• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should there be a limit on the number of abortions one women has?

year2late said:
The most effective form of birth control is financially out of reach for many women. Long term birth control methods are the most effective. Most women who become pregnant were using birth control. Like BCP....if you think you took all the pills correctly..but when all was said and done you missed one....or had a med interaction....it is rendered inneffective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you’re “schooling” me here; I’ve said nothing about the efficacy of any method of birth control. I don’t want toget down in the weeds here, but your claim that most women who become pregnant were using birth control is mistaken. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account tfor a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users.”
About Half of U.S. Abortion Patients Report Using Contraception in the Month They Became Pregnant | Guttmacher Institute

year2late said:
If I were adamantly anti abortion....I would be fighting like hell for the availability, accessibility, and improvement of long term birth control methods.
Click to expand...

Well, you aren’t.

Most Americans approve of birth control, and various methods are widely available and accessible. Sex education is standard. About half of unwanted pregnancies occur because no birth control method was used or because of careless/irregular use of a method.

And you also aren’t interested in a civil discourse; you just want to proselytize, and you’re using my post as a platform. You don’t even understand--or simply refuse to acknowledge--the difference between being pro-life and “anti-abortion.”

You do know, though, because we’ve all talked over the years about showing respect for those with whom you disagree and why some terms are inflammatory—e.g. “anti-life.” Yet you choose "anti-abortion." You choose to be provocative.[/FONT][/COLOR]

year2late said:
Reasonably speaking, you are not going to finger wag your way into forcing people to stop having sex. It goes against human nature. But we could do a lot more to help women prevent pregnancy they are not ready for.

YMMV - and I am sure it does in leaps and bounds............
Click to expand...

And you conclude with insinuating that I “finger-wag” when I don’t and a snarky remark. So much for your sincere interest in having a conversation.
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
It's not longer 'rare' and it is some use it as a method of birth control. But you knew that was the point.
Click to expand...

It was never rare...there were always hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. It was esp. bad during the Depression.

But many many more women choose to give birth than to have abortions and the abortion rate goes down every year.

The trend is favorable..."choice" works.
 
Scrabaholic said:
So, you don't believe in personal freedom. Got it.

Why does it matter if they are on benefits? Either family size should be limited or it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

If you want more kids you should be able to afford them and not rely on others through their taxes to pay for your kids upbringing, dont you agree.
 
Sweden said:
Absolutely. It would be really easy to enforce. Every time a woman has an abortion tattoo a scarlet letter A on her forehead.

(I think there should be a thread on DP advocating a limit the number of oppressive and tyranical posts allowed per day).
Click to expand...

Not on her head, lets say on her lower back, we can call it a tramp stamp.
 
perthbum said:
How many babies should a women be able to terminate in her life time? I would set the limit at 4, after that it is either get sterilized or go to prison.
Click to expand...

no limit at all
abortion needs/wants are determined by law, legal rights and medical science

also theres no crime to go to prison for
 
nota bene said:
I remember when those who are pro-choice said that abortion should never be used as a method of birth control and that the goal was to make abortion legal, safe, and rare.
Click to expand...

still the case :shrug:

and reality remains it is rare . . . sex results in abortion less .001% of the time and lower actually.
 
perthbum said:
If you want more kids you should be able to afford them and not rely on others through their taxes to pay for your kids upbringing, dont you agree.
Click to expand...

The question in the OP is should there be a limit to the number of abortions a woman can have.

I asked if there should be a limit to the number of children a woman can have. It requires a yes or no response, nothing else.
 
nota bene said:
Yes.

I was responding to the post immediately preceding mine. Ten abortions means that someone is using abortion as a method of birth control. (See Russia.)
Click to expand...

If in fact one woman is using abortion as a method of birth control, that does not change the pro-choice position that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

When I asked what point you were making, I wondered how your statement tied into the topic, if you were suggesting there should be a limit?

How exactly would "limits" be enforced?
 
nota bene said:
I remember when those who are pro-choice said that abortion should never be used as a method of birth control and that the goal was to make abortion legal, safe, and rare.
Click to expand...

It should be - so do you know many women personally that have had multiple abortions??

There are people out there that aren't too bright - I don't think we can legislate for stupid.
 
perthbum said:
How many babies should a women be able to terminate in her life time? I would set the limit at 4, after that it is either get sterilized or go to prison.
Click to expand...

Yes....if it doesn't involved non-viability or a threat to the life or significant bodily harm of the mother the number should be zero.
 
perthbum said:
How many babies should a women be able to terminate in her life time? I would set the limit at 4, after that it is either get sterilized or go to prison.
Click to expand...

none of your business how many she gets, she might as well ask you to get a vasectomy if you have made a few women pregnant who had abortions, or go to prison.
 
jghiretire said:
It should be - so do you know many women personally that have had multiple abortions??

There are people out there that aren't too bright - I don't think we can legislate for stupid.
Click to expand...

You're right. Or careless. Are you suggesting that one abortion per woman equals rare?
 
JMR said:
If in fact one woman is using abortion as a method of birth control, that does not change the pro-choice position that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

When I asked what point you were making, I wondered how your statement tied into the topic, if you were suggesting there should be a limit?

How exactly would "limits" be enforced?
Click to expand...

I'm perplexed by your line of questioning, counselor. I've written plainly; what I haven't stated is whether I think there should be a limit. I'm appalled by the question. But perhaps you can acquaint yourself with pro-life thinking and then make an informed guess? Or maybe someone who is pro-life will come along who's willing to play this game.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The question in the OP is should there be a limit to the number of abortions a woman can have.

I asked if there should be a limit to the number of children a woman can have. It requires a yes or no response, nothing else.
Click to expand...

If a women cannot afford more children and will rely on the state to bring them up which means taxpayers are bringing up that child then yes.
 
nota bene said:
I'm perplexed by your line of questioning, counselor. I've written plainly; what I haven't stated is whether I think there should be a limit. I'm appalled by the question. But perhaps you can acquaint yourself with pro-life thinking and then make an informed guess? Or maybe someone who is pro-life will come along who's willing to play this game.
Click to expand...

I'll refrain from further questions. Obviously you meant your original comment to stand in isolation and to be widely understood.
 
perthbum said:
How many babies should a women be able to terminate in her life time? I would set the limit at 4, after that it is either get sterilized or go to prison.
Click to expand...

Go to prison for what crime?
 
Cordelier said:
Interesting... go to prison for what, exactly? Having too many elective medical procedures?

What about guys who love'em and leave'em? How many birds does he have to knock up before they throw him in the clink?
Click to expand...

Oh come on! You know damn well that it is ALWAYS the woman's fault! She just can't keep her legs together!

:roll:

:nails
 
Idiometer said:
Oh come on! You know damn well that it is ALWAYS the woman's fault! She just can't keep her legs together!

:roll:

:nails
Click to expand...

*L* Exactly.... And just think about the chilling effect that law would have on the dating scene - whenever a guy asked a girl back to his place, all he'd ever get back was "Sorry... I'm already at three strikes - one more and I'm out!"
 
nota bene said:
I'm perplexed by your line of questioning, counselor. I've written plainly; what I haven't stated is whether I think there should be a limit. I'm appalled by the question. But perhaps you can acquaint yourself with pro-life thinking and then make an informed guess? Or maybe someone who is pro-life will come along who's willing to play this game.
Click to expand...

I also would like to know "how exactly such limits would be enforced." (Her question)

I think it's a question that applies to the issue, period, so it's not dependent on 'how many.'

And I know you'd like elective abortion ended. So..."how exactly would that be enforced?"
 
Cordelier said:
*L* Exactly.... And just think about the chilling effect that law would have on the dating scene - whenever a guy asked a girl back to his place, all he'd ever get back was "Sorry... I'm already at three strikes - one more and I'm out!"
Click to expand...

he is probably lucky as she is obviously using abortions as a contraceptive, plus he will most likely catch something of her if she is not bothered with protection/
 
perthbum said:
he is probably lucky as she is obviously using abortions as a contraceptive, plus he will most likely catch something of her if she is not bothered with protection/
Click to expand...

The way I figure it, there's only one form of contraceptive that's ever 100% effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom