Felicity

You are again using many words to say nothing. What are those means? Again, I refer you to the "Solutions" thread to consider means that don't promote killing the smallest humans.

Still, however, you fail to answer the question as to why you would want abortion minimized--if fact, it speaks contrary to that with the reference to countries with liberal laws... You have talked yourself into a conundrum with your excess verbiage.

DeeJayH

I am concerned about it
but i am more concerned about innocent victims with no voice being slaughtered by the millions
go figure

__________________

Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones

Scucca

It was rather straight forward, but I'm used to your failure to keep up

I've answered it rather concisely, even managing to ensure evidence in support of my view. Its probably not something that you're familiar to

__________________

Felicity

Unlike many, when I bother to answer your post, as crazy and masochistic as it seems, I actually read it for comprehension rather than a good belly laugh. You have not answered, and, in fact, have offered MORE reason to NOT minimise abortion.

Worded in another way, the question was: What reason, that is not a moral concern, would you possibly have to desire abortions minimized?

Rather than admit your circumlocution has bit you in your own ass, you keep piling on the bloviation.

Scucca

That is obvious tosh and demonstrates how far you've fallen. Any sound analysis of abortion will make a distinction between unwanted pregnancies and abortion rights. A minimisation of abortion rates will refer to the minimisation of unwanted pregnancies (clearly a cost to the individual). However, this minimisation is also dependent on liberal abortion rights. Restrictive legislation has two negative effects. In terms of static analysis, it increases mortality and morbidity rates. In terms of dynamic analysis, it reduces the probability of the additional policies required to impact positively on pregnancy. This reflects the morality coercers that infect the pro-life movement

__________________

prometeus

That is true. I wonder why don't they stand at the entrance of waste disposal facilities or sewage treatment plants?

Yes it is, at leas those who exercise it should have the honesty to admit why.

IF I became dependent on you, it would be very little I could do to prevent you from making me miserable or neglect me to death. As such I'd rather die. Actually I'd rather die than depend on anyone ever. In the mean time I can take good care of myself. Why do you suppose that it is only persons immediately connected to a comatose patient that can have "the plug pulled" as opposed to asking a passer by on the street. To put it another way in situations like this, fetuses, the comatose, brain dead, it is the immediate family usually that expresses the "convenience" or lack of upon which the critical decision is made and not society or random people.
When something is legal it is "correct" enough for society in general. When it becomes "less" then "correct enough" it is changed, just like slavery was. It is the law that reflects on society not the other way around. In an ideal world this would not be an issue and while I too aspire to some ideal world, fully knowing that it is not achievable, the parts that can be achieved do not start with making abortion illegal. Making sure that those who are already in this world are taken care of, eliminating starvation and dirty drinking water, medical neglect, education, are better starting points and easily achievable.

OK strike this, it is not really crucial to the issue.

Felicity

neither of which are ACTUAL abortions. It's not even on topic--unwanted pregnancy and abortion rights are different topics than abortions themselves.

"Refer?" No it won't. There you go with the poor diction. Reverse that and change the word "refer" and you might make sense: A minimization of unwanted pregnancies will translate into a minimization of abortion rates.

Nope--not "necessarily." One only has to change their point of view, and an "unwanted" pregnancy can simply be an "unexpected" pregnancy that can then be a "welcomed" pregnancy.

Oh yea! More two-bit words Your "static analysis" pays no attention to causation and merely indicates a possible correlation (if I even accept that to be true). And, as for your "dynamic analysis" your statement is so broad as to say nothing (as usual--bloviating).

Again, if not for morality reasons, why do you think abortions should be minimized? According to you--abortion is the answer to lower morbidity/mortality rates (too funny since abortion ASSURES the mortality of the human in the womb) and abortion can have a positive impact on pregnancy (except, of course, that if one aborts, she is no longer pregnant...yah--makes a lotta sense there Skunka). So why would you want to minimize what you profess to have such a positive influence on women's lives?

Scucca

A silly remark. Abortion number cannot be understood simply by referring to abortion restrictions. One also has to refer to unwanted pregnancies and also appreciate how legislation impacts on those pregnancies. For example, a sensible pro-lifer (they do exist!) could suggest that liberal rules encourages promiscuous activity and therefore increases the risk of unwanted pregnancies. However, the evidence shows that liberal legislation actually leads to lower abortion numbers. This reflects that distinction between static and dynamic analysis that I referred to.

I’ve already given evidence in support of my point. You might not like it, but that is almost assuredly the result of your weak position where inconvenient evidence is simply ignored.

It’s a tad obvious: illegal abortions are not regulated and therefore the risks are greater. Try something like the analysis for the World Health Organisation

Benagiano and Pera (2000, Decreasing the need for abortion: challenges and constraints, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol 70, pp 35-48) put it nicely: ”The second negative consequence is the very clear tendency, evident everywhere, that, because abortion is illegal, nothing is done to actively reduce its incidence, or, rather, to reduce the reasons leading to the need for terminating a pregnancy”

Abortion is not a day out at the races. There are clearly post-abortion distress effects that, if unwanted pregnancies were avoided, would have also been avoided.

You continue to type without though. Abortion rights are the answer to lower morbidity and mortality. This is not surprising as, given the costs from going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy, the unsafe illegal abortion flourishes in a restrictive environment.

__________________

prometeus

The validity if this [as a general principle] is abundantly evidenced by past experience with prohibition, the war on drugs, even rise and fall of crime rates.
Thanks for the quote.