Conflicting Pro-Life Values

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 97

--> @Alec
In order to eliminate abortions by at least 99.8%, we could implement mandatory vasectomies to males worldwide.  Such a policy has additional benefits such as the gradual reduction of poverty.  As a pro lifer, I could get behind that.  Thoughts?
lead the way, you first!


--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
lead the way, you first!

Given that other people have gotten vasectomies before, I can't be the first one.  Despite this, since I'm 17, I can't get it right now and I don't want to harass my parents about it.  I'm planning on getting one by the time I turn 19.  Hopefully, the plan goes into effect.

I certainly would advocate it for anyone who wants sex, whether a minor or not.  The embarrassment ceases when the crowd does something.  I'm waiting until marriage.
--> @Ragnar
I have not read up on the shootings you're referencing. Link?
I've not read up on them either. I assumed from your statements that you were referring to deaths at the hands of vigilante patrols at the border. Was my assumption wrong? Were you referring to deaths while being held in custody?

And by all means blame the parents. It does not change the reality of harm to other peoples children, which to my understanding is what pro-lifers are concerned about with abortions (save for the ones who are in it out of a hatred for women, which I genuinely hope are a minority).
It's not about preventing all harm to all children at all times. It's about holding parents responsible for their obligation to their children. Pro-lifers believe that engaging in sexual contact merits serious consideration, and as a byproduct of said consideration, one is entrusted to handle the consequences in a morally and socially acceptable fashion. The result of abortion is the termination of an unborn child who's guilty of nothing more than the fact that it was conceived, all to preserve the discretion of those who elected to have sex.

Now before this is brought up, I do know that there are those who'd still argue that the mother should carry her pregnancy in the advent of a rape, but I presume that many if not all would make a concession if she went on ahead an ended it.

And "hatred" of women is irrelevant.

Pro-life politicians have a bad habit of preferring abortions to those methods (links are available in the previously cited debate).
I looked them over. I couldn't find the link where pro-life politicians preferred abortions in lieu of the alternatives I mentioned. Can you cite the exact link?

And rough guess as to what percentage of vocal pro-lifers are not opposed to it existing?
I was being facetious. Planned Parenthood does not counsel safe sex; it's a haven for abortion counseling.

Firstly because as precious as the unborn may be, newborns should never be worth less. So it's ethical to give newborns a warm welcome into our shared community, rather than metaphorically spitting on them (technically just forcing their parents toward poverty, which then sets said child on a path to a worse life, while damaging the lives of any siblings they may have... and yes, research has proven this, feel free to ask for a link).
Once again, what culpability do the parents bear? How are any of them "forced" into poverty? Were they not capable of gauging the prospects of raising a child before they risked having one by electing to have sex? Why are you analyzing this as if this were something "happening to them" as opposed to something "happening because of them"? The parents that is... And because a society is holding responsible, as it ought to do as it concerns moral action, the cost should deferred to them?

Secondly because it is pro-life people demanding those expenses come into existence.
No. Those expenses are a byproduct of raising children as a result of that which they demand (food, clothing, shelter, etc.)


Thirdly because said cost would be extremely minor when shared. Given that pro-life people like to have more children, the overall average cost to them might even be decreased (in turn raising the quality of life for their own children).

The relative weight of the cost is irrelevant. The issue is the deference of cost to anyone other than the parents. And if you're going to argue that they can't afford raising children, then perhaps it's more prudent to counsel abstinence in light of one's impending poverty, rather than subsidizing their indiscretions by promoting "getting rid of it."

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. However trying to prevent abortions with penalties has been proven to result in unsafe abortions (as seen in countries with repressive reproductive laws).
How many of those women in said countries with "repressive" reproductive laws live in functioning family environments where they can facilitate the raising of children, rather than disposing of them? And yeah, there are women who'd mutilate themselves rather than carry a pregnancy to term, but let's remind ourselves: the women are doing that to themselves, no one else. When she carries out, an abortion, the unborn child is not doing it to itself.

And home births more than double the death rate, so should be something to which any pro-lifer is opposed.
What is the death rate of an abortion?

Harder access to guns for the immoral people with a history of violence and gun abuse;
Except, these regulations affect legal access, not illegal access.

much like your suggestion of raising the cost of abortions to make them harder to attain
It's not the same. You're increasing the cost to law abiding citizens, who by an overwhelming majority do not use their weapon to harm others.

Of course you can insist my previous source on this did not meet its' BoP, and I can't make you agree with it.
I need not insist it. There has yet to be any demonstration that stringent regulations result in fewer deaths. My agreement is irrelevant.


As per heart disease and such... I can only hope pro-lifers are opposed, and follow suit by encouraging each other to eat well.
I would hope so, too. I would also hope that there would be no push for invasive and mandatory blood tests before one consumes or sells a burger.

--> @Alec
 I'm planning on getting one by the time I turn 19.
it hurts, like getting punched in the gut, but worse, you may want to think twice about it.  Will they do one at that age?  Often they won't because it's not generally meant as birth control or to be reversed.

--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
it hurts, like getting punched in the gut, but worse, you may want to think twice about it.

One week of vasectomy pain is less painful than 9 months of pregnancy and the labor that comes with that.  Plus, once it's done and me and my girlfriend get tested for STDs and there is proof that we don't have any STDs, I can have all the unprotected sex in the world and not have to worry about her getting pregnant or STDs spreading.


Will they do one at that age?
I think they would, if I'm fine with it.

Often they won't because it's not generally meant as birth control or to be reversed.
Vasectomies are reversible, so you just reverse it when your ready to have a kid.
--> @Alec
it's a surgery, reversal takes 2+ hours

"it may take as long as 12 months for fertility to return."
 “Success rates depend primarily on the time since vasectomy.” Success rates can be as high as 95 percent if the vasectomy was done within the last 10 years. They start to decline when a man has had his vasectomy 15 years ago.
People who are thinking about undergoing vasectomy reversal may need to pay out of pocket, Dr. Vij notes, given it’s usually not covered by insurance.

Pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal will range from about 30 percent to over 90 percent, depending on the type of procedure.

you are also making the assumption that your future wife can have children, so unless you find that out first and will chose not to marry a woman who can't have children you should rethink this.

if you fell in love, got married only to find out she couldn't have children, everything you did was for naught, would you abandon her?


--> @Alec
we could implement mandatory vasectomies to males worldwide. 
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start!

First, who is we? America? America cannot make a law mandatory worldwide. It doesn't have the authority or the power to do so. You are aware that other counties, even African ones, are sovereign aren't you?

If anyone told me it was mandatory that I have evasive surgery to satisfy his PC goals, I would laugh in his face and walk away.

As a pro lifer, I could get behind that.  Thoughts?
I'm a pro-lifer too, but I'm also not a Nazi, so I have a little problem with it.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
it's a surgery, reversal takes 2+ hours

So be it.  I could be knocked out with anesthetics in the meantime.

"it may take as long as 12 months for fertility to return."
 “Success rates depend primarily on the time since vasectomy.” Success rates can be as high as 95 percent if the vasectomy was done within the last 10 years. They start to decline when a man has had his vasectomy 15 years ago.
People who are thinking about undergoing vasectomy reversal may need to pay out of pocket, Dr. Vij notes, given it’s usually not covered by insurance.
How much would reversing the vasectomy decrease the odds of a desired pregnancy if it's 15 years ago?  If the odds of getting a kid are 80%, then that's tolerable.  If they wanted a kid so badly, they can adopt one.  If it's 5%, then it's a different story.

Pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal will range from about 30 percent to over 90 percent, depending on the type of procedure.
If your someone who wants a kid, got the vasectomy, but can't reproduce anymore the sexual way, there could be a surgery done to where sperm is taken outside of you and transported to your consenting wife, and then you can have a kid that way, all while your in anesthetics, so you don't know it's happening.

if you fell in love, got married only to find out she couldn't have children, everything you did was for naught, would you abandon her?
No.  I don't want biological kids anyway.  I wouldn't hate her for being unable to conceive.  It means we could have a lot of consensual sex with no protection and I don't have to worry about pregnancy.  That would be fun.
--> @ethang5
 America cannot make a law mandatory worldwide.

The UN can with America doing it first within it's borders and then telling the UN to do the same thing in an effort to eliminate abortions.

You are aware that other counties, even African ones, are sovereign aren't you?  
Given that most African countries have pro life laws and want to eliminate abortions, this bill ought to make the African countries very happy since they get what they want.

If anyone told me it was mandatory that I have evasive surgery to satisfy his PC goals, I would laugh in his face and walk away.
The goal is to eliminate abortions.  If you are fine with banning abortions to prevent them from happening, the same logic can be applied to mandatory vasectomies.

I'm also not a Nazi, so I have a little problem with it.
How is this a Nazi ideology exactly?  One was a genocide movement; the other saves the unborn.  My idea is more libertarian then the pro life movement because less freedom is being taken away by forcing vasectomies then it is by forcing women to be pregnant for 9 months.  If the latter is fine to do, so is the former.
--> @Alec
The UN can with America doing it first within it's borders...
Everyone would simply ignore the UN. Pretty much how the UN is treated now. The UN doesn't have the authority, and it has even less power than the US.

Given that most African countries have pro life laws and want to eliminate abortions, this bill ought to make the African countries very happy since they get what they want.
Other countries are able to get what they want without some other country forcing them. People are never happy being forced. What they want is to make their own laws and be the masters of their fate.

The goal is to eliminate abortions.
Not by forcing people to undergo invasive surgeries.

If you are fine with banning abortions to prevent them from happening, the same logic can be applied to mandatory vasectomies.
The same "logic" can be applied to murder.

How is this a Nazi ideology exactly?
Nazis are not democratic. With them, the people do not decide, they do. They use force.

..forcing women to be pregnant for 9 months
Illogical. No one forced the woman to become pregnant.

...forcing vasectomies
You are confused. You have no right to force anyone no matter how much you love your dogma.

Even more retarded is thinking you have the right to force people of other countries. Twice the Nazis tried to force their brand of "less freedom being taken away" on the world, and both times the world told them to fck themselves.

If the latter is fine to do, so is the former.
Wrong premises bring about wrong conclusions. No one is "forcing" any woman. She wanted sex, she wanted unprotected sex, who forced her?

And abortions in other countries are not your business or your responsibility.
--> @Athias
I have not read up on the shootings you're referencing. Link?
I've not read up on them either. I assumed from your statements that you were referring to deaths at the hands of vigilante patrols at the border. Was my assumption wrong? Were you referring to deaths while being held in custody?
The deaths in custody suggest far more deaths outside of custody. And while I hate to use the appeal of focusing on children, when the innocence of the unborn get leveraged, it becomes necessary to point out other innocents (yes, I do disagree with calling children criminals).

The general point stems from toning down the violinist dilemma (forced to shelter someone, rather than outright used as a life support system for them).


And by all means blame the parents. It does not change the reality of harm to other peoples children, which to my understanding is what pro-lifers are concerned about with abortions (save for the ones who are in it out of a hatred for women, which I genuinely hope are a minority).
It's not about preventing all harm to all children at all times. It's about holding parents responsible for their obligation to their children...
Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death. Granted, I have pointed out the crazy ones who just say they're pro-life to oppress women, but again, I hope they're a minority (about like the man-haters who call themselves feminists, in direct opposition to the very term they're stealing).


Pro-life politicians have a bad habit of preferring abortions to those methods (links are available in the previously cited debate).
I looked them over. I couldn't find the link where pro-life politicians preferred abortions in lieu of the alternatives I mentioned. Can you cite the exact link?
Sorry for the trouble.

For the abortions caused by politicians through educational policies against knowledge of those methods:
  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
  2. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies
  3. https://thinkprogress.org/teen-pregnancies-highest-in-states-with-abstinence-only-policies-8aa0deeebb41/

And direct opposition to use of birth control to prevent abortions (realized this was not in that particular debate, my bad):
  1. https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/21/colorado-abortion-rates-keep-declining-free-iuds-and-easier-access-to-the-pill-are-the-reason/
  2. https://www.mynspr.org/post/colorado-debates-whether-iuds-are-contraception-or-abortion#stream/0


Firstly because as precious as the unborn may be, newborns should never be worth less. So it's ethical to give newborns a warm welcome into our shared community, rather than metaphorically spitting on them (technically just forcing their parents toward poverty, which then sets said child on a path to a worse life, while damaging the lives of any siblings they may have... and yes, research has proven this, feel free to ask for a link).
...How are any of them "forced" into poverty?...
Just going to copy/paste a paragraph I've written before on this (key thing at the end, harm to existing children): "The price tag on a hospital birth is roughly $12,638.31 [21]. For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22]. Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."


Secondly because it is pro-life people demanding those expenses come into existence.
No. Those expenses are a byproduct of raising children as a result of that which they demand (food, clothing, shelter, etc.)
They do not occur in the event of an abortion (or birth control). I would hope that pro-life people want the children born whom otherwise would not have been to get "food, clothing, shelter, etc." rather than just being born and left to fend for themselves.


Thirdly because said cost would be extremely minor when shared. Given that pro-life people like to have more children, the overall average cost to them might even be decreased (in turn raising the quality of life for their own children).
The relative weight of the cost is irrelevant. The issue is the deference of cost to anyone other than the parents. And if you're going to argue that they can't afford raising children, then perhaps it's more prudent to counsel abstinence in light of one's impending poverty, rather than subsidizing their indiscretions by promoting "getting rid of it."
Again, attempts at getting people to just be abstinent actually leads to more abortions.


The ideas are not mutually exclusive. However trying to prevent abortions with penalties has been proven to result in unsafe abortions (as seen in countries with repressive reproductive laws).
How many of those women in said countries with "repressive" reproductive laws live in functioning family environments where they can facilitate the raising of children, rather than disposing of them? And yeah, there are women who'd mutilate themselves rather than carry a pregnancy to term, but let's remind ourselves: the women are doing that to themselves, no one else. When she carries out, an abortion, the unborn child is not doing it to itself.
You can dig through the UN's report yourself for the answer. I'll point out the highlights which appeal to me: “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher unsafe abortion rates. The average unsafe abortion rate was more than four times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies” and “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher levels of maternal mortality. The average maternal mortality ratio was three times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies”. Thus, grievous harm is inflicted by making it illegal to include death, and there is no benefit gained for all this harm wantonly inflicted.


And home births more than double the death rate, so should be something to which any pro-lifer is opposed.
What is the death rate of an abortion?
Irrelevant to the suggestion of home births.


Harder access to guns for the immoral people with a history of violence and gun abuse;
Except, these regulations affect legal access, not illegal access.
Correct. Since not everyone knows where to buy an illegal guns, it still makes them harder for known bad people to acquire.
As for the common comparisons to drug use which normally arise about now: Whereas almost anyone can attempt to cook meth, establishing an illegal handgun factory is much harder.


much like your suggestion of raising the cost of abortions to make them harder to attain
It's not the same. You're increasing the cost to law abiding citizens, who by an overwhelming majority do not use their weapon to harm others.
I'll concede that time for a background check is a cost. Still, the trade-off is lives saved; something people who claim to be "pro-life" should favor. Granted, you've pointed out I may be mistaken due to a literal interpretation of the name.


Of course you can insist my previous source on this did not meet its' BoP, and I can't make you agree with it.
I need not insist it. There has yet to be any demonstration that stringent regulations result in fewer deaths. My agreement is irrelevant.
--> @Ragnar
The deaths in custody suggest far more deaths outside of custody. And while I hate to use the appeal of focusing on children, when the innocence of the unborn get leveraged, it becomes necessary to point out other innocents (yes, I do disagree with calling children criminals).
I do not agree with referring to children as criminals when they have not committed any crime. I will, however, concede this point to you since detention is not the appropriate response. An argument for border control can still be made, but detaining individuals for that which is no worse than "trespassing" is excessive.

Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death.
"Pro-life" is a sensationalist moniker, much like "pro-choice."

Granted, I have pointed out the crazy ones who just say they're pro-life to oppress women, but again, I hope they're a minority (about like the man-haters who call themselves feminists, in direct opposition to the very term they're stealing).
Once again, how are their alleged personal feelings about women relevant? I would imagine that some portion of these aborted or would-be aborted unborn children are female, so if they are "oppressing" one female to save the life of another female, is that really oppression against women?

This is a sophistic argument. You allegedly render abortion as an inevitable phenomena with a direct causal link to the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs. The only thing your studies demonstrated was that abstinence programs weren't effective in getting teens to practice abstinence, not that abstinence wasn't effective. And children shouldn't be learning about sex in school, anyway--least of all, public school. Abortion is argued to be a choice; the pro-choice movement incorporated into it. The efficacy of the programs these politicians push has yet to reflect their "preference for abortions."

Just going to copy/paste a paragraph I've written before on this (key thing at the end, harm to existing children): "The price tag on a hospital birth is roughly $12,638.31 [21].
Once again, how is she being "forced" to assume this cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either the parent's unwillingness to serious consider their prospects?

For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22].
There's a motherhood penalty, and it's justifiable. If you want to argue that point more in depth, I'd be game.


Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

They do not occur in the event of an abortion (or birth control).
Yes, because dead children have no demands--other than disposal.

I would hope that pro-life people want the children born whom otherwise would not have been to get "food, clothing, shelter, etc." rather than just being born and left to fend for themselves.
If the child subsists, then the child is actively trying to prevent its own death. Its sustenance is still its parents'/guardians' responsibility.

Again, attempts at getting people to just be abstinent actually leads to more abortions.
None of your studies demonstrates that. This argument is premised on a non sequitur that's informed only by the platitude that abortions are inevitable.

You can did through the UN's report yourself for the answer. I'll point out the highlights which appeal to me: “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher unsafe abortion rates. The average unsafe abortion rate was more than four times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies” and “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher levels of maternal mortality. The average maternal mortality ratio was three times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies”. Thus, grievous harm is inflicted by making it illegal to include death, and there is no benefit gained for all this harm wantonly inflicted.
I extend my previous argument.

Irrelevant to the suggestion of home births.
No, in fact, it's not. Your argument is in part premised on the cost of delivery as reason for abortions. One way to mitigate those cost is to have a home birth. You argue that the death rate is doubled; and then I rebut your argument by asking you the death rate of abortion. It's quite relevant.

Correct. Since not everyone knows where to buy an illegal guns, it still makes them harder for known bad people to acquire.
Explain.

I'll concede that time for a background check is a cost. Still, the trade-off is lives saved;
This has not been proven.

Where is burden of proof met? When it is suggested that 30% of unlicensed guns enter an informal gun market across state lines? Or the "available evidence supports" gun policy aimed at preventing youth access to guns? You should really pay attention to the language of your reports. Like many of these reports that tout effective gun control policy, they merely refer to unsubstantiated correlations, not causation. And you need only read their references to discover that fact.
--> @ethang5
Everyone would simply ignore the UN. Pretty much how the UN is treated now. 

People don't always ignore the UN.  It helped prevent deaths in the Rwandan genocide.

Other countries are able to get what they want without some other country forcing them.
They have failed at this.  Africa has 4x the population as the US yet has 14x the annual abortions, all while the practice is mostly banned in Africa and legal in the US.  I want abortion banned in the US, but mandatory vasectomies would gradually have less people have connections to abortions and therefore would gradually increase the pro life position since less people would have relations to abortions.

People are never happy being forced. 
Apply this logic to childbearing and you would be consistent.

Not by forcing people to undergo invasive surgeries.
I would say that forcing a pregnant women to be pregnant for 9 months is more invasive than vasectomies.

If you are fine with banning abortions to prevent them from happening, the same logic can be applied to mandatory vasectomies.
The same "logic" can be applied to murder.
Which is why murder is banned, what's your point here?

Illogical. No one forced the woman to become pregnant.
In the event of marital rape, which is legal in most African countries (https://womanstats.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/violence-against-women-marital-rape/), someone did force the woman to be pregnant.  Also, the woman didn't ask for pregnancy when she had sex anymore than someone playing Russian Roulette asks for death.  They can still have sex too.  They just gotta wait for their partners to get vasectomies first and to either wait for their semen to become sperm free.

You have no right to force anyone no matter how much you love your dogma.
Apply this logic to child bearing against the mother's will and you'd be more consistent.

Twice the Nazis tried to force their brand of "less freedom being taken away" on the world, and both times the world told them to fck themselves.
The Nazis were bad because of all the genocide they did.  No one is getting killed with my idea, so comparing the ideology to Natisizm is inaccurate.

And abortions in other countries are not your business or your responsibility.
So let me get this straight; your pro choice for women of other countries yet pro life for Americans.  Why exactly is that?  It doesn't make any sense.
Im against murder and slavery, and mostly indifferent to the rest of the issues discussed.

--> @Alec
People don't always ignore the UN.
No one said people did.

Africa has 4x the population as the US yet has 14x the annual abortions,...
Africa is 55 separate, different countries each with its own culture, language and laws. How is abortion in their countries your business?

I want abortion banned in the US, but mandatory vasectomies would gradually have less people have connections to abortions and therefore would gradually increase the pro life position since less people would have relations to abortions.
So would murder.

People are never happy being forced.

Apply this logic to childbearing and you would be consistent.
I do apply it, when the woman is being forced, not when she voluntarily has unprotected sex and then wants to kill the baby and claim someone forced her.

I would say that forcing a pregnant women to be pregnant for 9 months is more invasive than vasectomies.
If the women were forced, I'd say so too. They aren't forced, no more than falling is "forced" on you after you voluntarily step off the empire state building.

If you are fine with banning abortions to prevent them from happening, the same logic can be applied to mandatory vasectomies.
The same "logic" can be applied to murder.

Which is why murder is banned, what's your point here?
That murder would also stop abortions from happening.

Also, the woman didn't ask for pregnancy when she had sex anymore than someone playing Russian Roulette asks for death.
Lol. Liberal logic. I need say nothing here.

You have no right to force anyone no matter how much you love your dogma.

Apply this logic to child bearing against the mother's will and you'd be more consistent.
No, I would be dishonest and stupid to say that a woman getting pregnant after voluntary unprotected sex was "forced". I am consistent, I'm just not stupid.

No one is getting killed with my idea, so comparing the ideology to Natisizm is inaccurate.
Your idea is nazi-like because it is undemocratic and tramples the rights of people.

So let me get this straight; your pro choice for women of other countries yet pro life for Americans. Why exactly is that?
Your poor reading comprehension perhaps? I'm not anything for any woman outside my country. It isn't my business. But I am American, and as such, I get a say on American issues, like any citizen.

  It doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense if you aren't a latent and unconscious imperialist.
--> @Athias
Sorry for the delay. My time on this site is divided due to moderation duties.


Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death.
"Pro-life" is a sensationalist moniker, much like "pro-choice."
I did not know that pro-life individuals consider their identity a "sensationalist moniker." I can however assure you it is generally not the same for pro-choice people.


...is that really oppression against women?
Yes. As I have shown with evidence of experienced harm, and as the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld (I could similarly cite human rights laws in other countries).


The only thing your studies demonstrated was that abstinence programs weren't effective in getting teens to practice abstinence, not that abstinence wasn't effective
The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions. This isn't even a social experiment anymore, since its got that reliable result even in places with stronger conservative values.


Once again, how is she being "forced" to assume this cost?
Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.


For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22].
There's a motherhood penalty, and it's justifiable.
Men do not suffer the same stigma. Just glancing around this thread, how many insults have been thrown at women for having sex, and how many at men?


Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
--> @Ragnar
Sorry for the delay. My time on this site is divided due to moderation duties.
No explanation needed. I more than understand.

I did not know that pro-life individuals consider their identity a "sensationalist moniker."
It's a characterization made exogenously. Seldom do people grasp getting caught up in their emotions using some meta-analysis.

I can however assure you it is generally not the same for pro-choice people.
That assurance would be null and void, because I would be what you'd call "pro-choice." (I informed you earlier that I was playing devil's advocate.) And I can make the argument that many others who call themselves pro-choice, aren't really pro-choice at all. They're just pro-abortion. When you extend their premise to its logical conclusion, it is not consistently maintained. Case in point: if I were to ask, "Should a mother of a newborn bear the capacity to abandon her newborn using own her own discretion without any ramifications from the State," what would your response be? 

Yes. As I have shown with evidence of experienced harm, and as the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld (I could similarly cite human rights laws in other countries).
Yes, the women in question are harming themselves.

The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.
Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression; and impressions aren't relevant.

This isn't even a social experiment anymore, since its got that reliable result even in places with stronger conservative values.
Once again, the only thing the results demonstrate is that these teens aren't taking to these abstinence programs, not that abstinence doesn't work.

Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.
Let me rephrase: if abortion were prohibited through all phases of development, how would she have been "forced" to assume the cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either parent's unwillingness to seriouslyconsider their prospects?

Men do not suffer the same stigma.
No they do not. And they shouldn't. Pregnancy does not affect men the way it affects women--that much is obvious. Mothers face a penalty because their gestation and subsequent parental duties reduce temporal flexibility, and thereby reduce their productivity. Of course they wouldn't get paid the same--wages are a direct result of marginal productivity. But be prudent: I made sure to qualify this by making reference to "Mothers" not women in general. Never-married, non-pregnant women under 30 make three percent more than their male counterparts of the same description.

Just glancing around this thread, how many insults have been thrown at women for having sex, and how many at men?
Would you mind quoting these insults?

While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
I neither said nor implied that it was a random correlation, but it is still a correlation. So it is up to you to use discretion and be mindful of the conclusions you draw from it.

--> @Athias
...I can make the argument that many others who call themselves pro-choice, aren't really pro-choice at all. They're just pro-abortion. When you extend their premise to its logical conclusion, it is not consistently maintained. Case in point: if I were to ask, "Should a mother of a newborn bear the capacity to abandon her newborn using own her own discretion without any ramifications from the State," what would your response be? 
I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.


The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.
Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression; and impressions aren't relevant.
While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it. Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.


Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.
Let me rephrase: if abortion were prohibited through all phases of development, how would she have been "forced" to assume the cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either parent's unwillingness to seriouslyconsider their prospects?
Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions. Which of course combines with pro-life politicians trying to get more teenagers pregnant through a strange form of "abstinence."


Men do not suffer the same stigma.
No they do not. And they shouldn't. ... Would you mind quoting these insults?
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's." If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies, I apologize, there's only so much of bare misogyny I can read before turning away.


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...
I neither said nor implied that it was a random correlation, but it is still a correlation. So it is up to you to use discretion and be mindful of the conclusions you draw from it.
You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."
--> @Ragnar
I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.
That's not what I asked. This is the usual concession "pro-choice" advocates make. But I'm fairly certain, Ragnar, you understood my question. And you responded the way you did because the premise of your advocacy isn't really about "her choice"; it's about expanding the scope of state-sanctioned privileges made available to her to include abortion. If it were really about her choice, you wouldn't haven't mentioned safe-haven laws which compel her to ensure the safe custody of her newborn to a state-sanctioned, public institution. Now let's apply this reasoning to an unborn child using the logic of safe-haven laws: if the State were to decree that all abortions are legal as long as the mother can ensure the safe transfer of custody of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus, would you, as a "pro-choice" advocate supports much in the same way support safe-haven laws?

While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it.
What? Do you mean born with "original sin"? Conceived without a sire? I don't quite understand.

Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.
Result from what? That's important to understand.

Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions.
That's not in the Bill of Rights, and abortions fall within the scope of the 14th amendment. If it were prohibited legally, she'd have no constitutional right to an abortion given that amendments are subject to referendum.

A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."
Ethang5 is one of many.

You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."
The study in and of itself provides authority to nothing. The rubric is in its capacity to substantiate its conclusions. No matter how rigorous the study is, a correlation is still a correlation. Studies aren't fortunes.
--> @Ragnar
This did not age well,with immigration literally causing a pandemic and the death toll has not even started. It will reach 250,000
Also what type of suck fuck is literally pro making murder of children legal? Especially when they justify it by saying that we should have open borders if we are against murdering children. 

--> @Ragnar
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."
Of course, calling people misogynists and women haters are not insults when the liberal does it.

If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies, 
You do this sort of fakery often, and Dread called you on it. No one has insulted women for engaging in sex. That's just semantical fakery you made up.

Women who engage in voluntary sex and then want to claim that the resultant baby is a foreign invader were insulted. Their behavior is atrocious.

You aren't concerned about the insults, but like a true liberal, your problem was that men were not similarly insulted. Men do not kill little babies growing in their bellies. The insults were to the people deserving insult for their behavior.

Insults are not supposed to be politically correct.

You have skipped through this thread hop-scotching around questions walking the line between obtuse and outright dishonesty.

You did it to BND, to Athias, and to Dread, that I noticed. Why can you not answer questions put to you? Why do you lie when you "restate" the positions of others? How come your derogatory remarks are not insults?

It's commendable that you, a mod, are taking part in a forum discussion, and you did try to respond to everyone, but the way you sacrifice honesty over your leftist dogma harms your mod street cred.

You are a much better mod than debater