free to welfare for quite some time?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> While I'm glad to see that the abortion rate is down, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with who is, or isn't, pro-choiceâ¦
> 
> Most people who vote pro-choice have never had an abortion.


How do you know this?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I've observed a change in older women's attitude about abortion. I think is has to do with the fact that now we're talking about their grandkids, not their own kids. What that means is that there are no consequences of responsibility any longer, and it's a lot easier to tell someone else what to do.


Forgot to add I am not totally against abortion, but I and a lot of young women are waking up and controlling our own destinies. Not relying on intervention or the dubious protection offered by others.

This may seem a bit harsh but there are men that feel women are intrinsically weaker due to our reproductive capabilities. Don't get me wrong a good man is incredible!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> How do you know this?


Seriously? :huh:

There are millions more pro-choice voters than people who've _ever_ had abortions&#8230; (And of course, statistically, that excludes all the pro-life people who've HAD abortions. I personally know two!)

You didn't _actually_ think one had anything to do with the other, did you?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

All of the postings on this thread are predicated on the results of a CDC study. Or another governmental study. :thumb:

While we have to base our arguments on something, I want to remind everyone, these are the same people that handled the ebola problem and made many contradictory statements recently. :hrm:

Right, left or in the middle, all groups have manipulated statistics to further their own goals...


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I've observed a change in older women's attitude about abortion. I think is has to do with the fact that now we're talking about their grandkids, not their own kids. What that means is that there are no consequences of responsibility any longer, and it's a lot easier to tell someone else what to do.


 
maybe that is also because the grandparents are now having to take care of their grandchildren because the parents can't or won't. I can only imagine how upset I would be if my sons had kids and then expected me to raise them. I didn't work because I was at home raising the kids we wanted to have. I didn't have them for someone else to raise. yes there were some financial downsides but very few as all I would make would have gone to daycare unless one of our parents helped. I knew that would never happen.

I have seen a lot of grandparents that are having to help raise the grands due to both parents working or because they want a cheap baby sitter.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wanda said:


> The DNA test may show paternity but it can not force anyone to pay child support. How many people are waiting on court ordered child support that is not being paid? I would hazard a guess that maybe some people reading this thread knows someone that is waiting for past due support.


Learning about your paternity - and in the case of adoption, your maternity - is not all about money. To know who your parents are is very important for healthcareand also knowing where you come from helps people to find their place in life. If for no other reason then to avoid the decisions and mistakes made by their parents.

And yes there is a huge back log in collecting child support but that is an issue for the law makers and law enforcement which means a change in laws and their enforcement. There does not seem to be a problem in collecting in countries where those who do not pay their child support are jailed.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Are you referring to some other country? Cause it ain't this one.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/condom-use-among-montana-u-s-teens-declines/article_f96118a1-2cc2-5484-b4eb-aeea5c1c19da.html#ixzz3KaUVKsYK
> ...


 Well young people make stupid mistakes all the time. And not only do they risk pregnancy but sexually transmitted disease. But the young have a lot to learn and sadly many will pay a price. 

On the other hand young men are finally smartening up and taking on a responsible roll in preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease and so what if it is all based on self interest? At least it is effective. And of course not all men take responsibility just as all women do not take responsibility but the more that do the better the outcome for society.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I think that the number of abortions is declining due to the popularity of using raw goat's milk as a form of birth control.

Granted, raw goat's milk doesn't really have any contraceptive properties.

But, if you drink enough of it, you begin to smell a bit like a goat, and the likelihood of winding up in an activity that might produce a pregnancy is greatly reduced.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Didn't ever think about how I felt about abortion until our Daughter had one.

For years she felt the Lord was punishing her for it. She went for a long time having trouble getting pregnant again. She finally had a Baby girl, few months later she died of SID's.

Since has had a Girl and Boy and has been a very good mother.

big rockpile


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> There does not seem to be a problem in collecting in countries where those who do not pay their child support are jailed.


The U.S. is one of those countries...not sure if every state does it, but I know several lock up men for back child support...and there's still a problem collecting. Maybe if they locked them up and made them work in prison to pay it off it would work. But the one guy I know who gets arrested all the time for back child support just makes a "payment plan" every time and they let him out so he can earn the money to pay...and he doesn't pay. He has six kids with a few different mothers, and he owes well over a hundred grand. He will never pay it. Complete deadbeat. He works under the table so they can't garnish his wages.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Oggie said:


> I think that the number of abortions is declining due to the popularity of using raw goat's milk as a form of birth control.
> 
> Granted, raw goat's milk doesn't really have any contraceptive properties.
> 
> But, if you drink enough of it, you begin to smell a bit like a goat, and the likelihood of winding up in an activity that might produce a pregnancy is greatly reduced.


Personal experience? It may explain some of your cat issues, too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Seriously? :huh:
> 
> There are millions more pro-choice voters than people who've _ever_ had abortionsâ¦ (And of course, statistically, that excludes all the pro-life people who've HAD abortions. I personally know two!)
> 
> You didn't _actually_ think one had anything to do with the other, did you?


Your 'study of two' doesn't cut it. Millions more pro choice?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Your 'study of two' doesn't cut it. Millions more pro choice?


Maybe some simple math will end this part of the discussion. There are in excess of 300 million Americans. According to Gallup about 45% identify as pro choice. This means there are some 135 million pro choice Americans. Assuming around half of these are men, who by definition could never have had and an abortion, some 62.5 million pro choice, non abortion having Americans exist. Now let's say these men have even a low voter turn out of 30% we're still looking at 20 million or so. Millions more than the 700,000+ women who had abortions in the study.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

And to add to my point about "ever," there have been something like 50 million abortions since RvW. That is indeed an enormous number. But even still, it doesn't add up to "_some 62.5 million pro choice, non abortion having Americans_"
(Btw, this compares total abortions in a 40 year time span to the _current_ population. If we were to compare US population in that same 40 year time-span, the difference would become even larger.) 
So yes, millions.

Which, like I said, doesn't even take into account those who identify as _pro-life_ who have had abortions. 



Granny, I'm not sure where you came up with that connection, but it's _extremely_ mistaken. 
My point remains: Most pro-choice supporters have never had abortions. :shrug:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Not sure what 'connection' you are speaking of...
But as long as there's situations like this one in our country, people will change their minds on abortion:
http://joemiller.us/2014/12/abortio...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-e1b1a64471-230980529

With babies being killed AFTER they are born & media not usually covering this horrific stuff, the more people are educated, the more they'll be against abortion. Remember the abortion clinic in PA that killed babies after they were aborted alive? The doc who was sent to jail? Many still don't really know about that. It was not a biggie in the media. Heaven forbid we let women know what can & does happen.
Education has always been the key, w/left opposing it all the way. Seems the left doesn't want folks to know that before birth a baby looks, acts, feels like a 'real' baby.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Personal experience? It may explain some of your cat issues, too.



It's kind of difficult to convince a gal that you're a sensitive and romantic guy after you've head-butted her a time or two.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure what 'connection' you are speaking of...
> But as long as there's situations like this one in our country, people will change their minds on abortion:
> http://joemiller.us/2014/12/abortio...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-e1b1a64471-230980529
> 
> ...





The connection you were making was that being pro-choice somehow has _anything_ whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of abortions. That's the title of your thread, afterall. 
I pointed out that that connection was wrong on page two. Most people who are pro-choice have never had an abortion.


And I'm not seeing what the above has to do with my point, or your response to it.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Mostly attributed to education.
> 
> http://joemiller.us/2014/11/cdc-bri...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-cd9020778a-230980529
> 
> ...


Thank God. We need to be delivered from the judgement of God on America for this horrible string of murdering infants. God is not mocked. The vast majority of our financial and medical issues in this nation are because we are reaping what we sow.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> The U.S. is one of those countries...not sure if every state does it, but I know several lock up men for back child support...and there's still a problem collecting. Maybe if they locked them up and made them work in prison to pay it off it would work. But the one guy I know who gets arrested all the time for back child support just makes a "payment plan" every time and they let him out so he can earn the money to pay...and he doesn't pay. He has six kids with a few different mothers, and he owes well over a hundred grand. He will never pay it. Complete deadbeat. He works under the table so they can't garnish his wages.


I have an acquaintence who is married, has 6 kids and works full time to support them. All 6 are in school, costs the taxpayer about 60 grand for that service every year. One child is special needs and gets medical and educational help from the state. Though he is white collar, he pays no income tax. Good for him, I guess. If I was an honest bean counter, I could not see difference between him and the dead beat dad.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

You fail to take into account that he is setting a good example by going to work and providing for his family. If you disagree with tax laws there is the option of trying to change them. Aren't there several states that have no income tax? Or were you talking just federal? 

I see a big difference between a father/mother that is able and willing to work and help support his/their children and one fails to take responsibility. It is not just an April 15th bottom line. It is also the lessons learned and passed down to future generations.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

bowdonkey said:


> I have an acquaintence who is married, has 6 kids and works full time to support them. All 6 are in school, costs the taxpayer about 60 grand for that service every year. One child is special needs and gets medical and educational help from the state. Though he is white collar, he pays no income tax. Good for him, I guess. If I was an honest bean counter, I could not see difference between him and the dead beat dad.


I don't see them as even remotely comparable. The children of my acquaintance would be lucky to have a father like your acquaintance...while yours is far from financially independent, he is ten steps above mine...and I bet he even talks to his kids more than once or twice a year.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> I don't see them as even remotely comparable. The children of my acquaintance would be lucky to have a father like your acquaintance...while yours is far from financially independent, he is ten steps above mine...and I bet he even talks to his kids more than once or twice a year.


He is better in that regard jb. They are frequently at my home, and the kids are friends of my kids. The kids are also way above the norm in smarts, manners etc. But this is all off topic, and thread drift.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> The connection you were making was that being pro-choice somehow has _anything_ whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of abortions. That's the title of your thread, afterall.
> I pointed out that that connection was wrong on page two. Most people who are pro-choice have never had an abortion.
> 
> 
> And I'm not seeing what the above has to do with my point, or your response to it.


Thanks for clarifying. 
I prolly should've said fewer women are getting abortions. I would imagine if you are pro-choice, you'd be more likely to have one than if you are pro life. There are now more people who are pro-life than pro-choice. And partly that is b/c they have switched their opinions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> I have an acquaintence who is married, has 6 kids and works full time to support them. All 6 are in school, costs the taxpayer about 60 grand for that service every year. One child is special needs and gets medical and educational help from the state. Though he is white collar, he pays no income tax. Good for him, I guess. If I was an honest bean counter, I could not see difference between him and the dead beat dad.


No income tax at all is taken from his check?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> No income tax at all is taken from his check?


Very little, not enough to cover what they receive from the gov. In fact, I pay more and make half as much. That not sour grapes, it's just the way the tax code works. But I constantly hear about some worthless so and so and how they are such a drag on society. I don't buy it for a minute anymore. Your post was about prolife, let's keep it on topic.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I would imagine if you are pro-choice, you'd be more likely to have one than if you are pro life.


Maybe. 
Like I said, the only people _I_ personally know who've had abortions are pro-life. :shrug:


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

ErinP, at what point did your 2 friends become pro-life? Before or after their abortions? That would be relevant IMO. If it was before getting pregnant I could not comprehend their actions...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

light rain said:


> ErinP, at what point did your 2 friends become pro-life? Before or after their abortions? That would be relevant IMO. If it was before getting pregnant I could not comprehend their actions...


Exactly what I was wondering. I know people who are pro-life because they have had abortions and it was a horrible experience. But I'm sure there are people who are pro-life before their abortions and did it anyway.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

light rain said:


> ErinP, at what point did your 2 friends become pro-life? Before or after their abortions? That would be relevant IMO. If it was before getting pregnant I could not comprehend their actions...


One of each, actually. One was kind of what you'd expect. She had one, it was devastating, and she then decided she was pro-life. She was hardline Republican and leaned pro-life, but became distinctly so afterward.

The other, OTOH, was pro-life right up until the day she and her husband decided that in their case it was OK. (They were late 40s and their youngest was 14.) The official rationale for those of us who knew was that you just never knew what kind of birth defects older parents might have. But personally, I think it was mostly because they wanted to be done raising kids...


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html



> Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.....


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

ErinP, I liked your post because I saw the truth in it. I tried to post my forth coming post a few days ago and it went poof. Don't know what I did wrong.

Back many decades ago my grandmother (Irish) was pregnant with her 8th child close to the age of 50. Her Swedish husband was older. They were not rich. She was tired. I understand that. Had children already in their 20's maybe older. She wanted an abortion but her husband and she discussed it. Came up with the compromise that if she had this baby she could go on a trip to NYC. Thank heavens, :thumb: for that trip to NYC or my Mom and consequently me, would not have born. Also a doctor, an asst. principal and a very engaging little three year old would have gone poof too. I am so grateful for the opportunity to live and breathe and give opinions and discover even in my advanced years.


----------



## KIT.S (Oct 8, 2008)

The local anti-abortion group handed out brochures that said over 50,000 abortions had been performed. They wouldn't tell me what time period they were talking about, nor could I be certain what "locally" meant.

Meanwhile, there are not nearly enough foster parents. The foster parent groups are always advertising for help, for more parents to foster, for money. What would another 50,000 unwanted children do to the system?

Even if you believed the foster parent system was all good and that children in the system turned out to be reasonably healthy adults, there isn't enough room for more kids. I have fostered several teens and have friends who have been in the foster system and others that were raised in dysfunctional, violent families, and I completely believe that abortion of a fetus before it can support it's own life is much preferable to being born unwanted.

And I've had family members who chose abortion and years later wouldn't have it any other way.
Kit


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

You have a right to your opinion. I have a question though. Do you think a 2 yr. old or a 4 yr. old can support it's own life?


----------



## KIT.S (Oct 8, 2008)

Sorry, light rain, I mean viable outside the womb.
Kit


----------

