What is the most likely reason for abortions being at an all time low?

[year2late]

The facts are that the morning after pill is not a chemical abortion. It is birth control. Plenty of people are ignorant to that fact, but as a regular on this forum I have a hard time believing that you didn't know that.

Can you imagine someone of his ilk speaking to a rape victim who is offered the morning after pill immediately following the rape? "you don't want this abortion pill, do you?"

Seriously, people have a contraception failure or forget to use...and want to be responsible and make sure they do not get pregnant. They take plan B. We should be commending them for wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But the reality is that dose is about 30-60 bucks, so it is not likely that they will be repeating this frequently.

 

[Ontologuy]

The facts are that the morning after pill is not a chemical abortion. It is birth control. Plenty of people are ignorant to that fact, but as a regular on this forum I have a hard time believing that you didn't know that.

Pure pro-choicer subterfuge, this time via blatant misinformation.

Fact: the morning-after pill does indeed function as a chemical abortion, as I previously explained.

Fact: "birth control" as a description of the morning-after pill is meaningless. The mini-pill is "birth control" and it most certainly does function as a chemical abortion at times.

Fact: Your statement "plenty of people are ignorant" is a projection.

Fact: Your last clause is simply denial-based feigned incredulity, as I've explained it before to you how the morning-after pill and the mini-pill work, that they can function as a chemical abortion.

Your entire post here is simply disengenuous.

Typical pro-choicer.

 

[Ontologuy]

I hate to ask, but where are you getting this crap? Why not site a reputable source that supports your claims? You are embarrassing yourself.

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

I have presented in multiple abortion threads in the past complete with links how the morning-after pill, RU486, the mini-pill, alll of it, works.
How they work is really common knowledge to those not suffering from the pre-conceived denial-based ideology of pro-choice.

Only pro-choicers present "this crap" of denial of the scientific realities I presented in this regard, often by citing other pro-choicer denial references.

When it comes to citing a reputable source that supports your claims, simply do a search in this forum on the matter and you'll see where no reputable source supporting your claims was ever cited.

For the source to be reputable it must be completely devoid of any connection to pro-choice groups like PP and NARAL and the like.

I cited scientific references that presented the reality that both the morning-after pill and the mini-pill do function as abortifacients, I presented them here, and I recall you denying them in those threads as well.

Regardless, these links already exist in this forum.

Now, go find them in this forum -- that's your homework for today .. and this time study closer.

 

[Ontologuy]

Can you imagine someone of his ilk speaking to a rape victim who is offered the morning after pill immediately following the rape? "you don't want this abortion pill, do you?"

Your attempt at a sarcastic-based ad hominem only betrayed your compulsion to keep women in the dark about what they're taking, that the pill they're about to take will kill the newly conceived human inside them if indeed conception has already taken place.

Clearly you, as with most pro-choicers I've read here, prefer to keep women in the dark about what they're taking and how it works.

And, of course, you do so because you don't want people to know the truth, as you fear that if everyone knew the truth of it it would harm your pro-choice agenda.

Seriously, people have a contraception failure or forget to use...and want to be responsible and make sure they do not get pregnant. They take plan B. We should be commending them for wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But the reality is that dose is about 30-60 bucks, so it is not likely that they will be repeating this frequently.

Whatever. Thats your philosophical opinion.

But it's neither here nor there with respect to topical relevance.

That Plan b can function to kill the newly conceived living human present, and thus use of it can cause a chemical abortion, roughtly 85% of the time it's used by conservative estimate, yes, based on that high cost, as women aren't going to use it at that price unless they're pretty sure they're likely to have conceived.

Thus, clearly, abortion is not at an all-time low, but instead it is at an all-time high.

It's just that more abortions than before are now chemical abortions.

 

[SassySmartie]

Surprise! The abortion rate just hit an all-time low.


I am really curious why people think that the abortion rate is at a low.

I understand it may be a mix of reasons, but I think that there is a predominant reason.

My opinion is this:

A study published earlier this year looked at the usage of long-acting, reversal contraceptives, methods like interuterine devices, which tend to have much higher efficacy rates than birth control pills (in short, there’s a lot less room for user error).

That research, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, found that use of long-acting contraceptives tripled between 2002 and 2009. Most of that increase happened, however, in the last two years. The proportion of contraceptive users using this method increased from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 3.7 percent in 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, though, it shot up to 8.5 percent.

Effective goof proof long term birth control is a big help.

 

[minnie616]

Thick mucus does not stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
It can however trap sperm and keep them from reaching an unfertilized egg.

Here is a link with a video that explains how Plan B works:

This Handy Video Explains How Plan B Works and Why It's Not an 'Abortion Pill'

Emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, cannot cause an abortion.

Link with video:

This Handy Video Explains How Plan B Works and Why It's Not an 'Abortion Pill'

 

[SassySmartie]

:shrug: I would say it may play a role - but I do not see where access to birth control in 2011 is dramatically inreased vice (for example) 2000 or 1995 to be the predominant factor in the reduction of abortion over that time period. The spread of the use of birth control has been both positively and negatively correlated with incidence of abortion, leading me to suspect those who blithely claim a unique one-to-one relationship.

Did you miss this in the article:

use of long-acting contraceptives tripled between 2002 and 2009

Long-acting as in IUDs and other types of implant birth control methods that are virtually goof proof since efficacy does not depend on the correct use or remembering a pill. It is implanted and it works on it's own for how ever many years depending on the type of method.

 

[Ontologuy]

Thick mucus does not stop a fertilized egg from implanting.

False, obviously.

You continue to repeat false information, which functions as disinformation for the pro-choice cause.

It can however trap sperm and keep them from reaching an unfertilized egg.

By the time the woman uses Plan b, the conception sperm itself has reached its destination.

Plan b should be used within 72 hours of suspect intercourse. But by then conception has usually taken place if it's going to take place. Most women don't take it in time. Those few who take it within 24 hours, even then the chances of conception are high by then if it's going to occur.

Absolute pro-choice subterfuge, implying that the thick mucous of Plan b designed to stop implantation of a newly concieved human in the womb "is really supposed to 'trap' the sperm". :roll:

It doesn't matter if it might slow them down.

It's too late by then.

Here is a link with a video that explains how Plan B works: Link with video: This Handy Video Explains How Plan B Works and Why It's Not an 'Abortion Pill'

A link to Jezebel???

A nortorious pro-choice disinformation site???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, you need to link to valid scientific references devoid of any connection to pro-choice ideologues.

Linking to a pro-choice ideologue site is meaningless, as these sites often lie to protect their pro-choice ideological agenda, and they also simply don't tell the whole truth, and thus they simply can't be trusted, obviously.

 

[wbcoleman]

You have a typical pro-choicer's M.O. of capitulating in a debate.

They always leave with a statement about how wrong their debate opponent is rather than admit their subterfuge and obfuscation were revealed and they severly lost on all points, as if their opponents were so "wrong", it should have been easier to present how erroneous they were .. but, of course, that their opponent was wrong wasn't the case at all, obviously.

People oftend tend to ignore those who employ rational cogent arguments to refute them in debate.

Thus, they can ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand never see when that happens after that .. though it still happens .. and others can easily see it happen.

It is inspiring to see how you are triumphantly winning the debate. What a guy!

What I want to know is how you think you're doing in the debate that actually counts; ie. public opinion and elections. Polling on abortion attitudes has changed little in decades, the political will to criminalize abortion is close to nil, and what nominating virulently anti-abortion candidates has accomplished is mostly to keep the U.S. Senate in Dingy Harry's hands.

 

[Stopandthink]

Reasons for declining abortions rates:

1) birth control - availability
2) social acceptance of birth control
3) parents these days understanding reality and putting kids on birth control (parents not living in denial or fantasy world)
4) better sex education classes

I've posted numerous times now that the pro-life people would be far more productive in reducing abortions if they spent their time promoting better and more comprehensive sex education in schools, and less time preaching abstinence. The pro-life group needs to be far more pro-active than reactive.

An interesting idea might also be that there are less abortions because of STD's.
Fear of STD's might be prompting more use of condoms.

Since getting pregnant is the result of one activity then I have to go with abstinence as the most common sense and logical, not to mention most effective choice. Kinda like if my son really did not want acne but it was proven to be caused by one thing such as eating acorns then my best advice to my son whom i love is don't eat acorns. Pretty simple,no?

 

[Ontologuy]

It is inspiring to see how you are triumphantly winning the debate. What a guy! What I want to know is how you think you're doing in the debate that actually counts; ie. public opinion and elections. Polling on abortion attitudes has changed little in decades, the political will to criminalize abortion is close to nil, and what nominating virulently anti-abortion candidates has accomplished is mostly to keep the U.S. Senate in Dingy Harry's hands.

Many people are still in the dark about the relevant facts in the abortion conflict.

Presenting the facts and debunking the pro-choice denial disinformation campaign goes a long way toward accurately educating people, so that when they do respond to polls, they will respond educated.

Indeed, last year in a Gallup poll the results of which were presented at this discussion site, most people, when given a choice only between pro-life and pro-choice, identified with pro-life -- pro-life passed up pro-choice.

And, in the 35 years since the hard-science consensus presented unconjecturably that a new human begins to live at conception, and is alive as alive can be, support for protecting the lives of the newly coneived has grown.

I've been effective in presenting that reality, showing how the consensus was established soon after Roe and Webster .. and now states are passing statutes simply designed to challenge Roe and Webster in the SCOTUS .. and it's only a matter of time before Roe and Webster are modified to change "viability" to an even further back, like heartbeat.

And, of course, science is coming close to creating artificial wombs that will support embryos, the very existence of which changes the week-demarcation of viability from around 22 to .. 2! This means that abortion on demand would be limited to the first few days following conception, supported by both Roe and Webster themselves.

Thus so-called "anti-abortion" candidates have not been an issue at all. GWB was pro-life, and he won two terms.

The problem with "dingy Harry" is that his constituency are liberals, and it won't matter what candidate the Repubs field, as the liberal coalition won't vote for a fiscal conservative regardless of his position on abortion, and the likely GOP candidate will be fiscally conservative.

 

[nota bene]

What I want to know is how you think you're doing in the debate that actually counts; ie. public opinion and elections. Polling on abortion attitudes has changed little in decades...QUOTE]

More Americans

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Gallup poses a follow-up question of respondents who opt for the middle position -- those saying abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances" -- asking if it should be legal in most or in only a few circumstances. The responses break nearly 3-1 in favor of the more restrictive policy.

The resulting distribution of views shows 26% of Americans favoring legalized abortion under any circumstances, 13% favoring legality under most circumstances, 38% favoring it in only in a few circumstances, and 20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances.

Americans' Abortion Views Steady Amid Gosnell Trial

So that's 58% of Americans who oppose all or most abortions, but look to the 18-34-year old group.

 

[minnie616]

From a June 2012 article:

Experts say implantation was likely placed on the label partly because daily birth control pills, some of which contain Plan B’s active ingredient, appear to alter the endometrium, the lining of the uterus into which fertilized eggs implant. Altering the endometrium has not been proven to interfere with implantation. But in any case, scientists say that unlike the accumulating doses of daily birth control pills, the one-shot dose in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine lining.
“It takes time for an endometrium to change, for its cells to divide,” said Susan Wood, a biochemist who, shortly after Plan B’s approval became the F.D.A.’s top women’s health official and later resigned, frustrated with the delay in making the pill available without prescription.

Implantation also likely wound up on the label because of what Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson called wishful thinking by some scientists, who thought that if it could also block implantation, it would be even better at preventing pregnancy.

By 2002, studies produced evidence that Plan B did not interrupt implantation.

read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...ion-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[wbcoleman]

Many people are still in the dark about the relevant facts in the abortion conflict.

Presenting the facts and debunking the pro-choice denial disinformation campaign goes a long way toward accurately educating people, so that when they do respond to polls, they will respond educated.

Indeed, last year in a Gallup poll the results of which were presented at this discussion site, most people, when given a choice only between pro-life and pro-choice, identified with pro-life -- pro-life passed up pro-choice.

And, in the 35 years since the hard-science consensus presented unconjecturably that a new human begins to live at conception, and is alive as alive can be, support for protecting the lives of the newly coneived has grown.

I've been effective in presenting that reality, showing how the consensus was established soon after Roe and Webster .. and now states are passing statutes simply designed to challenge Roe and Webster in the SCOTUS .. and it's only a matter of time before Roe and Webster are modified to change "viability" to an even further back, like heartbeat.

And, of course, science is coming close to creating artificial wombs that will support embryos, the very existence of which changes the week-demarcation of viability from around 22 to .. 2! This means that abortion on demand would be limited to the first few days following conception, supported by both Roe and Webster themselves.

Thus so-called "anti-abortion" candidates have not been an issue at all. GWB was pro-life, and he won two terms.

The problem with "dingy Harry" is that his constituency are liberals, and it won't matter what candidate the Repubs field, as the liberal coalition won't vote for a fiscal conservative regardless of his position on abortion, and the likely GOP candidate will be fiscally conservative.

Too bad that forty years is insufficient to educate the public. Maybe you should postpone those triumphant victory celebrations.

And as for George Bush, he is an example of how beneficial Roe v Wade has been to Republican electoral prospects. Unfortunately, as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch demonstrated, it doesn't always work. And abortion directly caused Bill Brady to lose the 2010 Illinois governor's race, saddling us with Pat Quinn and a 66 2/3% state income tax increase.

 

[wbcoleman]

What I want to know is how you think you're doing in the debate that actually counts; ie. public opinion and elections. Polling on abortion attitudes has changed little in decades...QUOTE]

More Americans

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Gallup poses a follow-up question of respondents who opt for the middle position -- those saying abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances" -- asking if it should be legal in most or in only a few circumstances. The responses break nearly 3-1 in favor of the more restrictive policy.

The resulting distribution of views shows 26% of Americans favoring legalized abortion under any circumstances, 13% favoring legality under most circumstances, 38% favoring it in only in a few circumstances, and 20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances.

Americans' Abortion Views Steady Amid Gosnell Trial

So that's 58% of Americans who oppose all or most abortions, but look to the 18-34-year old group.

 

[kerussll]

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

I have presented in multiple abortion threads in the past complete with links how the morning-after pill, RU486, the mini-pill, alll of it, works.
How they work is really common knowledge to those not suffering from the pre-conceived denial-based ideology of pro-choice.

Only pro-choicers present "this crap" of denial of the scientific realities I presented in this regard, often by citing other pro-choicer denial references.

When it comes to citing a reputable source that supports your claims, simply do a search in this forum on the matter and you'll see where no reputable source supporting your claims was ever cited.

For the source to be reputable it must be completely devoid of any connection to pro-choice groups like PP and NARAL and the like.

I cited scientific references that presented the reality that both the morning-after pill and the mini-pill do function as abortifacients, I presented them here, and I recall you denying them in those threads as well.

Regardless, these links already exist in this forum.

Now, go find them in this forum -- that's your homework for today .. and this time study closer.

I don't really care to read more pages of you babbling lies. Why does no one else agree with your "facts" or your definition of abortion? The FDA, the makers of Plan B, and gynecologists everywhere are on my side....but of course I have no reputable source. There's nothing else to say here.

 

[kerussll]

Can you imagine someone of his ilk speaking to a rape victim who is offered the morning after pill immediately following the rape? "you don't want this abortion pill, do you?"

Seriously, people have a contraception failure or forget to use...and want to be responsible and make sure they do not get pregnant. They take plan B. We should be commending them for wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But the reality is that dose is about 30-60 bucks, so it is not likely that they will be repeating this frequently.

Ugh, it's truly terrifying that people like him exist. Thank God they're rare and most have no real power to change anything. But any politician sharing his views (and there are some) cannot be tolerated. Vote the bat-shlt crazies out!

 

[year2late]

My opinion is this:


Effective goof proof long term birth control is a big help.

Yup.

Even better would be a male version of goof proof long term birth control. Can you imagine????

 

[Dragonfly]

Even better would be a male version of goof proof long term birth control. Can you imagine????

ummm.... vasectomy :2wave:

snip snip

 

[SassySmartie]

Yup.

Even better would be a male version of goof proof long term birth control. Can you imagine????

I have read that they are working on an easily reversible method that would be similar to having a vasectomy soon. Also, a male birth control pill.
And another method that doesn't involve hormones or sterilization.

 

[Ontologuy]

I don't really care to read more pages of you babbling lies.

Here you are obviously projecting in your ad hominem attack on a strawman.

Why does no one else agree with your "facts" or your definition of abortion?

Your question is based on a false premise, as many are aware of the facts that I've presented.

That people suffering from the pro-choice ideology deny the realities I present is to be expected, and many of them post in these threads.

The FDA, the makers of Plan B, and gynecologists everywhere are on my side....

False with respect to the FDA, obviously.

Whether or not the makers of Plan B are spinning a damage-control misinformation campaign in response to having the true mechanism of how Plan B works exposed is neither here nor there with respect to the facts of the matter as I presented, and, of course, the onus of proving your allegation here is on you.

Your phrase "gynecologists everywhere" is a glittering generality exaggeration, obviously, another careless misinformation presentation by Kerussll.

Competent medical health practioners present the abortifacient facts of Plan B, RU-486, the mini-pill, and other chemical abortion products to their patients as part of honest disclosure.

That pro-choice ideologue Planned Parenthood "medical practitioners" have been shown to not be truthfully open in disclosure on these matters is, though understandable, truly sad.

but of course I have no reputable source.

In truth, you simply and obvoiusly don't.

There's nothing else to say here.

You keep saying that .. yet you keep saying additional falsities.

Reality is as I have presented it.

There is always plenty to say to debunk pro-choice ideologue's misinformation campaigns about how chemical abortifacients like the morning-after pill, RU-486, and the min-pill birth control pill function.

 

[year2late]

ummm.... vasectomy :2wave:

snip snip

Vasectomy is an option, but currently is not reliably (or cheaply) reversible.

But it is a good option. Just not THE answer.

 

[year2late]

And, of course, science is coming close to creating artificial wombs that will support embryos, the very existence of which changes the week-demarcation of viability from around 22 to .. 2! This means that abortion on demand would be limited to the first few days following conception, supported by both Roe and Webster themselves .

Can't wait to see if Medicaid covers artificial uteri.

Will the artificial uterus be available to the basic working stiff?

Seriously, 2 weeks? Just because you can, does not mean you should.

 

[minnie616]

...


Competent medical health practioners present the abortifacient facts of Plan B, RU-486, the mini-pill, and other chemical abortion products to their patients as part of honest disclosure.

.

Plan B does not cause an abortion... It prevents ovulation.

If an egg were already fertilized Plan B does not interfere with implantation in fact it may even aid in implantation and the continuation of the pregnancy.

There is not enough time for plan B to change the lining of the uterus (if an egg was already fertilized ) as you claim.

See my my last post on this thread.

 

[minnie616]

Can't wait to see if Medicaid covers artificial uteri.

Will the artificial uterus be available to the basic working stiff?

Seriously, 2 weeks? Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Even if an artificial womb were created it is still a womb.
I doubt viability will be moved back because viability is defined by the Supreme Court
as being able to survive outside the womb.