[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Frievolk]

You may find it silly, but that was the way it was.

It was also, often, known and habitual abortionists that they imprisoned (rather than one-time abortionists). And, often only if someone died or became seriously ill and it was hard to ignore.

My granny had an abortion -- her fourth conception -- in the 1950s (before legalisation; backstreet). Now, I know this is only one person, so... YMMV (anecdote is not the single version of data, after all). But, granny always said everyone in the neighbourhood knew who the abortionist was. Did they do anything, contact an authority (even if they were the authority)? No.

I'm inclined to believe it, though. Hell, there were even open ads for abortion services in the Victorian era:

So -- let's go forward to some future dystopia -- abortion is banned. I won't go into Handmaid's Tale territory, we'll stop at abortion is banned.

What would really change? Abortion would become more dangerous and... that's it.

The number wouldn't reduce. There'd be a short-term blip in availability while the abortion doctors located new premises (they may change when the real believers tracked them down), but otherwise? Every police officer, doctor, nurse, lawyer, judge, solicitor, everyone either has had or knows -- in some way (cousin, aunt, friend, acquaintance, mother, sister, niece) -- someone who has had an abortion or will need one.

Will people report their friends?

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen is:
1. Ignoring the basic statistical truth that abortion is generally higher where abortion is not legal.
2. Essential brainwashing.
3. Putting the safety of an unborn entity that may become a person at some point above that of a citizen of the country (i.e. the mother)

[The Free Joy State]

1. NSG is international, so this poll indicates American consensus on nothing.
2. This poll demonstrates no consensus, except that most people are broadly in favour of abortion being available in at least some circumstances.
3. American support for abortion is high with 25% saying it should be always legal, 33% saying it should be legal in most cases, 24% saying it should be illegal in most cases, and only 16% saying it should be completely illegal. That shows a pretty heavy majority in favour of abortion always or mostly being legal in the US.

1. NSG is regularly and consistently more liberal than America. I would not be surprised if Americans would be even more restrictive with the same poll. Even if we assume Americans would be less restrictive, all that shows is what we already know, that American law is radical and out of step with the international community when it comes to abortion. Mind you, that is a hypothetical, since every indication has demonstrated that American society is more socially conservative than NSG.

2. Yes, that was one my major points. Completely banning it is not politically viable, but curtailing it is. The consensus is at medical emergencies because that is when we add up to a majority. The majority of poll respondents want to limit abortion to medical emergencies or they want even more restriction. What this shows is that America's abortion on demand is radical and unpopular.

Actually, you can select up to four options. There's no way of knowing how many other options those people also checked. So, no. It doesn't know that people want to restrict it to medical emergencies only, or that America's abortion stance is either radical or unpopular.

Curtailing it isn't viable. You can ban it in law, even curtail it. So what?

Ban it in country A? People will go to country B. Or doctors/nurses/Aunt Gladys-who-worked-in-a-GP-surgery-once will set up as backstreet abortion clinics. Do you really think that there'd be one fewer abortion?

There wouldn't. There'd be fewer safe abortions. But there'd be just as many as there are now.

Women who want/need abortions are desperate. Desperate women will run risks.

3. That is one poll. The same question from Gallup got very different results. 29% were in favor of always legal, 14% mostly legal, 35% few circumstances, and 18% illegal.

When we ask questions on specifically what the limit should be, we get a broad consensus for more restriction. 76% of Americans want to limit abortion to the first three months, a significant restriction supported by a huge majority. Even 60% of people who identify as pro-choice want that restriction. Pro-choice doesn't mean on demand abortion. The poll in this thread shows that, the rest of the world shows that, and this referenced poll clearly shows that. At some point one must see that they are in the radical minority when one's views are closer to that of North Korea's than other pro-choice Americans.

Actually, I added a second one.

Here is is, again:

Gallup, being fair, does reveal a fall-off of support for abortion between the first and third trimester. But support is still more than/nearly 50% for several causes:
--> Mother's life in danger:

--First Trimester: 83% support for abortion
--Third Trimester: 75% support

--> Rape/Incest

-- First Trimester: 77% support
-- Third Trimester: 52% support

-->Child would be born with a life-threatening illness

-- First Trimester: 67% support
-- Third Trimester: 48% support

Your Gallup poll shows that 48% identify as pro-life, 48% as pro-choice and 29% want abortion legal in all circumstances (slightly higher than my Pew poll, where only 25% want it legal under all circumstances) and 18% want it illegal under all circumstances (again, slightly higher, but a different test sample). The rest want it legal in some circumstances. But it doesn't specify which.

I wouldn't read that as calling for more restriction. I'd read that as a weak poll that doesn't allow respondents to specify as much as Pew.

Your second poll is a Catholic organisation. Come back with a more neutral source. Like the one I quoted from Gallup, which also says that people favour the cut-off limits -- which vary by reason -- for abortion.

[Telconi]

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen is:
1. Ignoring the basic statistical truth that abortion is generally higher where abortion is not legal.
2. Essential brainwashing.
3. Putting the safety of an unborn entity that may become a person at some point above that of a citizen of the country (i.e. the mother)

1)Due to inadequate execution
2)You're welcome to call it that.
3)It's already a person, and nobody said anything about putting it's safety over others.

[Frievolk]

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen is:
1. Ignoring the basic statistical truth that abortion is generally higher where abortion is not legal.
2. Essential brainwashing.
3. Putting the safety of an unborn entity that may become a person at some point above that of a citizen of the country (i.e. the mother)

1)Due to inadequate execution
2)You're welcome to call it that.
3)It's already a person, and nobody said anything about putting it's safety over others.

As countless people have argued, it is not. It does not become a person until after birth (in most cases).
I personally wouldn't even call it a human either until the 12th trimester, but that's my personal opinion tbh.

[Telconi]

1)Due to inadequate execution
2)You're welcome to call it that.
3)It's already a person, and nobody said anything about putting it's safety over others.

As countless people have argued, it is not. It does not become a person until after birth (in most cases).
I personally wouldn't even call it a human either until the 12th trimester, but that's my personal opinion tbh.

And, as has been pointed out, I'm not obligated to share your beliefs.

[The Free Joy State]

You may find it silly, but that was the way it was.

It was also, often, known and habitual abortionists that they imprisoned (rather than one-time abortionists). And, often only if someone died or became seriously ill and it was hard to ignore.

My granny had an abortion -- her fourth conception -- in the 1950s (before legalisation; backstreet). Now, I know this is only one person, so... YMMV (anecdote is not the single version of data, after all). But, granny always said everyone in the neighbourhood knew who the abortionist was. Did they do anything, contact an authority (even if they were the authority)? No.

I'm inclined to believe it, though. Hell, there were even open ads for abortion services in the Victorian era:

([url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Mrs._Bird%2C_female_physician_To_the_Ladies-Madame_Costello._LCCN2002719613.tif/lossy-page1-747px-Mrs._Bird%2C_female_physician_To_the_Ladies-Madame_Costello._LCCN2002719613.tif.jpg]Image)[/url]

So -- let's go forward to some future dystopia -- abortion is banned. I won't go into Handmaid's Tale territory, we'll stop at abortion is banned.

What would really change? Abortion would become more dangerous and... that's it.

The number wouldn't reduce. There'd be a short-term blip in availability while the abortion doctors located new premises (they may change when the real believers tracked them down), but otherwise? Every police officer, doctor, nurse, lawyer, judge, solicitor, everyone either has had or knows -- in some way (cousin, aunt, friend, acquaintance, mother, sister, niece) -- someone who has had an abortion or will need one.

Will people report their friends?

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

Telconi, the "removing obstruction" reference is in a real advert that openly promoted abortion services when it was illegal. In 1842.

Surely, the fact that it was very much illegal, and yet it was advertised suggests that -- despite laws -- women will have abortions.

In Brazil, where it is effectively banned, women obtain misoprostol (legitimately prescribed to treat stomach ulcers) to self-abort. There are about 1 million illegal abortions in Brazil alone. Every single year.

Restrictions on the drug won't work, because it's cheap to make, the WHO lists it as an essential drug (it also treats miscarriages), and -- as I said -- in the UK doctors used to actively conspire to declare every abortion (except where undeniable) a miscarriage.

You're talking about something doctors don't have the appetite to report, police don't have the heart to pursue and judges don't want to prosecute. You want to criminalise something unpoliceable.

Exactly how do you plan to prevent something that's 100% unreducable and unpreventable?

Because all the restriction, and changing attitudes and... all of that talk will do nothing when a desperate woman is actually in that situation.

[Vassenor]

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

Telconi, the "removing obstruction" reference is in a real advert that openly promoted abortion services when it was illegal. In 1842.

Surely, the fact that it was very much illegal, and yet it was advertised suggests that -- despite laws -- women will have abortions.

In Brazil, where it is effectively banned, women obtain misoprostol (legitimately prescribed to treat stomach ulcers) to self-abort. There are about 1 million illegal abortions in Brazil alone. Every single year.

Restrictions on the drug won't work, because it's cheap to make, the WHO lists it as an essential drug (it also treats miscarriages), and -- as I said -- in the UK doctors used to actively conspire to declare every abortion (except where undeniable) a miscarriage.

You're talking about something doctors don't have the appetite to report, police don't have the heart to pursue and judges don't want to prosecute. You want to criminalise something unpoliceable.

Exactly how do you plan to prevent something that's 100% unreducable and unpreventable?

Because all the restriction, and changing attitudes and... all of that talk will do nothing when a desperate woman is actually in that situation.

And how do you rationalise all that enforcement infrastructure with small government plans?

[Telconi]

Telconi, the "removing obstruction" reference is in a real advert that openly promoted abortion services when it was illegal. In 1842.

Surely, the fact that it was very much illegal, and yet it was advertised suggests that -- despite laws -- women will have abortions.

In Brazil, where it is effectively banned, women obtain misoprostol (legitimately prescribed to treat stomach ulcers) to self-abort. There are about 1 million illegal abortions in Brazil alone. Every single year.

Restrictions on the drug won't work, because it's cheap to make, the WHO lists it as an essential drug (it also treats miscarriages), and -- as I said -- in the UK doctors used to actively conspire to declare every abortion (except where undeniable) a miscarriage.

You're talking about something doctors don't have the appetite to report, police don't have the heart to pursue and judges don't want to prosecute. You want to criminalise something unpoliceable.

Exactly how do you plan to prevent something that's 100% unreducable and unpreventable?

Because all the restriction, and changing attitudes and... all of that talk will do nothing when a desperate woman is actually in that situation.

And how do you rationalise all that enforcement infrastructure with small government plans?

Pardon?

[The New California Republic]

You're talking about something doctors don't have the appetite to report, police don't have the heart to pursue and judges don't want to prosecute. You want to criminalise something unpoliceable.

Exactly how do you plan to prevent something that's 100% unreducable and unpreventable?

Because all the restriction, and changing attitudes and... all of that talk will do nothing when a desperate woman is actually in that situation.

And how do you rationalise all that enforcement infrastructure with small government plans?

It is a bit ironic that Telconi wants limited government, but banning and enforcing a ban on abortion would necessitate massive policing operations, to crack down on the inevitable tide of workarounds and back alley abortion clinics that such a ban would lead to. Surely you can see that Telconi? There is a fundamental contradiction in your ideals here. Something has got to give, it just has to, such a contradiction of ideals can't be maintained indefinitely...

[The New California Republic]

And how do you rationalise all that enforcement infrastructure with small government plans?

Pardon?

Basically what I just said.

[Telconi]

Pardon?

Basically what I just said.

Perhaps this doesn't fall within desired limitations?

[The New California Republic]

Basically what I just said.

Perhaps this doesn't fall within desired limitations?

So limited government except massive police crackdowns? Uh huh. Okay.

[Telconi]

Perhaps this doesn't fall within desired limitations?

So limited government except massive police crackdowns? Uh huh. Okay.

Limiting the scope of government doesn't imply it cannot execute that which continues to fall within its scope.

[The New California Republic]

So limited government except massive police crackdowns? Uh huh. Okay.

Limiting the scope of government doesn't imply it cannot execute that which continues to fall within its scope.

Try to bend and twist that square peg to fit in that round hole all you like, but limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be needed to enforce an abortion ban.

You will find very few people who think that massive police crackdowns are compatible with the concept of limited government.

[Hakons]

1. NSG is regularly and consistently more liberal than America. I would not be surprised if Americans would be even more restrictive with the same poll. Even if we assume Americans would be less restrictive, all that shows is what we already know, that American law is radical and out of step with the international community when it comes to abortion. Mind you, that is a hypothetical, since every indication has demonstrated that American society is more socially conservative than NSG.

2. Yes, that was one my major points. Completely banning it is not politically viable, but curtailing it is. The consensus is at medical emergencies because that is when we add up to a majority. The majority of poll respondents want to limit abortion to medical emergencies or they want even more restriction. What this shows is that America's abortion on demand is radical and unpopular.

Actually, you can select up to four options. There's no way of knowing how many other options those people also checked. So, no. It doesn't know that people want to restrict it to medical emergencies only, or that America's abortion stance is either radical or unpopular.

Curtailing it isn't viable. You can ban it in law, even curtail it. So what?

Ban it in country A? People will go to country B. Or doctors/nurses/Aunt Gladys-who-worked-in-a-GP-surgery-once will set up as backstreet abortion clinics. Do you really think that there'd be one fewer abortion?

There wouldn't. There'd be fewer safe abortions. But there'd be just as many as there are now.

Women who want/need abortions are desperate. Desperate women will run risks.

3. That is one poll. The same question from Gallup got very different results. 29% were in favor of always legal, 14% mostly legal, 35% few circumstances, and 18% illegal.

When we ask questions on specifically what the limit should be, we get a broad consensus for more restriction. 76% of Americans want to limit abortion to the first three months, a significant restriction supported by a huge majority. Even 60% of people who identify as pro-choice want that restriction. Pro-choice doesn't mean on demand abortion. The poll in this thread shows that, the rest of the world shows that, and this referenced poll clearly shows that. At some point one must see that they are in the radical minority when one's views are closer to that of North Korea's than other pro-choice Americans.

Actually, I added a second one.

Here is is, again:

Gallup, being fair, does reveal a fall-off of support for abortion between the first and third trimester. But support is still more than/nearly 50% for several causes:
--> Mother's life in danger:

--First Trimester: 83% support for abortion
--Third Trimester: 75% support

--> Rape/Incest

-- First Trimester: 77% support
-- Third Trimester: 52% support

-->Child would be born with a life-threatening illness

-- First Trimester: 67% support
-- Third Trimester: 48% support

Your Gallup poll shows that 48% identify as pro-life, 48% as pro-choice and 29% want abortion legal in all circumstances (slightly higher than my Pew poll, where only 25% want it legal under all circumstances) and 18% want it illegal under all circumstances (again, slightly higher, but a different test sample). The rest want it legal in some circumstances. But it doesn't specify which.

I wouldn't read that as calling for more restriction. I'd read that as a weak poll that doesn't allow respondents to specify as much as Pew.

Your second poll is a Catholic organisation. Come back with a more neutral source. Like the one I quoted from Gallup, which also says that people favour the cut-off limits -- which vary by reason -- for abortion.

It is plainly evident that America's abortion law is radical. Compare it to the majority of other nations, and America's laws are quite radical.

You're avoiding what I have been talking about. I'm not particularly arguining on abortion right now, but rather what people think of it. You can talk about availability, but I was never talking about that and your diversion is not related to the argument.

The trimester study still offers binary choices. In the real world there is a spectrum of what is considered and where people draw the line. Even if we go by your poll, abortion in demand isn't popular. How many times does this need to be demonstrated? When proponents like yourself avidly support abortion on demand and pretend every person who is pro-choice also supports you, there comes a point where it seems you are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.

The second poll was from Marist, while the organization reporting on it was Catholic. This is a microcosm of why I hate debating on this thread. It is valid data, and you're rejecting it because you don't want it to be true. The data is right there, it's even at the top of this thread. Abortion on demand is not popular. It is radical, barbaric, uncivilized, and rejected by the international community. When I argue for the abolishment of abortion, I don't give any pretensions that my position is in the majorty. When you argue for radical on demand policies, I ask that you don't pretend it is popular or in the majority.

[The Free Joy State]

Basically what I just said.

Perhaps this doesn't fall within desired limitations?

Now, I know you said you'd like to introduce measures that would make people less likely to choose abortion (which, in fairness -- if we're talking about greater educational opportunities, healthcare and welfare support and destigmatising women and families who use welfare in hard times -- I'm all for).

Here it is (highlighted, because it kind of got lost).

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

Now, I have to ask, honest question. There's only ever a limited budget. (Assuming you had the power) you can choose to allocate your resources to harsh, punitive police crackdowns on illegal abortions (which I've already gone into the downsides of, so I won't dwell more on that) or you can allocate the funds to supporting women and families and alleviating the social issues that lead to a sizable percentage of abortions.

Just out of interest, which would you choose?

[Telconi]

Limiting the scope of government doesn't imply it cannot execute that which continues to fall within its scope.

Try to bend and twist that square peg to fit in that round hole all you like, but limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be needed to enforce an abortion ban.

You will find very few people who think that massive police crackdowns are compatible with the concept of limited government.

The number of people I find with such beliefs isn't relevant.

[Telconi]

Perhaps this doesn't fall within desired limitations?

Now, I know you said you'd like to introduce measures that would make people less likely to choose abortion (which, in fairness -- if we're talking about greater educational opportunities, healthcare and welfare support and destigmatising women and families who use welfare in hard times -- I'm all for).

Here it is (highlighted, because it kind of got lost).

Firstly, the idea that there would be no reduction strikes me as absolutely preposterous. If laws were enacted to prevent abortions being carried out, fewer abortions would be carried out. Secondly, accompanying programs would be a necessity to implement the necessary laws. There would need to be a concerted effort to offset and alleviate the reasons people undergo abortions. Lastly there would need to be public education campaigns, telling people that abortion is not just "removing obstruction" or any such nonsense. These would serve to shift the attitude away from it being an acceptable medical procedure.

Now, I have to ask, honest question. There's only ever a limited budget. (Assuming you had the power) you can choose to allocate your resources to harsh, punitive police crackdowns on illegal abortions (which I've already gone into the downsides of, so I won't dwell more on that) or you can allocate the funds to supporting women and families and alleviating the social issues that lead to a sizable percentage of abortions.

Just out of interest, which would you choose?

I think social programs to alleviate the base issues would be both more effective at reducing abortion, and less destructive towards our society, so definitely those.

[The New California Republic]

Try to bend and twist that square peg to fit in that round hole all you like, but limited government is incompatible with the kind of massive nationwide police crackdowns that would be needed to enforce an abortion ban.

You will find very few people who think that massive police crackdowns are compatible with the concept of limited government.

The number of people I find with such beliefs isn't relevant.

Of course it isn't ( ), but it doesn't really bode well for those two beliefs being compatible, does it? Way to cynically avoid the point. That is just bad, Telconi, really bad...

[Telconi]

The number of people I find with such beliefs isn't relevant.

Of course it isn't ( ), but it doesn't really bode well for those two beliefs being compatible, does it? Way to cynically avoid the point. That is just bad, Telconi, really bad...

There was a point?

[The New California Republic]

Of course it isn't ( ), but it doesn't really bode well for those two beliefs being compatible, does it? Way to cynically avoid the point. That is just bad, Telconi, really bad...

There was a point?

Yup, that your two beliefs are incompatible, but go ahead, dodge and weave some more as you have done here, again...

[Telconi]

There was a point?

Yup, that your two beliefs are incompatible, but go ahead, dodge and weave some more as you have done here, again...

Clearly you are the arbiter of my beliefs, how silly of me to have forgotten.

[The New California Republic]

Yup, that your two beliefs are incompatible, but go ahead, dodge and weave some more as you have done here, again...

Clearly you are the arbiter of my beliefs, how silly of me to have forgotten.

When you display two incompatible beliefs, then it is pretty obvious...

[Telconi]

Clearly you are the arbiter of my beliefs, how silly of me to have forgotten.

When you display two incompatible beliefs, then it is pretty obvious...

Sure.

[The New California Republic]

When you display two incompatible beliefs, then it is pretty obvious...

Sure.

Indeed. Clear as day. Limited government is not compatible with the kind of over-the-top government meddling that would be required to enforce an abortion ban. Clear contradiction of two beliefs.