ForumGarden

I do not think you can determine from those statistics that women are using the physical operation of abortion as a form of contraception. Why would they? They can pop a pill, the morning after pill for instance, and after that time they still have the option of the Abortion Pill. Do those statistics include such pills? Is that why, in your opinion the numbers are so high. I just don't see a woman putting herself through a physical operation because she didn't bother with contraception.

gmc;1355521 wrote: I don't think it a particularly good situation either. What I object to is the assumption being made that abortion is being used as a casual method of contraception. While it might be true in a few cases for the vast majority it is not. It is an assumption that doesn't stand up to more than five minutes thought and doesn't follow from the statistics. You might not be making a moral judgement but you do seem to show a sungular lack of empathy. That is my opinion and I'm sorry if it offends you.Neither of us is in a position to quote figures since it's an area, I would think, where respondents would be quite likely to lie.

There might, although I've not found one, be a survey out there which categorises people presenting themselves for an abortion by the type of contraception which failed, one category of which would be "none used". I'd consider it likely a lot of people would lie on that too though.

By all means post a reference to any relevant survey you come across.

Betty Boop;1355522 wrote: Do those statistics include such pills? Is that why, in your opinion the numbers are so high. I just don't see a woman putting herself through a physical operation because she didn't bother with contraception.The figures for abortion include all induced terminations, not just operations. Maybe we need a more precise vocabulary.

I may be mistaken in thinking the majority of 200,000 abortions a year are down to avoidable folly. I'd not be surprised if I were, though I'll stick by the notion for the moment. Regardless of whether "majority" is true or not, it's a scandalously high number. Few of them involve an operation though, most are chemically induced.

Just a side note here.

One of the main heart-tugs the "Pro-Life" folks use in their argument against abortion is the rather brutal procedure used in third trimester abortions, known as "partial Birth Abortion"

From what I have read, third trimester abortions are illegal in many, if not most, states in the US, and Canada,

Yet, according to Pro-life, these happen quite frequently.

This speaks, IMHO, to the efficacy of using the legal system to prevent abortion, at all.

The conditions under which a legal abortion can occur in England and Wales changes at 24 weeks. I may be misreading the statistics but I think I'm not, and that the figure for a gestational age of 24 weeks and above during the latest year (2008) is 124 for all reasons. I don't think "these happen quite frequently" is a reasonable description of that number. Or are you suggesting illegal back-street abortionists add to it? I'd be amazed to discover England and Wales had any at all.

spot;1355523 wrote: Neither of us is in a position to quote figures since it's an area, I would think, where respondents would be quite likely to lie.

There might, although I've not found one, be a survey out there which categorises people presenting themselves for an abortion by the type of contraception which failed, one category of which would be "none used". I'd consider it likely a lot of people would lie on that too though.

By all means post a reference to any relevant survey you come across.


you started it. Why would you assume people would be quite likely to lie? Since you assume they will all lie anyway any survey is not going to be much use.

The man himself on the subject.

YouTube - Georgia Rep. Bobby Franklin on Life (Part 1)

In some ways living in a country where religion is losing it's influence is a blessing.

YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life}

gmc;1355564 wrote: Why would you assume people would be quite likely to lie?Because the law says you can't have an abortion on demand, only for specified reasons. Saying "the condom broke and I can't cope with the consequence" is far more helpful to the medic ticking the boxes than "I don't want it". The system invites lies.

gmc;1355564 wrote: you started it. Why would you assume people would be quite likely to lie? Since you assume they will all lie anyway any survey is not going to be much use.

The man himself on the subject.

In some ways living in a country where religion is losing it's influence is a blessing.


I don't decry the loss of influence of religion, in particular, but when a nation loses the moral and ethical imparative, as well, it cannot lead to goodness.

When people are so casual about sex, and the consequences of their behavior, how can that not carry over to every facet of their lives.

What kind of society are we going to end up with, here?

My only objections to the laws around abortion is that the legal system cannot fix the problem.

LarsMac;1355567 wrote: I don't decry the loss of influence of religion, in particular, but when a nation loses the moral and ethical imparative, as well, it cannot lead to goodness.

When people are so casual about sex, and the consequences of their behavior, how can that not carry over to every facet of their lives.

What kind of society are we going to end up with, here?

My only objections to the laws around abortion is that the legal system cannot fix the problem.


Yopu don't need religion to give you a moral and ethical imperative, indeed you can make a very good case that being religious interferes with your ability to make a moral judgement on your own. This is religious oppression pure and simple.

gmc;1355578 wrote: This is religious oppression pure and simple.I contend that, as far as my own contributions to the thread are concerned, this is not the case.

gmc;1355578 wrote: Yopu don't need religion to give you a moral and ethical imperative, indeed you can make a very good case that being religious interferes with your ability to make a moral judgement on your own. This is religious oppression pure and simple.


You certainly need SOMETHING to give you a moral and ethical imperative.

What is "religious oppression pure and simple"?

Certainly following a religion out of blind obedience is not healthy, but neither is blindly following your every desire, just because it feels good.

And while I don't agree with Mr Franklin and his ilk, I think I prefer the society he has in mind to the "if it feels good do it, and damn the consequenses" society that seems to be the alternative.

Morality works best when agreed upon rather than dictated. Though making abortion less available to people who seek them due to irresponsibility may have a positive effect. Choice advocates claim 'back-alley' abortions would increase and that may be true, but it's not certain by how much and whether or not they would dissipate over time. Of course nobody wants to see illegal, unsafe procedures occur, but there comes a point when the onus befalls the willing participants.

One huge problem is of course the fact that the female bears the burden and that's a shame, but that's the nature of procreation. Then again with abortion more restricted accusations of rape may also increase so males should take heed as well.

If I might offer a brief note of sanity, back-doors abortionists (were they to exist again) would have moved on from their squalid (and propagandist) Victorian stereotype - what the words mean nowadays are purveyors of what would be illegally-supplied tablets, the same tablets currently in legal use. And should they resort to physical procedures, there are also antibiotics in the modern world. They may be criminals but they're not ignorant butchers, I see no reason why they'd be any less safe than the current legal process.

LarsMac;1355588 wrote: You certainly need SOMETHING to give you a moral and ethical imperative.

What is "religious oppression pure and simple"?

Certainly following a religion out of blind obedience is not healthy, but neither is blindly following your every desire, just because it feels good.

And while I don't agree with Mr Franklin and his ilk, I think I prefer the society he has in mind to the "if it feels good do it, and damn the consequenses" society that seems to be the alternative.


I'd agree with you there - I was making the point it doesn't need to be religious.

If you start with the belief that sex is original sin it's quite hard to have an objective discussion about it. Rather than believing women should have a choice they are something to be controlled and feared. Sexual activity in teenagers or anyone else for that matter becomes something you'd rather not talk about rather than a fact of life with which they need help and advice and those who indulge put themselves outside society. When you allow somone to tell yu that you cannot choose to uyse contraceptives and allow them to prevent their open sale you have accepted they have a right to tell you what is right and wrong.

posted by spot

I contend that, as far as my own contributions to the thread are concerned, this is not the case.


Not quite sure what you mean in any case I was not intending any personal comment on you or what you believe. If you look at the people behind these kind of laws they are in the main religious. Normal people don't automatically assume that a miscarriage must be the result of a deliberate action. In the court of religion you stand before god to be judged and repent your sins, you are presumed guilty. You also have the belief in your own moral superiority which makes it easier to be judgemental - despite JC's tachings to the conrary.

Abortion Rates in Western Industrialized Countries — Infoplease.com

Abortion Rates in Western Industrialized Countries

Country Rate per 1,000

United States 21.3

Australia 22.2

Sweden 18.7

Denmark 16.5

Canada 16.4

England & Wales 15.6

Germany 7.6

Holland 6.5


Guess which countries start sex education in primary school? Also studies show that countries with early sexeducation the age at which teenagers becone sexualy active is higher - the girls know better and are able o stand up to any peer pressure better, indeed the peer pressure semms tio be very different, if you get pregnant unintentionally you are an idiot.

Sexual health policies in other industrialized countries: are there lessons for the United States?(Statistical Data Included) - The Journal of Sex Research | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

An old study but perhaps still relavant.

Unplanned pregnancy was particularly problematic for American women between 20 and 25. Compared to their counterparts in other countries they had a higher abortion rate, experienced first intercourse at a younger age, used less effective contraceptives, and reported a higher rate of using no contraceptive at all. Jones et al. (1988) concluded that the system of delivering family planning services in the U.S. is less conducive than systems in other western countries for the promotion of the use of effective contraceptive methods. The lack of a "national health plan that includes family planning and provides for everyone, regardless of income" was cited as a major reason for the higher rates of unplanned pregnancy in the U.S.


In the main countries where the religious are able to influence the type of sex education and whether contraceptives should or should not be available the consequences are not good. They get in the way of "we have a problem in society lets look at it and work out a solution".

posted by ahso

Morality works best when agreed upon rather than dictated.


That sums up my pint rather nicely.

One huge problem is of course the fact that the female bears the burden and that's a shame, but that's the nature of procreation. Then again with abortion more restricted accusations of rape may also increase so males should take heed as well.


That's cultural as well. How often have you heard the phrase along the lines of someone is asking for it? Original sin again, the women invited the attack just as she invited adam with an apple. If someone provokes you who is responsible for how you shoose to react? With rape the provocation (for want of a better word) is perceived rather than real.

gmc;1355606 wrote: Normal people don't automatically assume that a miscarriage must be the result of a deliberate action.


Neither does the proposed law the OP brought into the thread! I think you're repeating a propagandist error of fact if you're bringing that back up again.

Quote Originally Posted by gmc View Post

Normal people don't automatically assume that a miscarriage must be the result of a deliberate action.




spot;1355608 wrote: Neither does the proposed law the OP brought into the thread! I think you're repeating a propagandist error of fact if you're bringing that back up again.


From the bill

in the event the woman cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of her miscarriage




There is an assumption of guilt in the wording. Most people do not assume a mother deliberately miscarried and ask them to prove otherwise. How do you prove something did not happen? Claim it was an act of god I suppose they couldn't argue with than one could they? else they would have find themselves having to prove that god doesn't exist.

If they can't prove there wasn't human involvement execute them. Perhaps a woman unfortnate enough to suffer more than one miscarraige has been cursed by a witch. Bring forth the witchfinder general.

All I can do is repeat what I've already posted. Exactly the same exclusion is in this as in all the previous bills, that abortion "does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event". There's nothing in the bill attempting to shift the burden of proof from the state to the defendant. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecutor. There is no assumption of guilt in the wording. Proving something did not happen doesn't come into it, someone has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something DID happen.

"If they can't prove there wasn't human involvement execute them" is just a fanatical rejection of reality on your part, as far as I can see. You're way beyond reasoned discussion here.

HB 1 (Summary) 2011-2012 Regular Session

Fetus' means a person at any point of development from and including the moment

111 of conception through the moment of birth. Such term includes all medical or popular

112 designations of an unborn child from the moment of conception such as conceptus,

113 zygote, embryo, homunculus, and similar terms.

114 (2) 'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an

115 intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however,

116 that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother

117 and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.

118 Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically

119 as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human

120 involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.


It means that any woman using the day after pill in, for example, the case of a rape, is committing a felony, therefore it won't be available to rape victims, however young they might be. There is an assumption of guilt the woman would have to prove that she did not take any action that might have induced a miscarraige however inadvertently it might have been. It is so open to misuse it's like something out of the dark ages.

posted by spot

If they can't prove there wasn't human involvement execute them" is just a fanatical rejection of reality on your part, as far as I can see. You're way beyond reasoned discussion here.


He is also proposing the death penalty on anyone found to be guilty that is the reality he wishes to bring about. Some women have more than one miscarraige, georgia is clearly not the state to be in if you are one of them. The reality is the christian taliban are just there lurking under the surface. This is religious rule by the back door because they can't come right out and force people to obey their teachings.

gmc;1355625 wrote: It means that any woman using the day after pill in, for example, the case of a rape, is committing a felony, therefore it won't be available to rape victims, however young they might be.Yes, obviously. That's the purpose of the legislation. It's what, if the law were passed, would be the law. I've consistently said I don't want the law of England and Wales changing. If the savages of Georgia win a majority that's another matter - it's entirely up to the Georgians and their federated partner states. That's why there are sovereign nations.

There is an assumption of guilt the woman would have to prove that she did not take any action that might have induced a miscarraige however inadvertently it might have been.No there isn't, regardless of how many times you claim that to be true. The legal constitution of the United States would not allow such an interpretation, not even if it were explicitly passed as a law. Nothing put forward by this Georgian legislator even hints at trying to make such a change to their legal system. No change of the burden of proof is being attempted in these proposed acts.

spot;1355628 wrote: Yes, obviously. That's the purpose of the legislation. It's what, if the law were passed, would be the law. I've consistently said I don't want the law of England and Wales changing. If the savages of Georgia win a majority that's another matter - it's entirely up to the Georgians and their federated partner states. That's why there are sovereign nations.

No there isn't, regardless of how many times you claim that to be true. The legal constitution of the United States would not allow such an interpretation, not even if it were explicitly passed as a law. Nothing put forward by this Georgian legislator even hints at trying to make such a change to their legal system. No change of the burden of proof is being attempted in these proposed acts.


Whose talking about the law of england and wales?

posted by spot

No there isn't, regardless of how many times you claim that to be true. The legal constitution of the United States would not allow such an interpretation, not even if it were explicitly passed as a law. Nothing put forward by this Georgian legislator even hints at trying to make such a change to their legal system. No change of the burden of proof is being attempted in these proposed acts.


I would point to guantanimo and the treatment of Bradley manning. In the states and elsewhere there is a constant battle to prevent the state putting itself in a position where it can arrest people without having to put them on trial and prove their guilt. People tend to forget the function of the legal system is to defend the citizen not only from low life criminals but from the powerful and from the state.

They can indeed pass such a law and there would no doubt be a fight to get it rescinded but they can pass it. As a sovereign nation there is nothing to stop them - indeed that is rather the point he is making in his preface to the bill.

The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of

64 Roe v. Wade or any other case pertaining to a state's punishment of the crime of prenatal

65 murder;


The constitution says there is seperation between church and state, it seems there are many in the states that don't get what that means and why they actually have it in the first place. This is attempted oppression by the religious bent on imposing their morality on everybody.

Abortion is an emotive issue we have plenty in the UK that have similar attitudes, happily they are not quite so influential. They probably wouldn't go so far as wanting to execute the women involved but they would happily prevent women having free access to contraception and prevent sex education in schools if they could and gleefully ignore evidence from other countries preferring to take the moral high ground condemning those who have abortions, as you do, as merely lacking in moral character when it's not quite that simple.

gmc;1355651 wrote: preferring to take the moral high ground condemning those who have abortions, as you do, as merely lacking in moral character when it's not quite that simple.


You have the entire thread to quote from here, and I've repeatedly denied that charge. I've explicitly said it's not my view.

spot;1355653 wrote: You have the entire thread to quote from here, and I've repeatedly denied that charge. I've explicitly said it's not my view.


also posted by spot

And I say it's because it's treated as a means of contraception despite all the contraceptive provision that's in place. And I reckon it's a moral mess, because that's exactly what it ought not to be there for. It's not a lack of education or availability, it's a lack of ethical responsibility.




Have it your way then.

spot;1355524 wrote: The figures for abortion include all induced terminations, not just operations. Maybe we need a more precise vocabulary.

I may be mistaken in thinking the majority of 200,000 abortions a year are down to avoidable folly. I'd not be surprised if I were, though I'll stick by the notion for the moment. Regardless of whether "majority" is true or not, it's a scandalously high number. Few of them involve an operation though, most are chemically induced.


If these figures include the use of the morning after pill then I would ask how they are measuring the number? Just counting the number of pills sold would vastly overestimate the number of cases where they have been used and over-estimate by an even larger percentage the number of cases where a pregnancy was terminated.

Without knowing what the figures represent they are meaningless.

As to ascribing a motive to the abortions or a proportion to those abortions that occur for a given motive, the information is not available to do so - it's guesswork and says more about your opinion than it does of reality.

The use of the morning after pill is touted as a form of contraception, not of abortion. Discounting that from the count of "induced terminations" (given that it cannot be known whether the use of the pill does induce a termination in any given case) then I would be very surprised if any significant percentage of women undergo an abortion as a practical alternative to contraception.

Bryn Mawr;1356096 wrote: If these figures include the use of the morning after pill then I would ask how they are measuring the number?No, they're not including those. They're talking about the two-pill induced termination tablets which were in the news recently when the question of taking the second at home came up.

spot;1356097 wrote: No, they're not including those. They're talking about the two-pill induced termination tablets which were in the news recently when the question of taking the second at home came up.


Then I'd suggest that your "The figures for abortion include all induced terminations, not just operations ... most are chemically induced." in connection with legislation that does consider the use of the morning after pill to be abortion is misleading.

It hadn't crossed my mind that the proposed Georgia State legislation considered intervention before implantation to be a termination, the world's full of fanatics. I was discussing, and quoting from, the England and Wales Health Service statistics for abortions within its own geographic area, a government service which blatantly peddles no such nonsense.