Slashdot Mirror

"During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide. This number represents an increase from 50 million annually during 1990–1994, mainly because of population growth." https://www.guttmacher.org/fac...

Yes, eugenics.

Yes, but not in the horrific way it has been practiced in the past, by killing babies (or adults).

What is wrong with parents being able to decide physical attributes of children? If that meant no more people under 6' tall - what is the problem? No-one is lost, just altered before they even know what is going on. What is lost by saying - well that baby was going to have a crippling low IQ, but we fixed it. What is the problem with that?

It's not like the world is not already practicing a far more primitive form of eugenics anyway, if through no other means than abortion where attributes of the parents lead to some 50 million abortions worldwide.

So why not allow more control over evolution by shaping those who are born rather than by carving away those we choose not to let be born?

Texas and Utah would have significant regulations, and the other 48 states would be pretty much unaffected.

It's more like 17 states.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe

From the linked page:

17 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.

• 
  4 states have laws that automatically ban abortion if Roe were to be overturned.
• 10 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
• 7 states have laws that express their intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.
• 9 states have laws that protect the right to choose abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

The interesting thing that I find in the gun control debate is that Progressives show great concern and compassion for gun victims and demand we "do something" because of all the deaths from guns.....

From the site http://www.gunviolencearchive....

Total number of gun deaths in 2014: 12,556

That is a horrifying number and is alarming. However, those same Progressives literally shrug off this statistic:

from the site https://www.guttmacher.org/fac...

Total number of abortions in the US in 2014: 926,200

Thats nearly TWO orders of magnitude more deaths.

I know I know, "clump of cells" and all. But Progressive are incredibly blasé about life in one sense and incredibly dramatic about it in another.

Another statistic:

From the site: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

Car crash deaths: 35,092

So I'll finish with this. I get that strengthening abortion restrictions is something that Progressives won't do because well "those aren't people". And the Right won't move on gun restrictions because of the right to bear arms.

But you know what would be the best thing and save a lot of lives would be? How about we keep government from restricting our access to self driving cars because they can't figure out who will be liable. Because the longer we wait to get access to self driving capabilities the more people will be impacted by that last number. And thats one we can actually affect, although ironically by having the government not overly regulate.

We now have more black babies being aborted than being born.

That's dopey. You've got to get information from places other than pro-life websites.

But even if you use the numbers cited by the pro-life websites (and cited NO WHERE ELSE), you'll see that live births outnumber abortions by at least 6-1. If you use census data for births, you'll see that it's more like 10-1. And that's if you accept the total number of black abortions the pro-life websites have pulled right outta their ass.

This fact sheet from the Guttmacher Institute says "twenty-one percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion". Which is 4-1... not 6-1, and certainly not 10-1. As you may know, Guttmacher Institute is not pro-life; wikipedia says "it works to advance reproductive health through birth control, including abortion." Of course, 4-1 is far from 1-1. But then, the claim you were responding to was about a population subset, so 1-1 is still quite possible. It would not at all be surprising if abortion rates depended strongly on age, income, employment, marital status, and contraception use. for an example of the latter: "Compared to whites, blacks were less likely to use any contraceptive method (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65); and blacks and Hispanics were less likely to use a highly or moderately effective method (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49 and 0.57, respectively)"

You are implying that getting an abortion isn't life changing ... and also that it isn't a bad decision.

The total number of abortions (including in the black community) has been dropping every year since 1980. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

https://www.guttmacher.org/med...

Ultimately they remain not difficult to get otherwise the poorest wouldn't get them in such high numbers. There are much better questions to be asking, let's add some facts into the discussion, shall we? In a nutshell this seems to be a poor issue, in a country that struggles with contraceptive use. Blacks are over represented. For those with an agenda this is an empowerment struggle (her body, her choice etc.). I've also noticed when it isn't wanted it's a bunch of cells, when it's wanted it's a baby (women crying over a miscarriage). Source with nice graphs. At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and at 2008 abortion rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.

Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, 18–19-year-olds obtain 11%, and teens younger than 15 obtain 0.4%.

Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.

Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.

About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.

Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%)

The number of U.S. abortion providers declined 4% between 2008 (1,793) and 2011 (1,720). The number of clinics providing abortion services declined 1%, from 851 to 839. Eighty-nine percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion clinic in 2011; 38% of women live in those counties.

Forty-six percent of abortion providers offer very early abortions (before the first missed period) and 95% offer abortion at eight weeks from the last menstrual period. Sixty-one percent offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 34% offer abortion at 20 weeks. Only 16% of all abortion providers offer abortions at 24 weeks.

In 2011-2012, the average amount paid for a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks’ gestation was $480. The average amount paid for an early medication abortion before 10 weeks was $504.

Eighty-four percent of clinics experienced at least one form of antiabortion harassment in 2011. Picketing is the most common form of harassment clinics are exposed to (80%) followed by phone calls (47%). Fifty-three percent of clinics were picketed 20 times or more.

... just like they can't recommend designated drivers for teen drinking ...

I remember an episode of 'Boston Public' where a teacher advises students to get a drug-testing kit. When the administration complained, the teacher argued, that a school had a responsibility to teach safety for real world. In the real world however, schools must avoid blame for the actions of their students. Yet just like banning sexual education, ignorance doesn't stop indulging in bad behaviours.

So the school is responsible for skills like crossing the road, dancing, and in some countries, driving but no-one wants to teach the most important social skills; those of drinking and fucking. By failing to provide a list of good and bad behaviours, adults are really saying teenagers need permission to be individuals. Adults are happy to provide a list of bad behaviours, but that is just enforcing the authority of adults over all those teenage vaginas. Despite this common abuse of school-girls, some schools do respect their schoolgirls enough to offer condoms. See here. That raises another issue: Condom use has been the traditional duty of the male; firstly, because he is responsible for pregnancy; secondly, so the female can deny that she is ready to fuck. Nice schoolgirls don't think about sex, is a lie that has to be removed from the communal mindset.

The next problem is a combination of rose-coloured glasses and "what goes on the internet, stays on the internet". For the most part, this is already handled by child pornography laws. But as the article shows, once the mistake is made, other teen-agers will rush to perv on the victim, thus joining the criminal conspiracy. This is a failure of schools to educate students on what is bad behaviour and illegal; which schools tend to do happily, since they want to avoid all blame.

Thanks for following up! You had a small mixup there, 28 million were all pregnancies, including planned ones, leaving only 12.25 unplanned pregnanies, of which 3.3 occur in the U.S, which is a bit above average, given 1.2 billion people in developed nations.

The absolute numbers are misleading, though, as pregnancies are not evenly distributed among the countries. More relevant the relative amount of unplanned pregnancies among all pregnancies among a given country. There, the U.S. has 49% - 51% ([1],[2]) unplanned pregnancies, France has 33% [1] and Britain has 16% [1].

The numbers get even more drastic if you look at teenagers only. There, the US has 5 times as much unplanned pregnancies (relative to overall population) as Germany [3].

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
[2] = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...
[3] = http://www.profamilia.de/filea...

Actually not so much... http://www.guttmacher.org/medi... â In developed countries (where average desired family size is small), of the 28 million pregnancies occurring every year, an estimated 49% are unplanned, and 36% end in abortion. â In developing countries (where average desired family size is still relatively large), of the 182 million pregnancies occurring every year, an estimated 36% are unplanned, and 20% end in abortion. Taking out the U.S. that means 25 million unplanned pregnancies occur world wide in developed countries.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...

Now, if you could provide a study that actually broke down who was using the health care system and how, I'd love to see it.

Most of the studies I've seen have shown that everything is simply marked up insanely (and almost entirely arbitrarily): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So more or less like this: http://www.southparkstudios.co...

And rather than doing something about it, like forcing competition or transparency in costs, we've just spread the enormous cost across paying taxpayers (very similar to Social Security and Medicare, which just absorb the massive costs, efficiency be damned).

You "intend" to have the money "when" misfortune strikes. Yet by its very nature, you have no idea when misfortune will strike, whether multiple misfortunes will strike, or the scale of the cost. Or do you seriously contend that everyone should strive to have millions in savings just in case? Because anything less is unreasonable. Insurance is more of a risk pool precisely because of that and not merely for even "catastrophic" emergency because such a term because untenable very quickly on the cost of many medical procedures.

That is entirely untrue. Scale matters. You're trying to pretend everything out there is a million dollar expense and it simply isn't. Maternity care, for instance, while expensive, is not a bankruptcy causing condition. And it's oft (80%: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...) seen coming ahead of time. So why then is "insurance" mandated to cover it? Moreover, why are my premiums paying for it, a childless adult with no intention of having children? This is just one such example. There are others.

For the former, you can't get blood from a stone.

Except that's disingenuous. The definition of "poor" has slid significantly so far over the years to the point than you can have a home of your own, two cars, and a vacation or two a year -- AND STILL PAY NO TAXES (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/taxes/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/). 12% of people who pay no taxes make between 50 and 100k a year. There's plenty of blood in that stone.

I would be if I actually thought any health care law passed in the US would do such a thing.

But wasn't that the whole point of the law? Yes we can and all that? Grandiose change was exactly what his whole administration was supposed to be about. In fact, ACA, even as written, is one of the most sweeping, drastic changes we've ever seen to our healthcare since Medicare. The only problem is that it's a huge negative change rather than a positive. It cemented us permanently into the existing system rather than attempting to reform it.

Actually, it's most strongly linked to age as is stroke most strongly linked to age. "It is estimated that 82 percent of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 and older."

That's a terrible yardstick. All sicknesses get worse with age. Just because someone dies at 65+ doesn't mean the stuff they did between age 1 and age 64 didn't help get them there. Let's take two groups of people: The first is a bunch of generally fit athletic people who take care of themselves, the second is a group of fat slobs who don't exercise. On average, who develops heart disease and when? That's a relevant test.

So, cut all the health care to the old since invariably they're the ones we all know inevitable should be accountable for their age.

You scoff, but the

Infertility cover would be a poor insurance to offer. It's not like a 5 year old would want or care about it, nor a 70 year old. The only people who would consider buying it are people who are trying to conceive. That would make it a very tiny pool to spread risk around. Someone should have offered it to you, then denied you for a prior condition. You can't wait until you are burgled to buy insurance. Nor would it work if people waited until it was confirmed they were infertile before seeking coverage.

The exact same argument could be made for coverage of prenatal care. Studies have shown that spreading the risk (you know, the point of insurance) would increase premiums by around $0.26 per month. That's to cover something that otherwise costs the individual tens of thousands of dollars.

But a gay person, can't marry who they want, can't necessarily live where they want, and have a risk to health and life from anti-gay zealots. You have complete freedom, even if not as many advantages as some other groups.

You can get married even if the state doesn't recognize it. There are plenty of options to fix the above problem. You can move, which is what my brother-in-law did before getting married to his partner. He would rather live there anyway because the people are more liberal and open to his marriage.

Tell me, which areas in the US are "risk to health and life"? Please, that was my whole point... the hard conservatives in the United States might disagree with you (and even hate groups like Westboro only resort to calling names), but there are other places in this world that will kill or torture gay people.

Birth control was often not covered because it's Satanic to allow women to have choice, so states stepped in to force the choice to be allowed.

Big insurers don't care about that. If it would have saved them money, they would have added it to their plans and maybe even passed the savings to the customer (or kept it for more profit). The fact that this didn't happen tells me birth control costs insurers more, not less.

The state tells them what they must cover, and if the state doesn't mandate it, they won't cover it. With universal health care, you would likely have been covered (it's covered in some of the "socialist" countries I've looked at). But the private system in the US has bizarre laws because there are 52+ sets of rules (one for each state, federal, and territories) regulating insurance. The answer likely comes back to your state's rules, not the insurance company's free will.

Exactly. It sucks. I've spent a lot of money. I could move to another state and have infertility covered by law. But I haven't, and I'm not willing to make the move. So that's life, and that's my point... we make our choices where to live, and even though the precise location I am presently isn't everything I could ever hope for, it's much, MUCH better than some countries.

You are correct, however I would believe that most of the poor births are not by choice, unless you consider that they did not have an abortion choice.. In fact a study cited in 2008 showed that 2/3 of the poor's children are unintentional. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html#6

Except that the right to choose abortion does not affect 100% of women, it affects only the very small minority who have an unplanned pregnancy and who cannot or are unwilling to raise a (new) child.

Right now in the United States 49% of pregnancies are unplanned, of which 43% end in abortion. One in three women will have an abortion by age 45. So it affects a lot more people than just a "very small minority", especially when you consider that women's partners and existing children are also affected.

Now, a new study shows that providing women with free contraception decreases the abortion rate by 60-70%, in part because they tend to choose methods that are less vulnerable to failure but more expensive upfront (IUDs, implants). Shockingly, the political "Pro-Life" movement tends to be staunchly anti-contraception, almost as if they care more about controlling female sexuality than the welfare of the developing potential child.

I sincerely doubt that Romney cares much about women or children who are not his possessions, but he's representing the party that has been forced to align itself with racists and theocrats to get the political support they need for their tax breaks - if he wants to stay in power he'll have to appease them, which means opposition to abortion, contraception, and sex education. The more contraception access is restricted, the greater the need for abortion will be - so while abortion rights might not be as important as long as they're not in a position to be threatened, as soon as the people who intend to limit abortion rights come into power they will become more important.

I'm not sure why outlawing [late-term abortions] (excepting "life of the mother") would be controversial, but clearly it is.

But is it *actually* controversial, in real life? You know, that place that's outside the media coverage, nutjobs, and political hollering? With very nearly all abortions occurring well within the first trimester*, I really don't think so. It's just another political/ratings weapon that gets pulled out of the scabbard every few years. Late-term abortions are very, very rare, and almost all of THOSE cases exist because of a threat to the mother. Nobody would suffer late-term abortions were outlawed except in the case of danger to the mother, but it also doesn't NEED to be outlawed because it just doesn't happen.

Unless people are actually arguing abortions are bad from the moment of conception, it's all just much ado about nothing. In the case of those arguing "no abortion, period!"... well, I just don't agree with them, any more than I agree with them about contraception. Since it's impossible to even discuss a compromise in that case, it's that's a non-issue too, unless/until Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

*88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, with 98.5% occurring before week 21, according to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html. Definitions of "late term abortion" vary, but generally it's considered between week 16 and 24. I choose to believe viability determines when it's too late, and that doesn't occur until at the very very earliest 22 weeks.

Your second link mentions the Guttmacher Institute, so let's go there directly instead of through a group with a political axe to grind:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf

Lots more information there. They say it's 22% of American pregnancies, which is surprisingly common. I'd be interested to know correlations between abortion frequency and areas that use abstinence-only sex ed; the whole idea with teaching kids to use contraception /properly/ is that (among other things) they'll be less likely to need abortions later on or to use them as contraception.

Disclosure: I've got a young daughter. We tested for serious developmental defects when my wife was pregnant and if any had turned up I'd have pushed hard for her to get an abortion, because I believe it's unfair to the kid to force them to live a life dependent on others when you've got the ability to save them the suffering.

This is the beauty of a free market, and free will. The doctor can't force the mother to keep her baby, and the mother can't force the doctor to perform medically unnecessary procedures that he has a moral objection to. The doctor is free to decline to provide the procedure, and the mother is free to go find another doctor who will perform the procedure.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor practicing today who would refuse to perform an abortion if the pregnancy posed a legitimate danger to the health of the mother - that whole "do no harm" thing. Of course, you'd also be hard-pressed to justify a *majority* of abortions performed today as "medically necessary to prevent a threat to the health of the mother." Do some reading here if you think that rape/health problems actually represent large portions of the reasons women seek abortion each year.

And to be clear: I am very staunchly pro-choice, and believe a woman should always have the right to seek an abortion if she wishes it. But I hold no illusions about the majority of abortions being for any reason other than ending an "unintended" or "inconvenient" pregnancy - too young, would interfere with education, can't afford a baby, don't want a baby, whatever the reason is, it is overwhelmingly NOT a "health" issue that drives the choice. But I would never say that a doctor running his own private practice should be *forced* to provide a service which he objects to. If he works under contract and his contract specifies that he must provide those services, then of course he'd be in violation of his contract, and thus subject to termination; but compelling individuals under no such obligation? No thank you.

And what if she's one of the vast number of american women who need to drive 50 miles or more to get an abortion? We are not ever placed in a position where we can say "oh, I would have acted differently." and have that mean something.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

Teen pregnancy has not skyrocketed. The proportion of non-marital births has increased.

Teen Pregnancy
Drug Use
Divorce Rates

For those not inclined to RAnyFA - they all agree with the GP.

I'd love to see more or less comprehensive statistics on the part in bold.

Let's start with this article which references several different studies over the years which have shown that abstinence-only programs fail at their message when compared to a comprehensive sex education program.

The reports do not say that these were in fundamentally religious communities, but the results would probably be similar in those communities.

However, there is this report (pdf) which discusses abstinence-only vs. a comprehensive sex education program.

Finally, there is this report (pdf) from the Journal of Adolescent Health which reviews current (2005) U.S. policy of abstinence and abstinence-only programs.

Here is the link (pdf) to the report mentioned from the Guttmacher Institute. They also produced this report (pdf) which does talk about a somewhat successful abstinence-only program for young African-Americans, but notes this was not the normal abstinence-only type program.

Hope this helps.

I'd love to see more or less comprehensive statistics on the part in bold.

Let's start with this article which references several different studies over the years which have shown that abstinence-only programs fail at their message when compared to a comprehensive sex education program.

The reports do not say that these were in fundamentally religious communities, but the results would probably be similar in those communities.

However, there is this report (pdf) which discusses abstinence-only vs. a comprehensive sex education program.

Finally, there is this report (pdf) from the Journal of Adolescent Health which reviews current (2005) U.S. policy of abstinence and abstinence-only programs.

Here is the link (pdf) to the report mentioned from the Guttmacher Institute. They also produced this report (pdf) which does talk about a somewhat successful abstinence-only program for young African-Americans, but notes this was not the normal abstinence-only type program.

Hope this helps.

I'd love to see more or less comprehensive statistics on the part in bold.

Let's start with this article which references several different studies over the years which have shown that abstinence-only programs fail at their message when compared to a comprehensive sex education program.

The reports do not say that these were in fundamentally religious communities, but the results would probably be similar in those communities.

However, there is this report (pdf) which discusses abstinence-only vs. a comprehensive sex education program.

Finally, there is this report (pdf) from the Journal of Adolescent Health which reviews current (2005) U.S. policy of abstinence and abstinence-only programs.

Here is the link (pdf) to the report mentioned from the Guttmacher Institute. They also produced this report (pdf) which does talk about a somewhat successful abstinence-only program for young African-Americans, but notes this was not the normal abstinence-only type program.

Hope this helps.

I would love to see some statistics on abortions about why the abortion is needed. I bet you anything that "I didn't know I could get pregnant from a guy sticking his dick into me and ejaculating" is way, way, way down the list.

Here are some statistics on WHO has abortions though: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Here are some interesting tidbits:

"About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."

So most abortions are going to people who know about the birds and the bees. I'm guessing a big chunk of the remaining 40% also know a thing or two.

"Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated."

That gives us a potential number, and one that I would consider a cap. However, there are a number of influences besides lack of education that could go into this, including:

- religious convictions
- conscious decision to become pregnant, followed by confrontation from shocked and angry parents, the departing of the partner who was only in it for the sex, or in general the realization of the social and economic impact of pregnancy
- rape, etc

So who knows what the real number is. But it's not very big, imo.

Here's some perspective from these two sets of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that every woman who claimed the reason for having an abortion was because of health risks or concern for the health of the fetus (~2%) had it after 19 weeks, and that the health risks, or health defects were all of the utmost gravity. For the sake of this argument we won't discuss anything before 12 weeks, although it is important to note that at 12 weeks the brain has already divided into 5 regions and has been developing as a cohesive whole for 5 weeks.
Now, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States in 2005. That means that there were at least 111,320 (9.2% of 1.21 million) fetuses aborted between 12 and 19 weeks of development (more developed than this little guy). That's over 110,000 fetuses who are as able to feel pain as anyone else, and make facial expressions, being aborted every year with various descriptions of (in)convenience being the reason given by the mother.

In comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the number of fatalities for 2005 (in the U.S.) involving alcohol was 17,590. The fatalities for all other accidents was 25,920. Pediatric cancer killed 2,200 children in 2004. Deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS for children and adults was 25,000 in all of North America in 2008. So the deaths attributed to all these hot-button issues combined is less than the deaths of fetuses.

Regarding the "they'll still do it no matter how strict the law" argument:
This argument only works on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the activity itself. For example, statistics demonstrate that men will still rape women, regardless of how harsh the penalty (even in countries where the penalty is death). Legalized rape means fewer women die, because the rapist will not feel the need to kill the woman to prevent her from reporting him to the police. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive?

Do you see that just as you believe that rape is an intrinsically unacceptable act, and therefore there can be no justification for it's legal acceptance, so do the anti-abortion believers believe that the abortion of a fetus for the sake of convenience (being seen as murder) is an intrinsically unacceptable act?

Here's some perspective from these two sets of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that every woman who claimed the reason for having an abortion was because of health risks or concern for the health of the fetus (~2%) had it after 19 weeks, and that the health risks, or health defects were all of the utmost gravity. For the sake of this argument we won't discuss anything before 12 weeks, although it is important to note that at 12 weeks the brain has already divided into 5 regions and has been developing as a cohesive whole for 5 weeks.
Now, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States in 2005. That means that there were at least 111,320 (9.2% of 1.21 million) fetuses aborted between 12 and 19 weeks of development (more developed than this little guy). That's over 110,000 fetuses who are as able to feel pain as anyone else, and make facial expressions, being aborted every year with various descriptions of (in)convenience being the reason given by the mother.

In comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the number of fatalities for 2005 (in the U.S.) involving alcohol was 17,590. The fatalities for all other accidents was 25,920. Pediatric cancer killed 2,200 children in 2004. Deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS for children and adults was 25,000 in all of North America in 2008. So the deaths attributed to all these hot-button issues combined is less than the deaths of fetuses.

Regarding the "they'll still do it no matter how strict the law" argument:
This argument only works on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the activity itself. For example, statistics demonstrate that men will still rape women, regardless of how harsh the penalty (even in countries where the penalty is death). Legalized rape means fewer women die, because the rapist will not feel the need to kill the woman to prevent her from reporting him to the police. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive?

Do you see that just as you believe that rape is an intrinsically unacceptable act, and therefore there can be no justification for it's legal acceptance, so do the anti-abortion believers believe that the abortion of a fetus for the sake of convenience (being seen as murder) is an intrinsically unacceptable act?

I'm asking this seriously. If you took said fetus out of the woman at the 9 week stage, what are the chances it would survive w/o assistance?

How long would a newborn, or even a 6-month-old child survive without assistance?

Plain and simple, if it would kill my wife to have a baby and she got pregnant (and she would otherwise be able to live a semi-normal healthy lifespan), my guess is that I would want to keep my wife alive... however, I would still leave the decision up to her.

Fortunately the strong majority of anti-abortion activists believe in exceptions for the life of the mother as well as rape cases. Additionally, all cases for rape, incest, and health risks to the mother account for only 1% of all of abortions, according the the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Except that the data on the Wikipedia page you cite doesn't support your assertion - teenage pregnancy rates in the US have been falling since peaking in 1990: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html (Linked from the Wikipedia page). In 1990 it was 116.9 per 1000, in 2000 it was 83.6, and in 2002 it was 75.4.

Yes, it is still way higher than Europe (so is our overall fertility rate btw, Europeans are reproducing at below replacement levels), but the reasons don't boil down to something so simplistic as "no boobies on TV". From the above article:

"Declines also occurred among adolescents in all racial and ethnic groups. The pregnancy rate among black women aged 15-19 declined 32% between 1990 and 2000 to 153 per 1,000 women; among white teenagers it declined 28% to 71 per 1,000. The rate among Hispanic teenagers fell 15% from 1992-2000 (following a brief increase from 1990-1992) to 139 per 1,000."

So black and hispanic teen girls in the US get pregnant at about twice the rate of whites. Are they watching different (and by your theory, more repressed) media than white girls? Should we blame BET? Telemundo? Or does it maybe have something to do with other factors altogether?

Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages

Actually, I think they're just old laws held over from when girls tended to marry much younger. Contrary to what many believe, overall teen pregnancy in the US has actually dropped quite a bit since the '50s. Unwed teenage pregnancy has gone up. Girls marrying at 16 was still relatively common at the time, as were shotgun weddings.

We went out for three years and contraception was only used for a total of about 6 months of that with no pregnancy.

Sperm come out before ejaculation. So I was thinking you're probably impotent or at least have poor sperm motility. Turns out that studies suggest ( eg http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/reprints/Contraception79-407-410.pdf from this month, June 2009; see http://menstrualpoetry.com/withdrawal-viable-method-contraception for a summary) that couples practising withdrawal have a 4% chance of pregnancy in a year vs. a 2% chance with a condom ... provided you do it perfectly! If you slip up the chances rise to 18% (vs. 17% with a condom). So you're only twice as likely to get pregnant using withdrawal perfectly as opposed to a condom. Ignoring your risks for STD/STIs of course.

This could mean that the general population have potency problems too. Other studies show a general decline in sperm quality.

My instinct is to blame oestrogen like compounds in personally grooming products (shampoos, etc.).

What planet do you live on? 15-17 year old girls had 138,731 babies in the US in 2003. It's not at all unusual, although it is pathetic. Thank you abstinence-only sex ed.

We should stop wasting our efforts with any kind of government sponsored sex-ed. Leave it to the parents.

Besides, none of it works, anyway.

You might find this interesting if you truly believe that no sex-ed works other than what a parent passes on to their children. There's a world of difference when it comes to the effectiveness of comprehensive sexual education as opposed to none or abstinence-only programs, and if we look at pregnancy rates and STD rates in areas where young people aren't being informed properly, we start to see that maybe we should look at re-examining our approach to a subject that has a deep impact on everyone in our society.

None of this means a bit to people who believe in immortal souls granted by God upon conception. I think that's where the real argument lies.

Each of these problems lies in poor opinions from both sides of the aisle - right and left. Society is getting these things wrong - from parenting to the schools - and it's leading to more abortions.

False: U.S. ABORTION RATE CONTINUES LONG-TERM DECLINE, FALLING TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1974;

"Which gives them a lower infant mortality rate"

No, what gives them a lower infant mortality rate is, at least partially, their extremely high abortion rate.

Cubas per capita abortion rates are nearly 3 times those of the US. In fact, once you examine the figures you realize the number of countries that perform fewer abortions than Cuba is vanishingly small.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

United States= 19.7 abortions per 1000 (2004)

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-cuba.html

Cuba = 57.0 per thousand. (2004)

I imagine the US numbers would come down too if we started aborting that many fetuses.

Here's another (slightly less current) list. It says the same thing.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html

Regardless of your stance on abortion, crowing about low infant mortality while you're aborting that many fetuses seems a little ridiculous.

Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively--Table 2).

Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).

Sex education in US schools has been watered down over the last 20-30 years so completely that it is almost pointless. The parents of even a minority of children can block this from being any meaningful exchange of information. The result is what the parents say they want - they control access to sexual information. So girls end up having sex at 12 without ever understanding this is where babies come from and yes, you can get pregnant if you do it standing up. But parents are demanding this kind of control so the school gives in.

You are wrong. The pregnancy rate among teenagers in the US has declined 30% since 1990. The abortion rate among teens is down 50% over the same period.

Here's my evidence. Where's yours?

It has become the seventh most popular suffix worldwide

Possibly true. The American Cancer Society says that there are about 12,000 cases of cervical cancer every year, leading to about four thousand deaths. Further, virtually all of those deaths could be prevented by early detection (cervical cancer is highly treatable in the early stages). Given that we would have to vaccinate millions of women, and that the vaccine currently costs hundreds of dollars, it might make more sense to spend some fraction of those dollars on aggressive early detection programs.

But someone would have to run the numbers, factoring in the costs of the competing approaches (including the possibility of as yet unknown risks from the vaccine itself). And if the vaccine ever becomes significantly cheaper (say, on the order of $10-20/shot) a vaccination program would probably be a no-brainer.

[Note: I don't know squat. Factual claims in this post come primarily from this article.]

You can cite a reputable source for that statistic - right?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.ht ml

The highest year for Cuba was 87% abortion rate, compared to the highest year for the U.S. which was about 27%.

Now, next time do a basic google search yourself, OK?

Moral issues aside, willfully engaging in behavior contrary to basic biological drives (reproduction) indicates something seriously wrong with an individual. It's a trait which, if present in all members of a species, would result in the death of said species very quickly. There are obviously benefits to marriage - if there weren't, homosexuals (presumably) wouldn't seek it. Given that marriage is an artificial construct created by society, why should society provide such advantages to behavior which it finds to be detrimental to it?

Wow. This is so ridiculous that I suspect you're trolling, but just in case somebody believes this stuff, let's try a few facts.

One, that something is natural does not make it right. Violence (in particular, male violence) is clearly natural; see Wrangham's Demonic Males for a good summary and pointers to the research. The next time I hear somebody spout the naturallistic fallacy at me, I'm going to give 'em one in the snoot. Pow! My anger will be entirely natural, so I'm sure they'll be fine with it.

Two, there appears to be no risk that everybody will suddenly turn gay and stop having kids if we allow civil unions, so the end-of-the-species argument makes no sense. Is the ability to get married all that keeps you chasing pussy? I hope not, but if so, find a therapist and ask about projection.

Third, if behavior contrary to basic biological drives indicates pathology, then you have much bigger problems than homosexuals. 98 percent of US women who have had sex have used contreception. And god knows how many people have had oral sex, gone on a diet, or worked third shift.

Fourth, if marriage without children is a problem, why not start with the straight childless couples? There are a lot more of them. And shouldn't you be a lot more worried about organizations that promote a child-free lifestyle for straights?

Fifth, homosexuals have kids. I know that fundies are often a little confused by this, but think of it this way: if artificial insemination was good enough for Baby Jesus, it can work for others. And gosh golly, some families with kids would like to get married. Why stop them?

That all sounds great in theory, but falls flat in practice. Trying to suppress sexuality enhances its appeal and incites sexual thoughts far more than treating it as something normal and natural does.

Just grabbing the first document I could find on google which talks about international rates of teen pregnancy, we find that "Adolescent pregnancy, birth, abortion and sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates are much higher in the United States than in most other developed countries" and that Sweden - a country stereotypically considered to be very open about sex - has a teen pregnancy rate of less than a quarter of that in the US[1], despite having higher levels of sexual activity[2]. The rates of sexually transmitted diseases are also lower in Sweden.[3]

So, no, I can't say that the evidence supports your claim that censoring sexuality does anything to prevent people from "having sex and getting into trouble" when the actual numbers show that more open policies substantially reduce rates of the quantifiable forms of "trouble" which you cited. ("Damaged psyches" isn't really quantifiable, but I submit that, when they result from sex, it is due to either feeling exploited or to societal censure (e.g., being seen as "a slut", whether by yourself or by others) - and both of these would be substantially reduced if sexuality were treated in a more open fashion rather than being suppressed.)

[1] "The proportion of women aged 20-24 who had a child before age 20 is a useful summary indicator that reflects the differences in teenage birthrates by country. This proportion is lowest in Sweden (4%)... and highest in the United States (22%)."

[2] "The proportion of women aged 20-24 who had first intercourse before age 20 varies from 75% in Canada to 86% in Sweden, with the United States (81%), France (83%) and Great Britain (85%) having intermediate levels", "Data on the proportion of all 18-19-year-olds who are currently sexually active (i.e., who had sex in the last three months) are available for four countries. The United States has the lowest proportion (59%), with France and Great Britain (62-64%) having somewhat higher levels, and Sweden (79%) having the highest level"

[3] "The incidence of chlamydia among adolescents in the United States (1,132 cases per 100,000) is nearly twice that in Canada and Sweden", "The annual incidence of gonorrhea among all U.S. adolescents (572 cases per 100,000) is 10 or more times the level in the other four countries."

Um, no. In fact, the link is the other way around. Permissive sexual attitudes reduce teen pregnancy. (And measuring 'illegitimacy' is idiotic. 'illegitimacy' just means 'children born to unmarried parents. It doesn't day anything about anything. For all you know, they all got married the next day, or just lived together for the next 20 years. And the 'legitimate' parents got divorced.)

Teen pregnancy rates, however, have never risen, not since we've been measuring them in 1976.

As for your European statistics, correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, American TV shows plenty of sex on television - MTV, soap operas, the Super Bowl, etc. Do you have anything to support that TV in Switerland is racier than TV here? Or TV in Japan? Here, you can get hardcore pornography delivered to your TV in three clicks. I'm not sure I accept your premise that this country is less "sexually permissive" than Europe.

Which states have the highest teen pregnancy rates? Well, it almost exactly follows the divorce rate. The highest one?

Mississippi, that cesspool of moral filth, at 6.5 per 100. Then Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Arkansaw, all at or above 6 per 100.

I am not moralizing, I am simply stating facts. My wife worked in an inner city school, and fatherlessness is a huge problem. It leads to lack of discipline in school, and ultimately an unproductive life. Marriage is simply a stabilizing influence in the lives of children.

Please back up your "facts". So far the estimates that the US armed forces directly contributed/caused more than 100,000 deaths in Iraq alone (since invasion)http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?s id=04/10/29/138232&tid=103&tid=219

The amount of deaths caused directly (bombing) or indirectly in 1990s is unknown. If US took care of Saddam back in 1990, we wouldn't be in the shit we are in now. How many people died due to *messed up* operation in Somalia (US *was* involved)? How many in Panama?

But these are still small numbers compared to the amount of death the US Army contributes (as well as Russian, French, etc.. armies) by selling weapons to nations at war. There are millions people getting killed per year by US weapons. What are the exact numbers? 400 billion buys a lot of death. The rest of the world spends about as much on the military as the US alone.

Now, on to abortion. I came across some statistics here http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html. According to them, there were 1,528,930 induced abortions in the US in 1992, 798,850 @ less than 9 weeks. Most of these were single women with annual income of less than $15,000. Most of the abortions were before 9th week. Only 320 were above 26 week. Also, for each 3 weeks of pregnancy there were about 5000 natural fetal deaths. Anyway, it seems the major cause of abortions is poverty.

So, how many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years directly? Probably less than 1.5 million directly, but certainly much more indirectly though arms sales.

Provide numbers to justify your position. How many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years? How many were killed by US weapons?

Just where is the evidence that having an abortion is "safer" than carrying your child to full term? Let's see ... about 2 minutes of googling reveal that we can find the mortality rate per childbirth here. And the rate of deaths (of the mother) per abortion here and here. And we can conclude that having an abortion is something like 4-6 times safer than carrying a child to term.

Take a look at Chart A:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_1-02.html

Dubya is that you? Are you changing the facts again to fit your arguments again?

News report from early this year claiming 10 straight years of falling rates, and analysis of statistics from 1950 to 2000.