Jump to content
IGNORED

Planned Parenthood Shooter


Catey

Recommended Posts

Im too lazy to quote, but Yes he's a domestic terrorist because terrorist is someone who uses violence or threatens violence to enforce political aims. Im not surprised 73% of those having abortions claim religion.
And the ones who denounce Sanger calling her 'racist' don't know she was GOP. She wanted dot do something about women dying after kid eleventy. Some poster in another forum claimed her mother had TB and would have died anyway.

The accepted political science definition of terrorism is violence committed by non-state actors to further a political goal. Assuming the Planned Parenthood shooter went on a rampage to kill abortion providers or otherwise disrupt the normal business of the clinic, then it's appropriate to call him a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The videos never actually called for someone to go and kill Planned Parenthood workers so I really don't think anyone can be (legally, at least) held responsible for this but the person himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is thick... I in no way condone his actions or his acts of murder / violence / terrorist behavior, but the pots are calling the kettle black in this case for those of us that do believe that abortion is murder. Of course those of us who believe that abortion is actually baby murder, and exercise our freedom of speech to say so, are now going to be all lumped into association with a "terrorist" and implications will be made that we encouraged his behavior which has legal implications in this era of law, so it's a good strategic / PR move on the part of PP to label him that. Wickedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is thick... I in no way condone his actions or his acts of murder / violence / terrorist behavior, but the pots are calling the kettle black in this case for those of us that do believe that abortion is murder. Of course those of us who believe that abortion is actually baby murder, and exercise our freedom of speech to say so, are now going to be all lumped into association with a "terrorist" and implications will be made that we encouraged his behavior which has legal implications in this era of law, so it's a good strategic / PR move on the part of PP to label him that. Wickedness.

Thing is, the tapes were pretty much proved to be fraudulent.  Those supporting that "view" like Carly Fiona, equally fraudulent.  There are indeed loose cannons out there, of all varieties.  But those that spew hate and violence are going to gather more of them, and prod them to actually act.   Watched the buildup to the Tiller murder, and watched the usual suspects decline, as always, any responsibility for what they were advocating. 

 

Point being: abortion IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW  in this country.  No matter what the nut cases wish, want, hope for.   An extremely conservative Supreme Court continues to uphold RoeVWade.   Forcing a woman to bear a child--forced birth--may be an idea that appeals to Dominionists, but to very few others.

This is a bit of interesting history on the subject, lol!

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is thick... I in no way condone his actions or his acts of murder / violence / terrorist behavior, but the pots are calling the kettle black in this case for those of us that do believe that abortion is murder. Of course those of us who believe that abortion is actually baby murder, and exercise our freedom of speech to say so, are now going to be all lumped into association with a "terrorist" and implications will be made that we encouraged his behavior which has legal implications in this era of law, so it's a good strategic / PR move on the part of PP to label him that. Wickedness.

Terror has been defined above as the use of violence to achieve political goals. Seems to fit, no? If you're doing to object on the basis of a PR driven selection of the term terror, perhaps you might want to reflect on the use of 'murder' as a just-as-value-laden-and-subjective-term. 

 Given you're calling millions of women murderers (no doubt, there will be many tens of dozens on this very board), I'm sure you'd be willing to accept they might see you as supporting a movement that has given rise to domestic terrorists.  No more or less 'wicked', no?

And if you don't - well... You know.  Perhaps you might want to moderate your own language.  Mutual respect and all.  We all have a choice between being right and actually changing 'hearts and minds'.  (fwiw: I'm posting this in you because you liked my post about being willing to consider the POV of people opposed to abortion.  you don't get to like that argument without realising that buddy, it applies just as much to you, too). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planned Parenthood labeled Dear a terrorist as a PR move? Yeah, no. Nice try. That would be the actions and words of Dear that is labeling him a terrorist. According to a recent report, a police official said that Dear made reference to baby parts and being anti-abortion. Sure, there is some more investigating that needs to happen in regards to his motive, but he was at a freaking Planned Parenthood killing people. I think we may know what his motives were.

Sure, it might be that no one in the pro-life camp directly stated this is what needed to happen, but after months and months of lies and over the top rhetoric, a long with the lax gun laws in the States, can we really be surprised this happened? There is a lot of inciting going on as of late. Since the release of those tapes, several clinics have been targeted. Heck, we have people running for office spewing lies and trying to defund the healthcare of women based on those same lies. While those same people are clutching their pearls over Syrian immigrants, I am much more concerned with the grown terrorist that have easy assess to weapons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslim lifestyles and political and societal ideas vary as greatly as Christian ones. Saying they are the only ones who have a problem with violence and extremism greatly neglects that Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism all face similar problems with these issues. Violence is a human issue, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is thick... I in no way condone his actions or his acts of murder / violence / terrorist behavior, but the pots are calling the kettle black in this case for those of us that do believe that abortion is murder. Of course those of us who believe that abortion is actually baby murder, and exercise our freedom of speech to say so, are now going to be all lumped into association with a "terrorist" and implications will be made that we encouraged his behavior which has legal implications in this era of law, so it's a good strategic / PR move on the part of PP to label him that. Wickedness.

So lets say there is an organization that teaches children from they time they are little that all people with blond hair are evil murders and murders deserve death. Someone raised that way grows up and follows the logical conclusion of those teachings and decides to take matters into his own hands and kill people with blond hair. Wouldn't you think that the teachings he was raised with played a part in his actions? 

Same with the anti-choice movement(since absolutely no real fucks are given about the quality of life women have, you don't get to claim the term pro-life), instead of focusing on real ways to lower the abortion rate and being honest that making it illegal will only cause more death, they typically focus on how it is murdering babies, and a lot of times that is along with teaching that murder is wrong and murderers deserve death. So why shouldn't we discuss how these teachings can play into a person deciding to take matters into his own hands and kill the people he has been told murders babies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) So lets say there is an organization that teaches children from they time they are little that all people with blond hair are evil murders and murders deserve death. Someone raised that way grows up and follows the logical conclusion of those teachings and decides to take matters into his own hands and kill people with blond hair. Wouldn't you think that the teachings he was raised with played a part in his actions? 

(2) (a) Same with the anti-choice movement(since absolutely no real fucks are given about the quality of life women have, you don't get to claim the term pro-life), (b) instead of focusing on real ways to lower the abortion rate and being honest that making it illegal will only cause more death, they typically focus on how it is murdering babies, and a lot of times that is along with teaching that murder is wrong and murderers deserve death. (c) So why shouldn't we discuss how these teachings can play into a person deciding to take matters into his own hands and kill the people he has been told murders babies? 

(1) Not if they were also taught that justice required evidence and proof of guilt and a non-vigilante solution.

(2) (a) That's just flat out something I cannot agree with. I care about the quality of life of women and others I know of actually do, too. For instance I actually understand the whole "life of the mother" argument, etc... and don't have a problem with it.

(b) Making it illegal will only cause more death? More death than what, the thousands of babies? Ok, that's silly logic for me. If abortion is outlawed, literally tens or hundreds of thousands of babies won't be dying. If it becomes illegal, I can't see more than 2-300 women dying per year in botched illegal abortions. I'm not for women dying in botched illegal abortions, but the "numbers" aren't going to win me on that argument. Besides, in that case, it's the woman's choice to undergo the procedure, something the babies currently getting killed don't have - any choice whatsoever.

(c) Fine, but understand that it is a legitimate moral argument that it is indeed the killing of a life, and please don't tell me it's more moral for you to brand pro-lifers as terrorists or potential terrorists than it is for us to label abortion doctors as baby-killers.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip* Ok, that's silly logic for me. If abortion is outlawed, literally tens or hundreds of thousands of babies won't be dying. If it becomes illegal, I can't see more than 2-300 women dying per year in botched illegal abortions. I'm not for women dying in botched illegal abortions, but the "numbers" aren't going to win me on that argument. Besides, in that case, it's the woman's choice to undergo the procedure, something the babies currently getting killed don't have - any choice whatsoever.

the bolded is such wishful thinking. I wish that was the case. In reality, there were entire wards in hospitals dedicated to botched abortions. Because there were enough women at any given time to dedicate an entire ward. I emphasize with you, I truly do. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, but keeping it safe and legal is the best moral thing to do in my opinion. Not only for the poor quality of life an unwanted child has, but for all the women who preform home abortions or pay some guy in an alley $500 to either be raped or have a coat hanger or knife stuck up their vagina and being left with no after care or doctor advise. Or antibiotics. Seriously, look into the history of abortions in America before roe v wade. That's starting to happen again in Texas where there are 3 health centers which preform abortion in the entire state. It's terrifying and, to me, going backwards in time. 

 

I say this with all the respect in the world, I hope I don't come across as snarky for once, it's just a passionate topic for me and I love respectful debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bolded is such wishful thinking. I wish that was the case. In reality, there were entire wards in hospitals dedicated to botched abortions. Because there were enough women at any given time to dedicate an entire ward. I emphasize with you, I truly do. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, but keeping it safe and legal is the best moral thing to do in my opinion. Not only for the poor quality of life an unwanted child has, but for all the women who preform home abortions or pay some guy in an alley $500 to either be raped or have a coat hanger or knife stuck up their vagina and being left with no after care or doctor advise. Or antibiotics. Seriously, look into the history of abortions in America before roe v wade. That's starting to happen again in Texas where there are 3 health centers which preform abortion in the entire state. It's terrifying and, to me, going backwards in time. 

 

I say this with all the respect in the world, I hope I don't come across as snarky for once, it's just a passionate topic for me and I love respectful debate.

Do you have a link to some statistics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorist is such an over-used word these days. Some people one government labels "terrorists" may be doing nothing but protecting their own homes from invaders. Others may be genuine disrupters of nations and people groups.
 

Terrorism is not protecting your home from invaders. It is the unfettered use of random violence in support of a political cause, with the objective of provoking fear. I don't agree that the word is overused, but that the use of terrorism has increased.

BTW, the first part of the 911 Commission report gave an excellent primer on the Arab world and Islam, it was very good reading and set the context for the information that followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a link to some statistics?

Do you? Please, tell me where your stupid 300 a year number came from. You started this line of thought, you back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Not if they were also taught that justice required evidence and proof of guilt and a non-vigilante solution.

(2) (a) That's just flat out something I cannot agree with. I care about the quality of life of women and others I know of actually do, too. For instance I actually understand the whole "life of the mother" argument, etc... and don't have a problem with it.

(b) Making it illegal will only cause more death? More death than what, the thousands of babies? Ok, that's silly logic for me. If abortion is outlawed, literally tens or hundreds of thousands of babies won't be dying. If it becomes illegal, I can't see more than 2-300 women dying per year in botched illegal abortions. I'm not for women dying in botched illegal abortions, but the "numbers" aren't going to win me on that argument. Besides, in that case, it's the woman's choice to undergo the procedure, something the babies currently getting killed don't have - any choice whatsoever.

(c) Fine, but understand that it is a legitimate moral argument that it is indeed the killing of a life, and please don't tell me it's more moral for you to brand pro-lifers as terrorists or potential terrorists than it is for us to label abortion doctors as baby-killers.
 

1. I was raised anti-choice, but I realized something at some point, despite all the "baby killing!" that went on, nobody really treated abortion like babies were being killed. Nobody treated a fetus like they would a five month old. If I really, truly believed that there was a legal organization murdering babies I would do anything to protect those babies. Why wouldn't you use vigilante methods to stop babies from being murdered?

2. Do you care about the quality of life the mothers have? Do you know what happens to women who want abortions but are denied them? It doesn't improve their lives, most of the time their lives get worse, while women who were allowed abortions had lives that improved. If you truly care about the quality of life a woman has, then you won't force her through an unwanted pregnancy because you will understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial toll that forced birth can take on a woman. 

3. I'm reminded of your thoughts about how the South would have totally ended slavery in ten years. You have no clue. Do you have ANY fucking idea how desperate a woman must be to seek out an illegal abortion?  Tell me again how you care about the quality of women's lives. I think you also SEVERELY underestimate the number of women who will die or suffer, but I guess that eight week old fetus matters more to you? 

4. I'm guessing you don't want to talk about how teaching that abortion is murder and murders deserve death could play into creating an anti-choice terrorists? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bolded is such wishful thinking. I wish that was the case. In reality, there were entire wards in hospitals dedicated to botched abortions. Because there were enough women at any given time to dedicate an entire ward. I emphasize with you, I truly do. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, but keeping it safe and legal is the best moral thing to do in my opinion. Not only for the poor quality of life an unwanted child has, but for all the women who preform home abortions or pay some guy in an alley $500 to either be raped or have a coat hanger or knife stuck up their vagina and being left with no after care or doctor advise. Or antibiotics. Seriously, look into the history of abortions in America before roe v wade. That's starting to happen again in Texas where there are 3 health centers which preform abortion in the entire state. It's terrifying and, to me, going backwards in time. 

 

I say this with all the respect in the world, I hope I don't come across as snarky for once, it's just a passionate topic for me and I love respectful debate.

It might have been in a book I read, but I remember reading about illegal abortions and it was a very high number of women who died. I"m thinking over 10,000 a year and the number was probably higher because the cause of death was often lied about to try and protect the women and their families. It was shocking to me the high number and scary to think that we could go back to that. One of the issues was that because what they were doing was illegal, women didn't seek medical care after a back alley abortion because they knew they would get in trouble.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that workers at PP are very brave and I am glad they are willing to work in a very hard job that is mainly education and providing health services to women.  

A lot of religious and political conservatives have no clue what PP really is/does- they only see it as abortion providers.  I was taught (growing up in the IFB) that PP was worse than Hitler and had no idea they did anything except "give out the pill and perform abortions." We were told that because they give girls the pill that VD was spreading and those women were now sterile/have less children.  When I actually learned the scope of care they give I was amazed at how much they do for communities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Not if they were also taught that justice required evidence and proof of guilt and a non-vigilante solution.

(2) (a) That's just flat out something I cannot agree with. I care about the quality of life of women and others I know of actually do, too. For instance I actually understand the whole "life of the mother" argument, etc... and don't have a problem with it.

(b) Making it illegal will only cause more death? More death than what, the thousands of babies? Ok, that's silly logic for me. If abortion is outlawed, literally tens or hundreds of thousands of babies won't be dying. If it becomes illegal, I can't see more than 2-300 women dying per year in botched illegal abortions. I'm not for women dying in botched illegal abortions, but the "numbers" aren't going to win me on that argument. Besides, in that case, it's the woman's choice to undergo the procedure, something the babies currently getting killed don't have - any choice whatsoever.

(c) Fine, but understand that it is a legitimate moral argument that it is indeed the killing of a life, and please don't tell me it's more moral for you to brand pro-lifers as terrorists or potential terrorists than it is for us to label abortion doctors as baby-killers.
 

The abortion rate pre-Roe v. Wade was estimated to be 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, which isn't really that different than the way it is today. In fact, in 1930 complications from illegal abortions made up one-fifth of the maternal deaths recorded that year, which is about 2,700 women. The number of annual deaths from illegal abortion didn't go under 200 until the 1960s, when the discovery of antibiotics made recovery from botched abortions much easier. However, the percentage of botched abortions that comprised maternal death remained unchanged, around eighteen percent. A study done among poor women in New York City found that 1 in 10 had tried to end a pregnancy through an illegal abortion and 38 percent knew of a friend or relative who had tried to do the same thing. And that's just in New York City.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

Now, you may be saying, "Why should I trust any statistics done by the Guttmacher Institute when they're allied with Planned Parenthood?" The answer is conservative organizations don't do serious peer-reviewed research about contraception and abortion. And even if they did, what would they do with the information? Pope Paul VI's Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, which was comprised of scientists and married Catholic laypeople, recommended he drop the Catholic church's prohibition on contraception, and he did the exact opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

I imagine the same would be true for conservative Protestant groups like Focus on the Family and the like, were they to do research on contraception and abortion.

Abortion may not have been talked about in "polite society" pre-Roe v. Wade, but the impression I get is that many people not only knew a woman who had had an abortion but also knew who the local abortionist was (see The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America by Linda Gordon for more information). For rich women, access to safe, legal abortion was never a problem, because they knew sympathetic doctors who would give them one or they could go abroad and clam they were on a vacation. It's only poor and middle class women who are impacted by violence at Planned Parenthood clinics, while the rich keep on doing what they've been doing.

Furthermore, if you honestly believe that a fetus or an embryo is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby or a two-year old child, there would have to be a massive expansion of the government to protect "unborn human life," like the establishment of a Unborn Children Protection Unit. All women of childbearing age, which could be anywhere from nine year old girls to mature women in their early 50s would have to be regularly examined to ensure that they aren't hiding evidence of an abortion. Miscarriages and even heavy periods would have to be treated as potential crime scenes, and women who can't explain why they are miscarrying or having a suspiciously heavy period would have to be imprisoned. You may think this sounds silly, but it actually happened during the Ceausescu regime in Romania, when he banned contraception and abortion to increase the country's birthrate:

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

It was one of the late dictator's cruelest commands. At first Romania's birthrate nearly doubled. But poor nutrition and inadequate prenatal care endangered many pregnant women. The country's infant-mortality rate soard to 83 deaths in every 1,000 births (against a Western European average of less than 10 per thousand). About one in 10 babies was born underweight; newborns weighing 1,500 grams (3 pounds, 5 ounces) were classified as miscarriages and denied treatment. Unwanted survivors often ended up in orphanages. "The law only forbade abortion," says Dr. Alexander Floran Anca of Bucharest. "It did nothing to promote life."

Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."

What happened is that the illegal abortion rate soared and abortion rates in modern day Romania are still astronomically high, because a generation of women became accustomed to using it, rather than reliable birth control. Romanian orphanages are still full of unwanted and abandoned children, the tragic legacy of Ceausescu's warped pro-natal drive. These articles are rather old, unfortunately, but they show how banning abortion led to an "abortion culture" in Romania:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-05/news/mn-560_1_birth-control

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/21/world/romania-s-communist-legacy-abortion-culture.html

We know what happens when a modern country bans abortion and contraception, and that country is called Romania. Forgive me if I'm not hankering to following in Ceausescu's footsteps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny the GOP has nothing to say. These idiots are scared of refugees yet white people are the biggest terrorist in this country.  I already read the excuses for his actions.  But if he were black or Muslim.....

Surprisingly, Ben Carson has denounced this situation for what it is.  Carly Fiorina though calls it "left-wing rhetoric" and says it has nothing to do with abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone really wants to lower abortion rates, they should be advocating for comprehensive sex education, free and easy access to birth control, better maternity leave, and supporting government programs that help poor women. But the biggest anti-choice organizations aren't exactly known for supporting the measures that will actually lower abortion rates.

And Cleopatra is right, if someone really believes a fetus is equal to a baby that is already born, then they need to actually start treating them that way, but it is rare to find a "pro-life" person who does that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was raised to believe that the Death Penalty was wrong, and everyone I knew felt that way and it was something I really held to be true would my conviction morally allow me to attack and kill correctional officers or Dr's that performed the executions?

Of course not, it would allow me to tell any and everyone who would listen my views, it would allow me to vote with this in mind, it would allow me to peacefully assemble to support my view point, it would allow me the means that are held to be acceptable the outlets to respond to what I view as murder.

I think that holding out for the facts is always prudent, yet at the same time I can hear my Nana saying if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

The point is this, I highly doubt that his being at a PP was coincidence, I could be wrong it has happened before but I think this time it looks like a pretty safe bet.

There are elements within the ProLife/Anti Choice movement that use words in a reckless and dangerous manner, facts need to be correct before you spout them as there ARE people who for reasons of either excessive belief or mental illness are susceptible to what you are saying. We ALL as human beings have a moral obligation to try to do the right thing in society. Words matter and maybe it is time to reflect on the words that we use when we are putting things out there that could have a detrimental effect on others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The videos never actually called for someone to go and kill Planned Parenthood workers so I really don't think anyone can be (legally, at least) held responsible for this but the person himself.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!?

(Yeah, I get that there is not a direct cause/effect relationship between the video and the shooting, but the makers of that video certainly were sounding all the right dog whistles for whackos to pick up on. Again, not saying it was their intent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it is, there's already a push to criminalize miscarriages, by forcing women to prove that they didn't intentionally cause it to happen in some way. The forced birthers don't even care about the fetus once it's born as they don't want to provide medical care, and it's even worse if the fetus is born into poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

 

Ever since Texas passed HB2 in 2013, the omnibus abortion law at the heart of a pivotal case the Supreme Court will review early next year, more than half of the state's 41 abortion clinics have been forced to close. As these closures have mounted, advocates in the state have worried that the decline in abortion access could lead to a rise in the number of women trying to terminate pregnancies by themselves.

A new study quantifies some of those fears: At least 100,000 Texas women—and as many as 240,000—between the ages of 18 and 49 have attempted to self-induce abortions, according to a report released today by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP). The study also found that it is possible that the rate of women attempting to self-induce abortions is rising in Texas as a result of the state's additional restrictions on abortion care. The report points to previous studies that have explored the correlation between a rise in abortion restrictions and the prevalence of self-induced abortions. A 2008 national study found that about 2 percent of women reported that they tried to terminate pregnancies on their own. In 2012, a year after Texas passed several new abortion restrictions, a study of Texas women seeking care at an abortion clinic found that about 7 percent reported attempting to end their pregnancies without medical assistance before seeking clinic care.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/thousands-texas-women-are-trying-self-induce-abortions

 

In a study published today (Oct. 4) in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers provided free methods of reversible, reliable contraception to more than 9,000 teens and women in the St. Louis area. They found that the program reduced the abortion rate among these women by 62 percent to 78 percent.

 http://www.livescience.com/23726-birth-control-abortion-rate.html

Pretty clear that it's fairly easy to reduce abortion numbers.  But the forced-birthers are NOT interested in doing so.  They seem to be more interested in feeling virtuous, and moral, and all around good peeps as contrasted to them sluts that get themselves preggers without their approval.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!?

(Yeah, I get that there is not a direct cause/effect relationship between the video and the shooting, but the makers of that video certainly were sounding all the right dog whistles for whackos to pick up on. Again, not saying it was their intent).

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!?--Oh, indeed, lol!

[like your avatar. . . . ]

future.thumb.PNG.6da7aeb14f0b86609490e38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Abortion may not have been talked about in "polite society" pre-Roe v. Wade, but the impression I get is that many people not only knew a woman who had had an abortion but also knew who the local abortionist was

*Raises hand

I attended a tiny Catholic girls' high school pre-Roe v. Wade, and I knew half a dozen young women who had abortions. I also knew that in most cases family doctors of these middle class students would perform abortions quietly under the guise of some other procedure. Naturally, the names of the physicians weren't bandied about, but they would be available upon request.

Poorer students in other environments had fewer options, of course.

Laws will not stop abortions. As many have stated, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide affordable, reliable contraceptives and good sex education. Advocates I've worked with wanted abortion to be available and safe, but also rare.

ETA: This also makes interesting reading: "The only moral abortion is my abortion." It's an attitude I've encountered, although not to the extreme of some of the stories in this article.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.