The Truth: Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life

Quote: billryan

I don't see any chart that tracks that.

It's call the fertility rate. Social security budget projections are heavily influenced around them.



Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Quote: billryan

I don't see any chart that tracks that. Birth rate is usually described as live births per 1,000 people. Could you link a chart that gives your information. It's doesn't make any sense to measure like that. A women imigrates and has three kids. How does it matter if she had three kids before or after she came.

Wiz already uploaded the chart. It makes perfect sense to track per woman. Two parents. Each woman needs to have 2 kids to maintain a level population, plus a small number to account for deaths of very young people, though I will punt to Wiz if he wants to add some pro input there.

To me the fertility rate is easier to understand for long-term planning. I use this example even though I hate using my own birth as the center of things, but in this case my birth year really is a trough birth year. When I was in school if a classmate had more than 2 brothers or sisters they were usually the youngest in the family, or near the youngest. If they had 2 or less they were usually the oldest.

This is important because after the 1960s more and more couples stopped at 2 kids. Where this is important is that there are always people that can't have kids or do not have them by choice. Before the 1960s, 3 kids was very normal so that kept the average up. But the more women that stop at 2 the less to make up for the no-kids women.

Pre-2008 or so the USA was just on the 2.1 or so, up or down a bit each year but even on the long term. All the population increase was from immigration and the lag-effect that while the birthrate might fall due to family planning the death rate does not. This makes a population age.

Europe and Japan are in death spirals in this regard. People there decided not to have kids over the years. China has the famous (usually) 1-Child policy, now relaxed. Not only did that put China on a death spiral, it changed attitudes. Both 1-child and abortion or infanticide of females has China a demographic time bomb.

Last I heard, India was at about 3 per woman. India and the USA are the only 2 of the developed, major countries at replacement level. Since 2008 the USA has been on a crash, not at EU levels but on our way.

This is the biggest reason IMHO that humans will be gone in 1,000 years. When I write my book on that I will let everyone know.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is the biggest reason IMHO that humans will be gone in 1,000 years. When I write my book on that I will let everyone know.

Until the book is out, may I recommend the movie Idiocracy.

Quote: terapined

forcing an 11 year old to go to term in a pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment. Let her have the abortion so she can run around the playground as she is just a child.

In Delaware the age of consent was SEVEN. In Most of the USA the age of consent varied from NINE to TWELVE.

In England those ten to twelve were generally considered old enough to consent to sex. A statute raised it to 13 in 1875, thus putting a slight dent in the power of Irish Bishops who controlled the females in poor houses an often rented them out at age NINE in return for donations from wealthy men.

Fondling the breasts of a female indentured servant in colonial Pennsylvania was neither contrary to the law nor to social mores, Repeated pregnancies amongst servant girls would come to the attention of the community but only due to the expense of supporting bastards. Public masturbation was a crime if performed on the Sabbath in the immediate vicinity of a house of worship.

In Indiana a woman who gives birth to a child conceived as a result of forcible rape has only ninety days to exclude the rapist from the child's life, to this day if she fails to obtain the court order within 90 days, the rapist can force her to allow him full visitation rights.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Who is speaking for the right to life for the fetus? Granted, the fetus may not be wanted by the rape victim nor her family, but should the fetus have to die because it is not wanted by a few individuals?

This is a really hard conversation, Aye, made harder because you're one of the greats on here. But I have to disagree with several of your premises.

The fetus, when implanted in the mother, and before it is viable, is essentially a parasite. Where does it say a woman, 11 or otherwise, is required to be an incubator for a fetus that can't survive outside her body? Where does it say that a woman impregnated by force must bear that child? Where does it say that a woman bearing a genetically defective fetus must bring it to term, drowning in millions of dollars it could take to keep that child alive in a vegetative state until it dies 3 years later ?

Aren't you making the woman in these situations an object less than human - a brood mare subject to your forced breeding, then left to deal with the consequences? Does HER life have no value?

Rape and forced impregnation has been a weapon of war and power for millenia. Science, in the form of safe and legal abortions, reliable birth control methods, morning-after pills, amniocentesis to detect severely malformed fetuses, all of that has only been available for 60 years or so. In other words, women finally have some protection from forced childbearing. But social thinking hasn't caught up with the reality of what can be done to reduce abortions before it gets that far.

TigerWu makes some outstanding points in a couple posts above. Break the chain with REAL sex education, with easily gotten birth control, with a social recognition that sex is a healthy, normal function for mature bodies. All of that would help prevent unplanned pregnancies, and greatly reduce the demand for abortion.

But abortion itself is a necessary option in many situations, whether that's the decision in the end or not. That's where it goes back to, who decides? In my strong opinion, those who decide should be those who will be responsible for raising that child. It's not a political question, even as Georgia's governor signed a bill this hour making nearly all abortions illegal in that state. Will he ever be faced with that decision himself? No.

Sigh. Part of the point of having a choice, is that there is no one best answer for every situation. But in a country where kids get murdered in the hundreds every year, where thousands are parentless and "unadoptable", where hundreds of thousands go to bed hungry, why are we forcing women to bear children they can't support? Isn't that really about you, not them?

Quote: Wizard

Until the book is out, may I recommend the movie Idiocracy.

This is sadly so true. As to the book, if I make half a mil in crypto and at the same time get laid off I may put coffeehouse time to good use and write it. The idea could have legs because I have talked to a few people who when you start explaining the fertility rate and all they get amazed.

Free copy for you of course.

All the pro-life men who want to help prevent abortions, put yourself out as the substitute baby daddy, helping to support raising the kid for all those women whose baby daddy disappeared. I'm sure that will prevent some abortions, when these women are not on their own any longer and have some financial and labor support in raising the kid.

Quote: rxwine

All the pro-life men who want to help prevent abortions, put yourself out as the substitute baby daddy, helping to support raising the kid for all those women whose baby daddy disappeared. I'm sure that will prevent some abortions, when these women are not on their own any longer and have some financial and labor support in raising the kid.

Why should a pro-life man put himself out to pay for the woman's poor life choices? The family law in this cases already chases down these men for child support, even throwing them in county jail debtor's prison.

Men should avoid dating single mothers. Far too much risk and downside. Only do it if you want that ready-made family.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why should a pro-life man put himself out to pay for the woman's poor life choices? The family law in this cases already chases down these men for child support, even throwing them in county jail debtor's prison.

Men should avoid dating single mothers. Far too much risk and downside. Only do it if you want that ready-made family.

Well, you insist on interfering in their legal choices. Try practicing that whole leave me alone bit from the government which you promote.

Quote: rxwine

Well, you insist on interfering in their legal choices. Try practicing that whole leave me alone bit from the government which you promote.

Still don't see what a guy who is not the father has to do with anything.

Quote: AZDuffman

Still don't see what a guy who is not the father has to do with anything.

Ah, the classic republican response...

1) DON'T KILL BABIES OMG YOU MURDERER LET ME TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY.

2) What, the kids born? I don't want anything to do with it... leave it up to social services or a single mother who can't afford day care... #NotMyProblem

Quote: Romes

Ah, the classic republican response...

1) DON'T KILL BABIES OMG YOU MURDERER LET ME TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY.

2) What, the kids born? I don't want anything to do with it... leave it up to social services or a single mother who can't afford day care... #NotMyProblem

Quite simple. Ice water in your veins.

>>>>>>>>TigerWu makes some outstanding points in a couple posts above.
>>>>>>>>Break the chain with REAL sex education,
Not too likely. Priests and PTAs want to emphasize procreation sex and abstinence, ignore pleasure, etc.

............................. with easily gotten birth control,
Irish lads couldn't believe it when they saw a condom vending machine in my local pub's mens room. A condom at the time in Ireland was available only with an Rx.

>>>>>>>>>>That's where it goes back to, who decides?
The Irish viewpoint of a female being a forced broodmare was enshrined in the Equal Dignity law that prevented a woman from receiving any medical treatment that would harm her fetus. Some oversees Irish women qualified to vote in the recent referendum spent comparative fortunes just to return to Ireland to cast a ballot.
>>>>>>>>>>even as Georgia's governor signed a bill this hour
>>>>>>>>>>making nearly all abortions illegal in that state.
Political activists cast votes.

Quote: Romes

Ah, the classic republican response...

1) DON'T KILL BABIES OMG YOU MURDERER LET ME TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY.

2) What, the kids born? I don't want anything to do with it... leave it up to social services or a single mother who can't afford day care... #NotMyProblem

Classic liberal response on your part, implying it is easier just to kill it.

If she cannot afford day care or anything else she should not let herself get pregnant.

Or she should consider giving it up for adoption.

I say again, a high abortion rate is a sign of a society in decline or collapse. Your reasoning that the mother is somehow not to be held responsible for her own choices but that the cost should fall on society just confirms this to me.

The cost falls on society when a child is given up for adoption.

Quote: FinsRule

The cost falls on society when a child is given up for adoption.

How?

Quote: AZDuffman

Still don't see what a guy who is not the father has to do with anything.

EXACTLY.

It's none of any guy who's not the father's business.

Wow, AZD and I agree on something. Mark the calendar.

And stay out of my legal, personal, private life.

Quote: beachbumbabs

EXACTLY.

It's none of any guy who's not the father's business.

Wow, AZD and I agree on something. Mark the calendar.

And stay out of my legal, personal, private life.

We agree on two things. Your last line is my position on gun control exactly. And many other things the government wants to stick their noses in.

Quote: AZDuffman

Classic liberal response on your part, implying it is easier just to kill it.

If she cannot afford day care or anything else she should not let herself get pregnant.

Or she should consider giving it up for adoption.

I say again, a high abortion rate is a sign of a society in decline or collapse. Your reasoning that the mother is somehow not to be held responsible for her own choices but that the cost should fall on society just confirms this to me.

As if all democrats favor abortion. I think he missed that point in his rage against those mean republicans. There are plenty, not enough, though, but plenty of democrats who believe in the sanctity of life. And sadly, there are plenty of "republicans" who are ok with abortion, i.e. murder. Go figure.

Why should God continue to bless America when we are murdering almost 2 million unborn babies each year? He shouldn't, that's why.

Quote: AZDuffman

How?

Even if that were true, and it isn't, that was a ridiculous statement, isn't saving the most innocent of life worth a dollar figure?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gee, here you are again, stomping into a nuanced discussion with name-calling and anti-woman stereotyping. No surprise there.

No, there is not an 11 year old rape victim on this planet who deserves to be put through months of pregnancy for a child she had no choice in conceiving, let alone a lifetime burden prolonged by either the baby being brought to term for adoption or family inclusion.

The part that boggles my mind is that any man, politician or voter, thinks they should get to decide instead of that child, her parents, and her physician. How you can claim the authority for forced birth without taking any responsibility for the mother or the child is just reprehensible.

If one of THOSE parties to the baby wants to take the child to term, including the 11 year old, fine. THAT'S what choice means. Those who WILL have the means and the desire to raise the child have chosen to have it. Conversely, if the child, her parents, and the doctor find it's better for the child to have a safe, legal abortion, that's up to them as well. Not to politicians. Not to uninvolved 3rd parties.

To play Devil's Advocate, what if the woman wants to have an abortion but the man wants the child - who gets to choose? If it is the woman, then that is fine but, if it is the man who does not want the child and the woman wants to keep the child, shouldn't the man have the option of "opting out" (meaning, although the man does not have to ever see the child (nobody can be forced to have a familial relationship), that the man should be able to be exempt from paying child support for a child he never wanted)

I welcome everyone's thoughts

Quote: aceofspades

To play Devil's Advocate, what if the woman wants to have an abortion but the man wants the child - who gets to choose? If it is the woman, then that is fine but, if it is the man who does not want the child and the woman wants to keep the child, shouldn't the man have the option of "opting out" (meaning, although the man does not have to ever see the child (nobody can be forced to have a familial relationship), that the man should be able to be exempt from paying child support for a child he never wanted)

I welcome everyone's thoughts

I’ve said this before. Of course some will say that view is misogynistic for some reason.

Quote: aceofspades

To play Devil's Advocate, what if the woman wants to have an abortion but the man wants the child - who gets to choose? If it is the woman, then that is fine but, if it is the man who does not want the child and the woman wants to keep the child, shouldn't the man have the option of "opting out" (meaning, although the man does not have to ever see the child (nobody can be forced to have a familial relationship), that the man should be able to be exempt from paying child support for a child he never wanted)

I welcome everyone's thoughts

My thought is if a man could quit-claim his rights and responsibilities away like that we would have far fewer "accidental" cases of woemn getting pregnant. It would disarm the weapon of trapping a guy with a baby. The hard part would be making the quit-claim irreversible.

Quote: aceofspades

To play Devil's Advocate, what if the woman wants to have an abortion but the man wants the child - who gets to choose? If it is the woman, then that is fine but, if it is the man who does not want the child and the woman wants to keep the child, shouldn't the man have the option of "opting out" (meaning, although the man does not have to ever see the child (nobody can be forced to have a familial relationship), that the man should be able to be exempt from paying child support for a child he never wanted)

I welcome everyone's thoughts

Actions have consequences. If I accidentally swipe a car on the highway, can I opt out of my responsibility? I thought you folks were for personal responsibility, or is that just an abstract idea for other people?

I believe if a man is willing to crap a bowling ball out of his ass, then he has equal say in an abortion matter. And he doesn’t even have to carry it around for 9 months so it’s more than fair.

Quote: AZDuffman

Classic liberal response on your part, implying it is easier just to kill it.

If she cannot afford day care or anything else she should not let herself get pregnant.

Or she should consider giving it up for adoption.

I say again, a high abortion rate is a sign of a society in decline or collapse. Your reasoning that the mother is somehow not to be held responsible for her own choices but that the cost should fall on society just confirms this to me.

Yes, it blatantly is easier to terminate the pregnancy, which is not murder because there is literally nothing to the clump of cells giving it memory, feelings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. From a scientific standpoint we should encourage given our overpopulation and rise of ignorance/idiocy (aka the movie idiocracy). Society is getting dumber and blaming things that are actually making the problem worse, instead of doing the real life tough things that will make it better.

#ThanosDidNothingWrong

I also love how it's "she shouldn't get pregnant then." lol... birth control fails, guys demand not to use condoms, oh and the big one... WOMEN GET RAPED. It's not exactly always their choice or what they were going for, but yes, sit back and judge/blame them like a good christian. This world needs to get rid of religion and champion science.

Quote: Romes

Yes, it blatantly is easier to terminate the pregnancy, which is not murder because there is literally nothing to the clump of cells giving it memory, feelings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. From a scientific standpoint we should encourage given our overpopulation and rise of ignorance/idiocy (aka the movie idiocracy). Society is getting dumber and blaming things that are actually making the problem worse, instead of doing the real life tough things that will make it better.

#ThanosDidNothingWrong

I also love how it's "she shouldn't get pregnant then." lol... birth control fails, guys demand not to use condoms, oh and the big one... WOMEN GET RAPED. It's not exactly always their choice or what they were going for, but yes, sit back and judge/blame them like a good christian. This world needs to get rid of religion and champion science.

Yes birth control fails. Usually when she doesn’t use it.

What I love about all the abortion / pro-live, pro-choice discussion is that no matter how much of it goes on, it will not cause anyone to ever change their mind. (A very small number of people might change their stance based on something inside of themselves changing).

I am very much against Roe v Wade simply because I support state's rights. I also know nothing about that law will ever change. There are people in power who like the law and fight to keep it in place. There are also people in power who don't like the law and use their stance against it to remain in power. Once the law is overturned, they lose all those votes.

If it were overturned, most states would keep their abortion laws exactly the same. Some states would put up a lot of barriers to abortions while doing nothing to stop unwanted pregnancies. Just like before the law, the rich girls would go out of state, the poor ones would either get back-ally abortions or just keep the ghettos even more well-populated.

But no matter what, everyone is going to stand firm in their beliefs. And far too many are going to keep debating the same points over and over without ever getting the other side to see things their way

Quote: TomG

I am very much against Roe v Wade simply because I support state's rights.

I'm not convinced a healthcare situation should have any less respect than free speech. Either ban it entirely or make access in all states.

If we're talking about face lifts you can ban em in some states.

If an illegal immigrant gets pregnant on US soil. Do conservatives believe that she is carrying a US citizen and cant be deported due to the rights of the fetus?

Quote: terapined

If an illegal immigrant gets pregnant on US soil. Do conservatives believe that she is carrying a US citizen and cant be deported due to the rights of the fetus?

Usually their hate of brown people overcomes their love of clumps of cells.

Just a few notes.

All of you, regardless of your position on abortion, are making the case why there should NOT be a one-size-fits-all law. That's what choice means. It's not up to the federal law - that's what roe v wade means. It's not up to the states - they can't decide what's best for every future situation. It's up to the individuals directly affected by it. Abortion is not automatically the best answer in many cases. But it should be safe, legal, and RARE.

Also.

Not ONE of you has ANY right to say the first thing about whether the woman has the child unless you have had a vasectomy. Not one word.

You're (collectively) claiming you should be able to get laid, not be the responsible party for birth control, not be responsible for the child, and have a complete say in whether it's born, when you won't raise it or pay for it.

No no no.

Get clipped, then I'll at least talk to you about it.

No male doctor should be able to perform an abortion unless they’ve been snipped, got it.

No worries

"From January to June 2017, athenahealth surveyed 18,000 physicians at 3,500 practices on its network, and determined that more than 60 percent of physicians under the age of 35 are female, while just under 40 percent are male."

Some WTF news
Abortion may become illegal in Alabama and Pat Robertson is not happy about it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pat-robertson-alabama-has-gone-too-far-with-extreme-abortion-law/ar-AABpuXH?ocid=spartandhp