• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question To Conservatives That Want To Ban All Abortions

HangLow

BUFF 52 Nav
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
6,074
Location
KCMO & 50K Feet Up 4Reagan4Perot4Obama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
1642140442643.png
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
65,735
Reaction score
37,261
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course there are individual anti-abortion people that are caring community people caring for new mothers with little or nothing. Of course the the Republican party is not monolithic. But the party officially and the anti-abortion movement specifically are focused on the fetus only. Republicans just voted down an extended child care bill that would bring America within shouting distance with the family and child support of other European countries.

If you think the party and the movement are cild and family centered post the legislation they have introduced and supported through out the law making process into an actual program for families and children. You will not be able to do it. There are no Republican or anti-abortion movement programs that support families and born children.
I've no idea what Republicans are up to--perhaps those who are and participate in this forum can fill me and others in--but I'm guessing from what you've said that you're referring to national programs?

In my extensive observation and participation, help comes from one's own community, and yes, many if not most efforts are faith-based. As I've posted many times in this forum, in my community there are groups that help provide housing, GED completion, resume preparation, and skills-training to new parents. What about yours, Weaver? And what are you doing personally to meet the needs of children whose mothers chose life?

One national organization that helps born children is the National Diaper Bank Network: https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/

The NDBN has various programs. Scroll down to see who supports them in your state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diaper_Bank_Network
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
10,536
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've no idea what Republicans are up to--perhaps those who are and participate in this forum can fill me and others in--but I'm guessing from what you've said that you're referring to national programs?

In my extensive observation and participation, help comes from one's own community, and yes, many if not most efforts are faith-based. As I've posted many times in this forum, in my community there are groups that help provide housing, GED completion, resume preparation, and skills-training to new parents. What about yours, Weaver? And what are you doing personally to meet the needs of children whose mothers chose life?

One national organization that helps born children is the National Diaper Bank Network: https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/

The NDBN has various programs. Scroll down to see who supports them in your state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diaper_Bank_Network
Yes, community efforts count for much of the charity work that gets done. Absolutely nobody, is saying that it isn't helpful, effective, lovingly given or worthwhile. I am thankful for and respectful of all community efforts and those that work hard to provide the services. They are dedicated people. But charity is not available to all. The diaper bank serves poor mothers in 200 communities in the US. It is a private charity. It is not a national national policy program serving all poor women in the US.

Some people see community needs and commit themselves to working on those. Other people put their money and effort into working on national priorities and programs. A great country needs both.

The programs a country creates to carry out its policies is a demonstration of what that country values. The United States ranks
35th among developed countries in the % of GDP it spends on programs promoting the health, education and welfare of infants and children. We are down there with Romania 34th, Czech Republic 30th and Columbia 32nd. It is not the Democratic Party that is failing to provide national programs supporting infants and children.


There is a vast difference between a local charity and a national program. A charity defines people in need A national program is not charity it is provided to people because the country values them. It is the difference between the county poor farm and Social Security; the soup kitchen and SNAP; school books purchased by the local PTA and national support for education so all schools have all the books they need.

The National Diaper Bank Network is the creation of Joanne Samuel Goldblum. "She has a BA from New York University and an MSW from Hunter College School of Social Work. She was a clinical faculty member at Yale Child Study Center Family Support Service from 1998-2005. Goldblum was chosen as a 2007 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leader for her work. She is the author of the book: Broke in America: Seeing, Understanding and Ending US Poverty"
She is not a Republican.
 
Last edited:

HangLow

BUFF 52 Nav
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
6,074
Location
KCMO & 50K Feet Up 4Reagan4Perot4Obama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
1642397665331.png
 

XDU

Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2022
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
407
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
2cb53b88dc2f154fb1c4aa9d8b9785a885e1fce80a9655172466a0e4a97e63ba.jpg
Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life. They also believe in being pro-family values, pro-rule of law and order, and pro-grace before law.

IOW, hypotheticals like this only get addressed if it's first asked, "How did we get here?"
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
27,422
Reaction score
11,946
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life.
They are only pro-fetus hypocrites.
They also believe in being pro-family values
Right, that is why the bed over backwards to kiss the ass of a ***** grabber, one that ****s a porn star while his third wife is recovering from childbirth.
pro-rule of law and order,
Hence they oppose any investigation into their scumbag ways.
and pro-grace before law.
WTF does that mean? Some more bullshit hypocrisy?
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
10,536
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life.
They don't. Pro-life conservatives get just as many abortions as do liberals.
They also believe in being pro-family values,
Voting down child care and early childhood education is not pro-family.
pro-rule of law and order,
Conservatives are for armed citizens' militias taking control of protest marches, saving property, and stopping looting by shooting violent criminals. That's vigilantism not rule of law.
and pro-grace before law.
The entire abortion issue from 1973 onwards has been an attempt to circumvent the law by lying about the process, intimidating women and providers through violence killings and shaming. This is not grace before the law.
 

Dacke

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
942
Reaction score
297
Location
Somewhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Conservatives don't just believe in being pro-life. They also believe in being pro-family values, pro-rule of law and order, and pro-grace before law.

IOW, hypotheticals like this only get addressed if it's first asked, "How did we get here?"
The only prolife position is pro-abortion. Being opposed to abortion is being anti-life, but it is no news that the only lives Conservatives care about are those not yet born and those who are already dead.
 

HangLow

BUFF 52 Nav
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
6,074
Location
KCMO & 50K Feet Up 4Reagan4Perot4Obama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The big disagreement is on the terminology used to describe a human in utero. I call it a baby, and those who align with abortion, call it a "fetus." Do you agree or disagree that a perpetrator who terminates a pregnant female should be charged with the death of the unborn child / human or not?
1642634188498.png
 

Patriotic Voter

Get a vaccine, not COVID-19!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
20,580
Reaction score
5,677
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense; however, where 95% (I'm guessing on this .. although it is a majority) are aborting children because they don't feel like having a child / supporting a child. I have problems with that. If you can't support a child, take advantage of birth control (which is highly effective), abstain from sexual activity or seek measures which extremely minimize pregnancy both naturally and through science.

If you know what the word contraception means, you know spaying and neutering are the only 100% effective methods for many reasons.

If you want more babies to be born, you obviously do not want anyone to abstain from having sex. And if you oppose abortion, you want America to be overrun with too many kids. You can't have it both ways.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,575
Reaction score
51,390
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense;
What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.

Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?

And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:

Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​
link

How do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?

*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama. :rolleyes: *
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
9,484
Reaction score
7,656
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.

Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?

And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:

Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​
link

How do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?

*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama. :rolleyes: *
Thank you for writing this. I'd like to add just one thing.

People used to think that the draft for guys equalled forcing women to give birth. Why was that wrong? Because guys could not be drafted below the age of 18 or over an age in their late 20s; they could be exempt for being too tall, short, fat, thin, having poor eyesight or hearing, being intellectually challenged, etc.

They could also get a deferment if they got into college and had a means to pay for it. A really smart and monied guy could go to college, grad school, and ultimately get a PhD all with a deferment until he aged out of the draft.

They never made these exemptions and deferments for any girls or women.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,575
Reaction score
51,390
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why does one think that conservatives will be against ALL scenarios where a baby is aborted? If child birth is at high risk of ending a mother's life, then that makes sense; however, where 95% (I'm guessing on this .. although it is a majority) are aborting children because they don't feel like having a child / supporting a child. I have problems with that. If you can't support a child, take advantage of birth control (which is highly effective), abstain from sexual activity or seek measures which extremely minimize pregnancy both naturally and through science.
Still waiting for an answer here, while noting that no birth control works 100%...and people are always going to have sex...I think we need to stay in the realm of reality on the issue.

What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.​
Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?
And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:​
Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​
link
How do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?​
*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama. :rolleyes: *​
 

jotathought

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
5,876
Reaction score
2,382
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Still waiting for an answer here, while noting that no birth control works 100%...and people are always going to have sex...I think we need to stay in the realm of reality on the issue.

What about when you dont know? Is it always predictable? Of course not...~1000 women die every year in the US and 86,000 more nearly do or end up with permanently severe health damage like strokes, aneurysms, kidney failure, etc. My friend's wife died in childbirth with her 2nd pregnancy...completely unpredicted. The baby died too, and it had been healthy too...it couldnt survive the horrific hours she suffered in labor.​
Do you believe that the govt is entitled to demand that anyone take that risk against their will? Aside from the draft, with at least the goal of protecting the nation, and I'm against anyway...where else does the govt force citizens to risk their lives against their will?
And the question is even more relevant, when it's clear that there's a safer option available:​
Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​
link
How do you justify the govt demanding that women risk their lives when, if they choose, there is a safer option available to them?​
*Lord please save me from the common moronic deflection, 'but it wasnt safer for the baby' drama. :rolleyes: *​

I just don't agree that the government is "forcing" citizens to risk their lives without legalized abortions -- especially when a majority of abortions aren't related to saving the mother. As stated, a majority of abortions are to rid those pesky children from the womb, and there are other measures to be more proactive than reactive. As an example, a wide range of contraceptives have an efficacy rate of 98%+ if used correctly, and 91%+ with typical usage.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,575
Reaction score
51,390
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I just don't agree that the government is "forcing" citizens to risk their lives without legalized abortions -- especially when a majority of abortions aren't related to saving the mother.

What else is it if they remove the option of a safer medical option? And we discussed the unpredictability of it. It can be any woman, any time...every pregnancy risks a woman's life.

As stated, a majority of abortions are to rid those pesky children from the womb, and there are other measures to be more proactive than reactive. As an example, a wide range of contraceptives have an efficacy rate of 98%+ if used correctly, and 91%+ with typical usage.
There are, and even responsible couples' bc fails. So you are trying to base legislation on factors than cannot be implemented or controlled.

Some math:

--millions of Americans have millions and millions of sex interludes every single day.​
--66% of women/couples use BC or arent currently fertile (sterile, age, nursing, etc) Cite: Guttmacher.​
--98% efficacy is if bc is used perfectly every time. OK, let's use it anyway. 98% still means 10's of thousands of accidental pregnancies every single day.​
--10's of thousands of pregancies/365 days.​
--Still a huge number of accidental pregnancies.​

So even in a best case scenario in a society where people will have sex at will...birth control cannot end the need for abortion. Your argument against elective abortion is not valid. It's not possible or reasonable. And people have every right to enjoy consensual sex and not be denied whatever medical or other options are available.

Do you still dispute this? Do you still want to stand by it as an argument against elective abortion? If so, I'm ready to hear your counter-argument.
 

jotathought

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
5,876
Reaction score
2,382
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What else is it if they remove the option of a safer medical option? And we discussed the unpredictability of it. It can be any woman, any time...every pregnancy risks a woman's life.

So abortion is the only reactive option to terminate a child? Is that what your implying? Again, most women get abortions because they don't want a child ... and I highly doubt its because they see it as a safer option than pregnancy.

There are, and even responsible couples' bc fails. So you are trying to base legislation on factors than cannot be implemented or controlled.

Some math:

--millions of Americans have millions and millions of sex interludes every single day.​
--66% of women/couples use BC or arent currently fertile (sterile, age, nursing, etc) Cite: Guttmacher.​
--98% efficacy is if bc is used perfectly every time. OK, let's use it anyway. 98% still means 10's of thousands of accidental pregnancies every single day.​
--10's of thousands of pregancies/365 days.​
--Still a huge number of accidental pregnancies.​

So even in a best case scenario in a society where people will have sex at will...birth control cannot end the need for abortion. Your argument against elective abortion is not valid. It's not possible or reasonable. And people have every right to enjoy consensual sex and not be denied whatever medical or other options are available.

Do you still dispute this? Do you still want to stand by it as an argument against elective abortion? If so, I'm ready to hear your counter-argument.
As stated, please read, BC has a typical efficacy rate of over 90%+ ... If used properly, it has a 98%+ efficacy based on contraception type ... with over 610K abortions annually (2017/2018), that's number would be significantly reduced, even with a 90% efficacy. I never stated it would stop all pregnancies, although its being more proactive .. instead of reactive.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,575
Reaction score
51,390
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So abortion is the only reactive option to terminate a child?

It is the only one that terminates the unborn (it's not a child). Do you know of another? I didnt write that tho. It could be the post-birth option of adoption as well. I wouldnt want to see that banned, would you?

Is that what your implying? Again, most women get abortions because they don't want a child ... and I highly doubt its because they see it as a safer option than pregnancy.

Sorry, I disagree with your assertion. You just oversimplified the woman's reasons to 2 things. Do you realize what pregnancy does to every woman? It can take her life, her health leaving her disabled and unable to care for family, it can interfere with her ability to work and care for dependents like elderly, kids, disabled, it can mean the loss of the roof over their head, it can mea sacrificing higher education, it can mean not being able to uphold responsibilities and obligations to others like employer, community, church, society.

It can mean sacrifices and risks that only the woman knows...do you or any strangers think you know what's best for every pregnant woman? Her needs? And do you believe you or the govt has any right to make that decision for her?

As stated, please read, BC has a typical efficacy rate of over 90%+ ... If used properly, it has a 98%+ efficacy based on contraception type ... with over 610K abortions annually (2017/2018), that's number would be significantly reduced, even with a 90% efficacy. I never stated it would stop all pregnancies, although its being more proactive .. instead of reactive.
Why are you repeating that? I addressed it. And asked you direct questions after I refuted that argument. Please address it, it's odd that you didnt:

So even in a best case scenario in a society where people will have sex at will...birth control cannot end the need for abortion. Your argument against elective abortion is not valid. It's not possible or reasonable. And people have every right to enjoy consensual sex and not be denied whatever medical or other options are available.​
Do you still dispute this? Do you still want to stand by it as an argument against elective abortion? If so, I'm ready to hear your counter-argument.​
 

Arlette

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
1,333
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm pro-life, and banning ALL abortions makes no thinking sense. Sometimes, the mother's life actually IS in danger. sometimes...not all the time, but sometimes, a girl is raped, and she had no consent, or decision, in whether to make a baby, so why should she be forced to carry it?

sometimes, sadly, a product of rape is often also a product of incests, and the genetics will be heavily defective

but this is, by far and away, different from saying that all, or even most, abortions are done for these reasons.
Why does abortion need a reason?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,575
Reaction score
51,390
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why does abortion need a reason?
I think it's implied every woman has a reason, a need. It's painful and often expensive. (even if the procedure is subsidized, it's not usually free and there may also be lost work time, $$ to travel in the larger states, and then motels, for ex.)

OTOH, since it's a given IMO that every women does have a reason...why should that reason require examination by anyone besides her Dr?
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
13,302
Reaction score
2,785
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Why does abortion need a reason?
what do you mean need a reason? we're humans, we do things for reasons. Not always for good reasons, but still a stupid question.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
10,536
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just don't agree that the government is "forcing" citizens to risk their lives without legalized abortions -- especially when a majority of abortions aren't related to saving the mother. As stated, a majority of abortions are to rid those pesky children from the womb, and there are other measures to be more proactive than reactive. As an example, a wide range of contraceptives have an efficacy rate of 98%+ if used correctly, and 91%+ with typical usage.
You have been informed, at least twice of the actual reasons for abortions and yet you keep referring to most abortions as getting "rid those pesky children from the womb". I'll post, again, the situations and reasons for abortion. If, after that you persist in implying that women are immoral and irresponsibly using abortion I'll assume that you are spreading hateful information just for the fun of it.

Late term abortions 27 to 40 weeks = less than 1% of all abortions. A majority are for many reasons (which you can look up) to save the mother. Second term abortions 13 to 26 weeks = less than 4% of all abortions. The majority of 2nd trimester abortions are because of fetal malformations that will lead to fetal death during or at birth or shortly after.

The 75% of all 1st trimester abortions, 0 to 12, weeks are performed for women and their families living below, at, or just above the US poverty line. 60% of the women in this category already have a child and are struggling financially to provide for the family. In their judgement that moment in time is not a good time to add another financial burden to an already struggling family.

Is there any reason why anyone would consider these women irresponsible for ending a pregnancy that they know they cannot afford and would harm the family? And often the answer is yes these women are irresponsible because they are not using birth control. And that's a myth: women are irresponsible and won't use birth control. (bc)

From Guttmacher: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states
1. Contraceptive use among women who were sexually active and not seeking pregnancy was lowest among 15–24-year-olds (83%) and highest among 25–34-year-olds (91%).8
2. Among all sexually active women not seeking pregnancy, 93% of unmarried women who lived with a partner used contraceptives, as did 90% of married women and 83% of unmarried women who did not live with a partner.
3. Some 86% of sexually active women not seeking pregnancy with incomes below the federal poverty level used a method, while 91% of those with an income of at least 300% of the poverty level did so.
4. Among sexually active women not seeking pregnancy, 81% of those with no insurance coverage used contraceptives, as did 87% of those covered by Medicaid and 90% of those covered by private health insurance.8

If women are using bc why are there so many abortions? 75% of all women seeking abortion are low wage workers or poor women. Few of these women have health insurance or the financial means to pay for the most effective birth controls which are IUDs, hormone injections and hormone implants. The IUD and insertion has an up front cost of up to $2000 without insurance and hormone injections or implants charge up front costs of up to $1300. without insurance.
The least costly bc available to low wage and poor women are condoms and withdrawal with risk of failure between 22% and 26%.

There are some PP programs to help women afford IUDs, implants and injections but the anti-abortion movement has forced PP to close many of the clinics in those states limiting bc availability to low wage and poor women and women whose health insurance does not cover bc. And so these women depend on abortion when condoms, withdrawal and rhythm methods fail.

Since none of these abortions are the result of immoral or irresponsible women it would be responsible for you and others to stop blaming women and take a more realistic look at why unwanted pregnancies are happening and in reality what is going on is a religious war on low income and poor women and women working for businesses that refuse to provide insurance that covers bc.
 

Arlette

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
1,333
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
what do you mean need a reason? we're humans, we do things for reasons. Not always for good reasons, but still a stupid question.
Do I need to give a reason for getting a tattoo or a C-cup rack to anybody?
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
13,302
Reaction score
2,785
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Do I need to give a reason for getting a tattoo or a C-cup rack to anybody?
You don't NEED to give a reason for anything. To eat, get a tattoo, where a mask, rob a bank, anything at all. Really. If I murder someone, and they ask why i did it, i can just refuse to say anything. Won't stop them from putting me in a jail but, there you have it.
 

Arlette

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
1,333
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't NEED to give a reason for anything. To eat, get a tattoo, where a mask, rob a bank, anything at all. Really. If I murder someone, and they ask why i did it, i can just refuse to say anything. Won't stop them from putting me in a jail but, there you have it.
The state hasn't given me a valid reason reason for it's "vested interest" in my personal life
 
Top Bottom