Abortion: The Issue

[Focus on the Family]

History of Abortion​

Early Years​

• In the mid-to-late 1800’s, all states passed laws making it illegal to perform or attempt to perform an abortion. These laws were supported by the medical community, which noted abortion’s moral implications and danger to women. New ultrasound technology also provided a window into the womb, showing physicians that there was life before birth.
• During this time period, notable activists in the women’s suffrage movement, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spoke out against abortion in their efforts to protect women and children.
• Because most abortion was illegal, the term “back-alley abortion” became slang for illegal abortions.

Legalizing Abortion​

In 1959, efforts to liberalize state abortion laws were mounting, and model legislation to legalize abortion in limited cases was proposed at the state level. Abortion advocates often cited as many as ten thousand illegal abortion deaths each year as reason for legalization. However, statements from those on the forefront of this movement reveal that this number was, at best, unsubstantiated and, at the worst, purposefully exaggerated.


Another argument for legalizing abortion was that it would enable licensed physicians — rather than unlicensed amateurs — to commit the act. However, in 1960, before abortion was legal, Mary Calderone, former president of Planned Parenthood, wrote that trained physicians performed “90% of illegal abortions.”

State and National Laws​

• In 1968, Colorado, California, North Carolina and Oregon reformed abortion laws to allow abortion in some cases.
• Between 1969-1970, a dozen other states followed suit.
• On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down every state abortion law through two rulings Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Current Status​

Is Abortion Legal?​

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. However, in contrast to the blanket legalization of abortion set forth in Roe, the recent Dobbs decision simply turns the choice of allowing abortion back to the states. American abortion procedures have not stopped. But fortunately, citizens can now vote on the issue – something Roe wouldn’t allow.

The country is currently split. While half the states are leaning toward or have already implemented legislation banning abortion, others have moved to actually expand abortion rights. Some are even going so far as to label themselves “abortion sanctuaries.”

Most states do not have abortion bans in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Contraception​

The recent Supreme Court ruling does not impact contraception. Hormonal contraception prevents conception, it does not remove life already present in the womb. Abortion is the taking of a life. Contraception and vasectomies do not apply to the fight for preborn rights because they prevent pregnancy rather than end it. Claims that the recent Supreme Court ruling will somehow open the door to outlawing contraception are wrongfully instilling fear.

The Morning-After Pill or Plan B can cause a very early abortion by thinning the lining of the uterus, making it harder for an embryo to implant in the uterus. This is an abortion and not the same as hormonal birth control.

Current Abortion Facts​

• The annual number of reported abortions in the United States is between 600,00 and 900,000. The number of abortions peaked at 1.4 million in 1990, and have steadily declined since then.
• About one in four women will have an abortion by the time they are 45.
• The main reasons for abortion are education, finances and work.
• The majority of abortions are administered through the abortion pill.
• The current treatment for a mother’s life endangerment through an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion, and is therefore still legal in all 50 states.

The post Abortion: The Issue appeared first on Focus on the Family.

Continue reading...

 

[jaybo]

Abortions are valid medical procedures that terminate pregnancies for a variety of reasons. It the right of the individual and her doctor/midwife to determine whether an abortion should be performed. It is an overreach of government to deny individuals that right.

 

[Free]

Abortions are valid medical procedures that terminate pregnancies for a variety of reasons.

Purposefully terminating an innocent human life is absolutely not valid medical procedures (apart from an ectopic pregnancy, but then that isn't necessarily an abortion).

It the right of the individual and her doctor/midwife to determine whether an abortion should be performed.

It is the right of the unborn to life, the same as all born human persons, regardless of what a woman and her doctor or midwife think.

It is an overreach of government to deny individuals that right.

It is part of a government's mandate to protect its citizens, and that would certainly include the most vulnerable human persons in the womb.

 

[jaybo]

Purposefully terminating an innocent human life is absolutely not valid medical procedures (apart from an ectopic pregnancy, but then that isn't necessarily an abortion).


It is the right of the unborn to life, the same as all born human persons, regardless of what a woman and her doctor or midwife think.


It is part of a government's mandate to protect its citizens, and that would certainly include the most vulnerable human persons in the womb.

Those are the standard arguments against abortion.

An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy. Ending any pregnancy is an abortion. There are many cases in which the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. They should be aborted also. It is inhumane and cruel to carry a baby to term when it cannot survive and will die an agonizing death.

"It is the right of the unborn to life" is just an opinion, but it not applicable to a fetus that will not survive on its own. It will never have a life.

"It is part of a government's mandate to protect its citizens, and that would certainly include the most vulnerable human persons in the womb" is also just an opinion. A fetus is not a citizen: "a person who was born in a particular country and has certain rights or has been given certain rights because of having lived there".

 

[Free]

Those are the standard arguments against abortion.

It's been debated for so long, they're all standard arguments, whether for or against.

An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy. Ending any pregnancy is an abortion.

But it isn't in the same class as the rest. It is not an abortion in the same way, as it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

There are many cases in which the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. They should be aborted also.

Please provide a source for these "many cases."

It is inhumane and cruel to carry a baby to term when it cannot survive and will die an agonizing death.

And, yet, abortion is always inhumane and cruel since it ends in the taking of an innocent human life, sometimes resulting in an agonizing death, especially for failed ones that are left to die.

"It is the right of the unborn to life" is just an opinion, but it not applicable to a fetus that will not survive on its own. It will never have a life.

To use that logic, should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own? A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?

As a human person, they are fully deserving of being born, regardless of whether or not one thinks they can survive on their own. A human life is a human life.

"It is part of a government's mandate to protect its citizens, and that would certainly include the most vulnerable human persons in the womb" is also just an opinion. A fetus is not a citizen: "a person who was born in a particular country and has certain rights or has been given certain rights because of having lived there".

So, using your reasoning, should a government be responsible for protecting foreign visitors or non-citizen immigrants?

 

[jaybo]

It's been debated for so long, they're all standard arguments, whether for or against.


But it isn't in the same class as the rest. It is not an abortion in the same way, as it is necessary to save the life of the mother.


Please provide a source for these "many cases."


And, yet, abortion is always inhumane and cruel since it ends in the taking of an innocent human life, sometimes resulting in an agonizing death, especially for failed ones that are left to die.


To use that logic, should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own? A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?

As a human person, they are fully deserving of being born, regardless of whether or not one thinks they can survive on their own. A human life is a human life.


So, using your reasoning, should a government be responsible for protecting foreign visitors or non-citizen immigrants?

So now there are "classes" of abortions? That's one I've never heard before. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Period.

Obviously you have never experienced the death of a fetus that is born without the ability to survive outside the womb. If you ever experience the agonizing death of a newborn, you might have a different attitude toward an abortion. It is one of the worst experiences one can ever have!

And there is no reason to expand the discussion beyond the issue of abortion. The issue of extending the life of a living person who has a terminal disease is an entirely different matter, outside the scope of this discussion. Why not discuss if wars are moral?

And writing something as absurd as "A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?" doesn't even deserve a response.

And then you write "As a human person, they are fully deserving of being born, regardless of whether or not one thinks they can survive on their own. A human life is a human life." a) What is your definition of "a human person"? (Never mind the redundancy!) Of course everyone human being deserves to live if at all possible. But it is a fact of life that some percentage of fetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb. Not every pregnancy results in the birth of a baby that can survive. It's a reality, even if you refuse to accept it.

And your final sentence is so "off the wall" and so off-topic that it clearly doesn't have a place in this discussion.

Now, if you want to extend the subject appropriately... if life is as precious as you claim, why did God permit Herod to kill all the boys two years of age and younger shortly after Jesus was born? But that really should be in a separate thread.

 

[Free]

So now there are "classes" of abortions? That's one I've never heard before. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Period.

Yes, I have not said differently. But an ectopic pregnancy that requires an abortion to save the mother’s life is entirely different than the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons.

Obviously you have never experienced the death of a fetus that is born without the ability to survive outside the womb. If you ever experience the agonizing death of a newborn, you might have a different attitude toward an abortion. It is one of the worst experiences one can ever have!

Obviously. Have you personally experienced it? How would that justify the agonizing death experienced by some aborted fetuses? When there is merely the potential for an agonizing, how does that justify killing unborn children at all? Are to treat people like mere animals and put them down when they’re in pain? In all this time no doctor has figured out how to alleviate the pain?

Do you have a source as I previously asked?

And there is no reason to expand the discussion beyond the issue of abortion. The issue of extending the life of a living person who has a terminal disease is an entirely different matter, outside the scope of this discussion.

That was not an argument I made. What I clearly asked was: using your logic, should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own?

And writing something as absurd as "A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?" doesn't even deserve a response.

Why not? It is the logical outworking of your reasoning. So, how about an answer?

And then you write "As a human person, they are fully deserving of being born, regardless of whether or not one thinks they can survive on their own. A human life is a human life." a) What is your definition of "a human person"? (Never mind the redundancy!) Of course everyone human being deserves to live if at all possible.

I thought you were familiar with the abortion debates and that you would know one pro-abortion argument is that fetuses are human but not actual persons. So, I’m just addressing the redundancy in your camp.

A human is, of course, the result of a fertilized human egg, from the moment of conception.

But it is a fact of life that some percentage of fetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb. Not every pregnancy results in the birth of a baby that can survive. It's a reality, even if you refuse to accept it.

Of course it’s a reality, but that is a relatively small number of cases. Regardless, how does that justify killing an innocent, defenceless human being? And, the reality also is that some babies actually survive when the mother is told it won’t.

And your final sentence is so "off the wall" and so off-topic that it clearly doesn't have a place in this discussion.

How do? It is, again, just the logical outworking of your reasoning. By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens. You can’t have it both ways. If a government is responsible for protecting the lives of non-citizens, then it is also responsible for protecting the unborn who, according to you, are also not citizens. Otherwise, a government is responsible only for its citizens.

Now, if you want to extend the subject appropriately... if life is as precious as you claim, why did God permit Herod to kill all the boys two years of age and younger shortly after Jesus was born? But that really should be in a separate thread.

No, this is a great thread for it. It is important to note that you are appealing to this story to strongly imply that life isn’t as precious as I claim. Yet, you just said that my argument to a woman being able to kill her one-year-old (because it can’t survive on its own) was “absurd” and “doesn’t even deserve a response.”

But, again, you can’t have it both ways. If my argument to killing a one-year-old is absurd, then even more so is your argument to two-year-olds. But, if your argument is correct and life isn’t precious t those two years old and younger, then my argument is certainly not absurd.

 

[jaybo]

Yes, I have not said differently. But an ectopic pregnancy that requires an abortion to save the mother’s life is entirely different than the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons.


Obviously. Have you personally experienced it? How would that justify the agonizing death experienced by some aborted fetuses? When there is merely the potential for an agonizing, how does that justify killing unborn children at all? Are to treat people like mere animals and put them down when they’re in pain? In all this time no doctor has figured out how to alleviate the pain?

Do you have a source as I previously asked?


That was not an argument I made. What I clearly asked was: using your logic, should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own?


Why not? It is the logical outworking of your reasoning. So, how about an answer?


I thought you were familiar with the abortion debates and that you would know one pro-abortion argument is that fetuses are human but not actual persons. So, I’m just addressing the redundancy in your camp.

A human is, of course, the result of a fertilized human egg, from the moment of conception.


Of course it’s a reality, but that is a relatively small number of cases. Regardless, how does that justify killing an innocent, defenceless human being? And, the reality also is that some babies actually survive when the mother is told it won’t.


How do? It is, again, just the logical outworking of your reasoning. By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens. You can’t have it both ways. If a government is responsible for protecting the lives of non-citizens, then it is also responsible for protecting the unborn who, according to you, are also not citizens. Otherwise, a government is responsible only for its citizens.


No, this is a great thread for it. It is important to note that you are appealing to this story to strongly imply that life isn’t as precious as I claim. Yet, you just said that my argument to a woman being able to kill her one-year-old (because it can’t survive on its own) was “absurd” and “doesn’t even deserve a response.”

But, again, you can’t have it both ways. If my argument to killing a one-year-old is absurd, then even more so is your argument to two-year-olds. But, if your argument is correct and life isn’t precious t those two years old and younger, then my argument is certainly not absurd.

You wrote: an ectopic pregnancy that requires an abortion to save the mother’s life is entirely different than the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons.

My response: how do you know that the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons? That is just your unsubstantiated opinion. I believe it is just the opposite.

You wrote: Obviously. Have you personally experienced it?

My response: I will not discuss my personal life with you.

You wrote: Are [we] to treat people like mere animals and put them down when they’re in pain?

My response: This doesn't deserve a response. You are going into some bizarre extreme.

You wrote: should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own?

My response: this also doesn't deserve a response. You are going again into some bizarre extreme. The discussion is about abortion, not euthanizing people or animals.

You wrote: By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens.

My response: it's off-topic and doesn't deserve a response.

You wrote: the reality also is that some babies actually survive when the mother is told it won’t.

My response: where are the data to support this statement? Can a baby born with non-functioning lungs survive? A malformed heart? Non-functioning kidneys? Etc.

You wrote: I thought you were familiar with the abortion debates and that you would know one pro-abortion argument is that fetuses are human but not actual persons. So, I’m just addressing the redundancy in your camp.

My response: I am not in any "camp" I think for myself and reason things out.

You wrote: A human is, of course, the result of a fertilized human egg, from the moment of conception.

My response: is that what your camp believes? I don't accept that loaded definition: An embryo is an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus). A fetus is an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follows the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception).

You wrote: By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens. You can’t have it both ways. If a government is responsible for protecting the lives of non-citizens, then it is also responsible for protecting the unborn who, according to you, are also not citizens. Otherwise, a government is responsible only for its citizens.

My response: a) don't tell me how I think or reason. You are clearly capable of determining that. b) Again, you are going off-topic and I will not respond to this line of reasoning.

Finally, you didn't give a satisfactory answer to my question. If you claim the life of a child (or an embryo or a fetus) is so precious, why did God allow Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger after Jesus was born?

 

[Free]

You wrote: an ectopic pregnancy that requires an abortion to save the mother’s life is entirely different than the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons.

My response: how do you know that the vast majority of abortions which are done for self-serving reasons? That is just your unsubstantiated opinion. I believe it is just the opposite.

How do I know? Because I research and search for answers so I don't speak ignorantly. So, I know it is not just my opinion. I thought you were familiar with these things.

https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(17)30188-9/fulltext

"Not financially prepared 40%
Not a good time 36%
Issues with partner 31%
Need to focus on other children 29%
Interferes with future plans 20%
Not emotionally or mentally prepared 19%
Health issue 12%
Unable to provide a “good” life 12%
Not independent or mature enough 7%
Influence from family or friends 5%
Don’t want children 3%"

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589#citation-6

Original source is here:
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

It is very easy to see that, although there can be more than one answer, the majority of the answers are for self-serving purposes and, therefore, that is why the majority of abortions are performed. Even "health issue" is known to be subjective and does not necessarily mean that there is a danger to the mother or issue with the fetus.

All of that is backed up by the CDC:

"In 2019, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (56.9%). Women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions (27.6% and 29.3%, respectively) and had the highest abortion rates (19.0 and 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively. . . . However, abortion ratios in 2019 were highest among adolescents (aged ≤19 years) and lowest among women aged 25–39 years.
...
Among the 42 areas that reported by marital status for 2019, 14.5% of women who obtained an abortion were married, and 85.5% were unmarried (Table 7). The abortion ratio was 46 abortions per 1,000 live births for married women and 394 abortions per 1,000 live births for unmarried women.
...
Among the 45 areas that reported the number of previous live births for 2019, 40.2%, 24.5%, 20.0%, 9.2%, and 6.0% of women had zero, one, two, three, or four or more previous live births (Table 8). Among the 44 areas that reported the number of previous induced abortions for 2019, the majority of women (58.2%) had previously had no abortions, 23.8% had previously had one abortion, 10.5% had previously had two abortions, and 7.5% had previously had three or more abortions (Table 9)."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

And also by the Guttmacher Institute:

"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

You wrote: Obviously. Have you personally experienced it?

My response: I will not discuss my personal life with you.

Okay. So, I'll assume you haven't either, which makes me question what point you were trying to make.

You wrote: Are [we] to treat people like mere animals and put them down when they’re in pain?

My response: This doesn't deserve a response. You are going into some bizarre extreme.

No, it is the logical outworking of your reasoning.

You wrote: should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own?

My response: this also doesn't deserve a response. You are going again into some bizarre extreme. The discussion is about abortion, not euthanizing people or animals.

Again, there is no bizarre extreme. I am pointing out the logical outworking of your reasoning.

You wrote: By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens.

My response: it's off-topic and doesn't deserve a response.

It does deserve a response because it is based directly on the logical outworking of your reasoning.

You wrote: the reality also is that some babies actually survive when the mother is told it won’t.

My response: where are the data to support this statement? Can a baby born with non-functioning lungs survive? A malformed heart? Non-functioning kidneys? Etc.

Please read carefully what I wrote. There are going to be things that a baby cannot survive, of course, but there are stories of women/parents being told that their baby won't survive or won't survive to see their first birthday, yet the baby survives, and in some cases, is perfectly healthy. Is there data on this? If there is, it's hard to find.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/parents-refused-abort-baby-brain-outside-skull-receive-miracle/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/first-person-jason-mcallister-anti-abortion-1.6452683

You wrote: I thought you were familiar with the abortion debates and that you would know one pro-abortion argument is that fetuses are human but not actual persons. So, I’m just addressing the redundancy in your camp.

My response: I am not in any "camp" I think for myself and reason things out.

When you're repeating pro-abortion arguments, it shows that you are in a camp. There is no middle ground here--one is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. And, you're also ignoring the logical outworking of your reasoning.

You wrote: A human is, of course, the result of a fertilized human egg, from the moment of conception.

My response: is that what your camp believes?

It is science, philosophy, and the Bible that tell us when life begins. So, it is the only reasonable position and is why I believe it.

I don't accept that loaded definition: An embryo is an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus). A fetus is an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follows the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception).

Providing stages of human development doesn't address anything. When do you think human life begins?

You wrote: By your own reasoning governments are not responsible to protect non-citizens. You can’t have it both ways. If a government is responsible for protecting the lives of non-citizens, then it is also responsible for protecting the unborn who, according to you, are also not citizens. Otherwise, a government is responsible only for its citizens.

My response: a) don't tell me how I think or reason. You are clearly capable of determining that. b) Again, you are going off-topic and I will not respond to this line of reasoning.

I'm not telling you how to think or reason, I'm pointing out the clear contradictions in your reasoning.

 

[Free]

Finally, you didn't give a satisfactory answer to my question. If you claim the life of a child (or an embryo or a fetus) is so precious, why did God allow Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger after Jesus was born?

Why is it that you want to ignore my arguments and questions, and yet demand that I answer yours? I'm trying to have a respectful discussion which entails every person involved answering and addressing all arguments and questions put to them. You'll notice I have answered all your questions and addressed all your points and I hope that you will show respect and reciprocate in kind by going back and addressing the things you avoided.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, I see. Ignore the contradiction this argument creates, ignore biblical theology, and just keep pressing forward. Again, this argument contradicts your earlier reply to my argument:

You stated: '"It is the right of the unborn to life" is just an opinion, but it not applicable to a fetus that will not survive on its own. It will never have a life.'

I replied: "To use that logic, should we terminate any born person's life if they can't survive on their own? A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?"

You then replied: 'And writing something as absurd as "A one year-old cannot survive on its own, so if a woman doesn't want it anymore, should she have the right to kill it?" doesn't even deserve a response.'

However, you also replied with the argument now in question: "if life is as precious as you claim, why did God permit Herod to kill all the boys two years of age and younger shortly after Jesus was born?"

There are at least a couple of points to be made. Firstly, your initial argument here hinges on "a fetus that will not survive on its own." That is the crux of your argument. So, my response simply takes that to its logical conclusion, namely, that if any person of any age cannot survive on its own, it does not have the right to life. Secondly, there is no two-year-old that could survive on its own, much less a one-year-old.

Thirdly, as I have already stated, your argument strongly implies that life isn't precious for those two years of age and younger. And that fits perfectly with your argument that if something cannot survive on its own, it doesn't have the right to life. Life is, in fact, not very precious for those lacking the ability to survive on their own. It follows then, that my argument to killing a one-year-old isn't absurd and most certainly deserves a response. If my response is absurd and doesn't deserve a response, then the same goes for your (mis)use of Scripture. Do you see the error in your reasoning?

Fourthly, if you want to use that passage to imply that life isn't "as precious as I claim," then I could appeal to quite a number of verses of God ordering the deaths of adults to say that life is most definitely not as precious as either of us claim. But that would be a gross misuse of Scripture, since we know without a shadow of a doubt, that all life is precious to God because all humans are made in the image of God, including those that are unborn.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Social programs anti poverty initiatives…making upward mobility possible again…affordable housing…worker’s rights and universal healthcare…

Would probably be extremely effective at reducing the demand for abortions without the cruelty of anti abortion laws.

 

[dwb001]

Abortions are valid medical procedures that terminate pregnancies for a variety of reasons. It the right of the individual and her doctor/midwife to determine whether an abortion should be performed. It is an overreach of government to deny individuals that right.

Where in the Constitution is said right enumerated?

 

[jaybo]

How do I know? Because I research and search for answers so I don't speak ignorantly. So, I know it is not just my opinion. I thought you were familiar with these things.

https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(17)30188-9/fulltext

"Not financially prepared 40%
Not a good time 36%
Issues with partner 31%
Need to focus on other children 29%
Interferes with future plans 20%
Not emotionally or mentally prepared 19%
Health issue 12%
Unable to provide a “good” life 12%
Not independent or mature enough 7%
Influence from family or friends 5%
Don’t want children 3%"

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589#citation-6

Original source is here:
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

It is very easy to see that, although there can be more than one answer, the majority of the answers are for self-serving purposes and, therefore, that is why the majority of abortions are performed. Even "health issue" is known to be subjective and does not necessarily mean that there is a danger to the mother or issue with the fetus.

All of that is backed up by the CDC:

"In 2019, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (56.9%). Women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions (27.6% and 29.3%, respectively) and had the highest abortion rates (19.0 and 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively. . . . However, abortion ratios in 2019 were highest among adolescents (aged ≤19 years) and lowest among women aged 25–39 years.
...
Among the 42 areas that reported by marital status for 2019, 14.5% of women who obtained an abortion were married, and 85.5% were unmarried (Table 7). The abortion ratio was 46 abortions per 1,000 live births for married women and 394 abortions per 1,000 live births for unmarried women.
...
Among the 45 areas that reported the number of previous live births for 2019, 40.2%, 24.5%, 20.0%, 9.2%, and 6.0% of women had zero, one, two, three, or four or more previous live births (Table 8). Among the 44 areas that reported the number of previous induced abortions for 2019, the majority of women (58.2%) had previously had no abortions, 23.8% had previously had one abortion, 10.5% had previously had two abortions, and 7.5% had previously had three or more abortions (Table 9)."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

And also by the Guttmacher Institute:

"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives


Okay. So, I'll assume you haven't either, which makes me question what point you were trying to make.


No, it is the logical outworking of your reasoning.


Again, there is no bizarre extreme. I am pointing out the logical outworking of your reasoning.


It does deserve a response because it is based directly on the logical outworking of your reasoning.


Please read carefully what I wrote. There are going to be things that a baby cannot survive, of course, but there are stories of women/parents being told that their baby won't survive or won't survive to see their first birthday, yet the baby survives, and in some cases, is perfectly healthy. Is there data on this? If there is, it's hard to find.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/parents-refused-abort-baby-brain-outside-skull-receive-miracle/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/first-person-jason-mcallister-anti-abortion-1.6452683


When you're repeating pro-abortion arguments, it shows that you are in a camp. There is no middle ground here--one is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. And, you're also ignoring the logical outworking of your reasoning.


It is science, philosophy, and the Bible that tell us when life begins. So, it is the only reasonable position and is why I believe it.


Providing stages of human development doesn't address anything. When do you think human life begins?


I'm not telling you how to think or reason, I'm pointing out the clear contradictions in your reasoning.

When I was in graduate school, a professor gave me excellent advice: you should try to prove yourself wrong by counter-arguments, because that is what others will try to do. You should heed that advcie.

Your carefully-selected sources and flawed reasoning are so lame that I will not continue to discuss this issue with you. For the last time: abortion is a medical procedure that, like all medical procedures, should be a decision that is up to the person and their physician.

That is reality; deal with it.

I will ignore your biased comments until you have something reasdonable to say.

 

[Free]

When I was in graduate school, a professor gave me excellent advice: you should try to prove yourself wrong by counter-arguments, because that is what others will try to do. You should heed that advcie.

It is not I that needs to heed that advice. You don't even try to provide counter-arguments; you ignore everything. My arguments are fine, my reasoning is sound, and I've proven that there is significant difficulty with your position. Did your professor tell you that it is rude, disrespectful, and lacking integrity to ignore others' arguments and questions, especially while demanding they respond to yours?

Your carefully-selected sources and flawed reasoning are so lame that I will not continue to discuss this issue with you.

And, yet, you haven't haven even come close to proving my reasoning is flawed, you haven't even tried. I, on the other hand, have shown that your reasoning is seriously flawed. My "carefully selected sources" are two research based articles, the CDC, and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. You asked for sources, I provided some, from the pro-abortion side. And now you just ignore them. I asked you for sources, you provided nothing.

For the last time: abortion is a medical procedure that, like all medical procedures, should be a decision that is up to the person and their physician.

That is reality; deal with it.

Abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life. To do that to humans that are born, is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder. That is the reality.

I will ignore your biased comments until you have something reasdonable to say.

You've ignored pretty much everything up to this point anyway. For someone who complains a lot about personal attacks, you sure freely dish them out. Why, yet again, do you completely ignore arguments and questions, particularly those which prove difficult for your position? It seems that every time you get backed into a corner, when you're proven wrong, you personally attack and then want to end all discussion.

 

[jaybo]

It is not I that needs to heed that advice. You don't even try to provide counter-arguments; you ignore everything. My arguments are fine, my reasoning is sound, and I've proven that there is significant difficulty with your position. Did your professor tell you that it is rude, disrespectful, and lacking integrity to ignore others' arguments and questions, especially while demanding they respond to yours?


And, yet, you haven't haven even come close to proving my reasoning is flawed, you haven't even tried. I, on the other hand, have shown that your reasoning is seriously flawed. My "carefully selected sources" are two research based articles, the CDC, and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. You asked for sources, I provided some, from the pro-abortion side. And now you just ignore them. I asked you for sources, you provided nothing.


Abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life. To do that to humans that are born, is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder. That is the reality.


You've ignored pretty much everything up to this point anyway. For someone who complains a lot about personal attacks, you sure freely dish them out. Why, yet again, do you completely ignore arguments and questions, particularly those which prove difficult for your position? It seems that every time you get backed into a corner, when you're proven wrong, you personally attack and then want to end all discussion.

My arguments are fine, my reasoning is sound, and I've proven that there is unprovable difficulty with your position.

It's time for some instruction in logic. You wrote, "Abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life. To do that to humans that are born, is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder."

a) Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It is not "the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life". A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its existence. It has no independent life!
b) Overlooking the poor grammar, a fetus, by definition, has not yet been born, so saying "To do that to humans that are born [a fetus has not yet been born!!!], is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder." Murder is the willful taking of the life of a person who has been born. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There is a world of difference! A fetus is incapable of surviving on it's own, i.e., it doesn't have its own life, so it can't be taken away.

You've ignored pretty much everything I've proven anyway. For someone who complains a lot about personal attacks, you sure freely dish them out. Why, yet again, do you completely ignore arguments and questions, particularly those which prove difficult for your position?

 

[jaybo]

BTW, Free, I notice that you have totally overlooked the question that I asked earlier: why did God allow Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger in Jerusalem? Matthew 2:16

When you are done rationalizing your response to that question, here is another? Why did God kill all the firstborn of Egypt (human and animal)? Exodus 13:15

 

[Free]

My arguments are fine, my reasoning is sound, and I've proven that there is unprovable difficulty with your position.

You've contradicted yourself. How can a person "prove that there is unprovable difficulty with [someone's] position"? If the difficulty is unprovable, then, by definition, it cannot be proved, as you claim. Your childish mimicking game is getting really, really old.

It's time for some instruction in logic. You wrote, "Abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life. To do that to humans that are born, is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder."

a) Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It is not "the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life". A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its existence. It has no independent life!

An instruction in logic? Where? You've actually committed the fallacy of begging the question. I clearly stated that "abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life," but you argue to "it has no independent life." On the one hand, the fact that a fetus is "entirely dependent on the mother for its existence" doesn't address whether or not it is a human life. On the other hand, the fact that a human fetus is living and growing in a human woman proves that the fetus is a living human being.

b) Overlooking the poor grammar

Getting a little nit-picky, aren't you? I changed what I was saying and missed deleting a word. So what? Stop making things personal.

, a fetus, by definition, has not yet been born, so saying "To do that to humans that are born [a fetus has not yet been born!!!], is called that murder. Therefore, abortion is also murder." Murder is the willful taking of the life of a person who has been born. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There is a world of difference! A fetus is incapable of surviving on it's own, i.e., it doesn't have its own life, so it can't be taken away.

You're begging the question again. The fact that a fetus relies on the mother in no way whatsoever means that it isn't a human being. In fact, a fetus has its own DNA, blood type, etc., and, if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother. It is a human being at the earliest stages of development and naturally relies on the mother, but it is continually growing and is in the environment God designed it to grow in.

As such, an abortion is the termination of a defenseless, innocent human life, and that is known as murder.

You've ignored pretty much everything I've proven anyway. For someone who complains a lot about personal attacks, you sure freely dish them out. Why, yet again, do you completely ignore arguments and questions, particularly those which prove difficult for your position?

This childish mimicking game needs to stop.

BTW, Free, I notice that you have totally overlooked the question that I asked earlier: why did God allow Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger in Jerusalem? Matthew 2:16

When you are done rationalizing your response to that question, here is another? Why did God kill all the firstborn of Egypt (human and animal)? Exodus 13:15

I dealt with this. Your ignoring my response does not mean I overlooked the question. You are being very selective in the verses you are appealing to which results in you misusing Scripture to try and support your anti-Christian view of abortion. My response showed the error in reasoning by appealing to such verses. If you care to address the response I already provided, that would be great.

It would also be nice if you would reciprocate and address my questions and arguments.

 

[jaybo]

You've contradicted yourself. How can a person "prove that there is unprovable difficulty with [someone's] position"? If the difficulty is unprovable, then, by definition, it cannot be proved, as you claim. Your childish mimicking game is getting really, really old.


An instruction in logic? Where? You've actually committed the fallacy of begging the question. I clearly stated that "abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life," but you argue to "it has no independent life." On the one hand, the fact that a fetus is "entirely dependent on the mother for its existence" doesn't address whether or not it is a human life. On the other hand, the fact that a human fetus is living and growing in a human woman proves that the fetus is a living human being.


Getting a little nit-picky, aren't you? I changed what I was saying and missed deleting a word. So what? Stop making things personal.


You're begging the question again. The fact that a fetus relies on the mother in no way whatsoever means that it isn't a human being. In fact, a fetus has its own DNA, blood type, etc., and, if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother. It is a human being at the earliest stages of development and naturally relies on the mother, but it is continually growing and is in the environment God designed it to grow in.

As such, an abortion is the termination of a defenseless, innocent human life, and that is known as murder.


This childish mimicking game needs to stop.


I dealt with this. Your ignoring my response does not mean I overlooked the question. You are being very selective in the verses you are appealing to which results in you misusing Scripture to try and support your anti-Christian view of abortion. My response showed the error in reasoning by appealing to such verses. If you care to address the response I already provided, that would be great.

It would also be nice if you would reciprocate and address my questions and arguments.

More personal attacks! You wrote "Your childish mimicking game is getting really, really old." and "This childish mimicking game needs to stop." Why can't you abide by the Tos??? Does your administrator position give you liberty to flaunt the rules??? Stop making things personal.

You wrote: "I clearly stated that "abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life," but you argue to "it has no independent life." I don't really care what you clearly state. If you're wrong, as you are in this case, you're clearly wrong. A embryo or fetus cannot independently survive outside of the mother's womb. Period.

You wrote, "if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother" but things don't always go smoothly. Some pregnancies do not smoothly, and the fetus must be aborted if it is incapable of surviving. An undeniable fact!!!

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in which the fetus has no chance of independent survival. That is not murder. In fact, a fetus has its own DNA, blood type, etc., and, if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother. But things do not "always go smoothly", which is why abortions must be performed.

And I am reporting you for writing that I am "anti-Christian". Your have repeatedly violated of the ToS.

 

[Free]

You wrote: "I clearly stated that "abortion is the unjustified, deliberate ending of a human life," but you argue to "it has no independent life." I don't really care what you clearly state. If you're wrong, as you are in this case, you're clearly wrong.

No, I don't think I am and your simply stating that you think I am (again the ToS, mind you), doesn't mean that I am. I have shows that there is an error in your reasoning on this, so until you address that with sound reasoning, I am right.

A embryo or fetus cannot independently survive outside of the mother's womb. Period.

And neither can a one-year-old or two-year-old, or any other number of people either born with physical or mental issue or are otherwise incapacitated for some reason (such as COVID or a vehicle accident) and wouldn't otherwise survive. That is a fallacious argument that begs the question since the ability, or lack thereof, to survive independently doesn't actually address whether or not the unborn are human beings.

You wrote, "if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother" but things don't always go smoothly. Some pregnancies do not smoothly, and the fetus must be aborted if it is incapable of surviving. An undeniable fact!!!

If you go back and read what I have written, you will see that I have already affirmed that things don't always go smoothly. The point is that not only are those a small minority of abortions, occasionally a mother and father are told the baby won't survive but it does. In rare instances it is quite, if not perfectly, healthy.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in which the fetus has no chance of independent survival. That is not murder. In fact, a fetus has its own DNA, blood type, etc., and, if left alone and all goes smoothly, it will eventually emerge as an individual different from its mother. But things do not "always go smoothly", which is why abortions must be performed.

Again, the majority of abortions are for self-serving reasons and is being used as a form of post-conception birth control. I have given sources from this, which you have so far ignored. I have also pointed out the error in reasoning of arguing to "no chance of independent survival."

And I am reporting you for writing that I am "anti-Christian". Your have repeatedly violated of the ToS.

Go ahead because that is clearly not what I said, which was, "your anti-Christian view of abortion." Although, perhaps I shouldn't have said that since there are even atheists who believe that the unborn are fully human beings at the earliest stages of development, and that abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life. It's just that Christians should understand that even unborn are living human beings are made in the image of God and fully deserving of life.

 

[jaybo]

No, I don't think I am and your simply stating that you think I am (again the ToS, mind you), doesn't mean that I am. I have shows that there is an error in your reasoning on this, so until you address that with sound reasoning, I am right.


And neither can a one-year-old or two-year-old, or any other number of people either born with physical or mental issue or are otherwise incapacitated for some reason (such as COVID or a vehicle accident) and wouldn't otherwise survive. That is a fallacious argument that begs the question since the ability, or lack thereof, to survive independently doesn't actually address whether or not the unborn are human beings.


If you go back and read what I have written, you will see that I have already affirmed that things don't always go smoothly. The point is that not only are those a small minority of abortions, occasionally a mother and father are told the baby won't survive but it does. In rare instances it is quite, if not perfectly, healthy.


Again, the majority of abortions are for self-serving reasons and is being used as a form of post-conception birth control. I have given sources from this, which you have so far ignored. I have also pointed out the error in reasoning of arguing to "no chance of independent survival."


Go ahead because that is clearly not what I said, which was, "your anti-Christian view of abortion." Although, perhaps I shouldn't have said that since there are even atheists who believe that the unborn are fully human beings at the earliest stages of development, and that abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life. It's just that Christians should understand that even unborn are living human beings are made in the image of God and fully deserving of life.

<ignored>