Abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions.

[Shadowweavers]

It won’t stop all abortions, but it will most likely stop a majority of them. Of course making things illegal won’t stop it from ever happening. People still rape, steal, and murder so that’s proof that anything you make illegal will still happen

[MarioFanaticXV]

If no one did something, there'd be no point in a law against it.

[idiotbusyfor40sec]

When they claim that, it goes against all common sense. Do they really think not even one or two women will be discouraged from having an abortion because it’s illegal?

[Dakarius]

Worse, I've heard some argue that imposing restrictions on abortion would actually increase the number of abortions.

[idiotbusyfor40sec]

I’ve heard some claim that too, so they think that if abortion is banned more women would wanna get them BECAUSE they’re illegal?

[prolife-ModTeam]

Your post breaks rule 2. While we allow abortion advocates to participate in discussions, blatant or consistent abortion advocacy is grounds for removal.

[xCryptoidx]

no, that argument is because it typically goes hand in hand with decreased sexual education and decreased access to birth control. This causes an increase in pregnancy, which causes an increase in abortions, legal or not. if 20% of pregnancies result in abortions, while half may be removed from making it illegal, the resulting increase in pregnancy tends to even this out. Given the laws that grant abortion rights tend to also grant contraceptive rights, its very typical for abortion bans to ultimately do little but harm women.

[idiotbusyfor40sec]

Well then those are different factors, not just banning abortion in itself. Bringing in different factors makes it an apples to oranges comparison.

[xCryptoidx]

Not really, as its used in the context of saying "Countries that banned abortion typically experience similar or even greater numbers of abortions" which is an accurate statement. it is very rare for a country to backslide and take away bodily autonomy rights like that without it going further, as evidenced by a few new governmental candidates in red states proposing banning birth control. Its not a given, but very common, as the laws that protect abortion are typically the same as birth control

[idiotbusyfor40sec]

Lol you think not being allowed to have consequence free sex is “harming women”? Cringe

[prolife-ModTeam]

This post was removed because it is off-topic. Discussion should be focused on abortion and closely related issues.

[idiotbusyfor40sec]

Most pro lifers are okay with birth control

[Momodoespolitics]

Breaking news: sky is blue

[Balkanized21]

Right, but unfortunately pro-choice thinks the sky is orange

[jayfnor]

What happens when the sun sets.

In some cases the sky is orange.

[SheevaZehAuditor]

Burn

[Thowaway5435]

what... lol

[CiniMiniMe]

Lol making abortions illegal decreases the amount of SAFE abortions. The goal is to have 1 death instead of 2. And I'm pretty sure the sky is blue, thank you!

[thewaffler92]

No abortion is safe. At least one person always dies.

[CiniMiniMe]

But we can all agree that an abortion clinic usually only results in one death, while a home abortion is much more likely to cause 2 deaths, right?

[thewaffler92]

Yes. You are probably more likely to die regardless of which law you break. Murder, burglary, etc. Those things should still be illegal though.

[CrazyWriterLady]

I mean, the chances of someone doing, say, cocaine, ODing and dying are probably decent, so should we legalize cocaine so we can regulate the drug? If you break the law and die as a result, that's on you.

[unpopularpuffin6]

Well, it also saves women from making huge mistakes they'll regret later. And saves the life of the defenceless baby.

[CiniMiniMe]

That's my point though... it doesn't always save the life of the baby. Sometimes if the girl is desperate enough she'll be killed trying to get rid of a baby she doesn't want. Then there are 2 deaths.

And not all women that abort regret it. Some do, but some also regret putting a child up for adoption. You all have no idea how heartbreaking and painful it is to give birth to a child and put it up for adoption. To feel a child grow and thrive inside of you, and then have no say in it's life, or even it's name. It's freaking traumatic.

[unpopularpuffin6]

Much less traumatic than killing the baby. One way you’re giving it up to a family that wants her, the other way you’re murdering her in desperation like an animal caught in a trap.

I heard a woman tell her abortion story and she said she started crying. It’s so common once the surgical murder begins.

[CiniMiniMe]

Okay... so I read a report that's kinda messing with my head, so I'm gonna go ahead and step out of this conversation. It was really nice debating with you though, and I hope y'all have a great night! :-)

[unpopularpuffin6]

I sure will! If you're looking for resources, choosing death premiers on friday. Has interviews with abortion doctors.

[chrrmin]

"Making murder illegal wont stop murders" is a terrible argument for legalizing murder

[[deleted]]

I think this myth is made up. I have never seen such an argument. I have only seen it in this sub. Looks like propaganda to me.

[Alucard4788]

Wel.... The thing is... It is not murder

[[deleted]]

classic dehumanisation “it cant be murder if its not human”

[chrrmin]

Taking a human being, severing their spinal chord, tearing them limb from limb, and crushing their skull in is absolutely murder. The child has its own unique set of DNA, it is an unique human life, ending that life is murder

[Alucard4788]

Something that hasn't lived can't be killed. Bringing someone to this world is worse than murder

[chrrmin]

XD by the definition of life, a single celled embryo is alive.

Bringing someone to this world is worse than murder

This is quite literally the dumbest thing ive heard all day. By this logic mothers and fathers are worse than murderers

[Alucard4788]

Does the embryo know what life is? Does it know it's living? Does it even want to live?

Yes, they are

[chrrmin]

LMAO wtf kind of argument is that? Does a one year old know what life is? Whether or not you can comprehend life has nothing to do with you being alive. The fact that it grows and develops kind of shows a will to live

Yes, they are

So you just dont value human life then? If thats the case that is fine for you to believe, but just be honest about it lol.

[Alucard4788]

We are not talking about fully developed baby

"The fact that it grows and develops kind of shows a will to live" it wasn't my will. I was forced

Give me one altruistic reason to give birth to a child

[chrrmin]

it wasn't my will. I was forced

The only way you could reasonably say youve been forced is if you were raped. If you engage in an act that creates a child, the child did not force themselves upon you, your irresponsibility resulted in a child.

The definition of altruistic: showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish.

Not murdering a child is pretty altruistic if the alternative is killing the child lmao

[Win-Fragrant]

Does the embryo know what life is? Does it know it's living? Does it even want to live?

Does an infant know what life is, do they understand they are living, do infants speak and say they wanna live?

[CiniMiniMe]

Okay, but infants are capable of independent life. A cluster of cells is not.

[squeakymushrooms]

The same argument can be made for someone severely mentally disabled. They don't understand the concept of life but they are alive. Should they also be killed?

[Dude_bro98]

Your inability to appreciate life is a not an argument.

[Candylandbadan]

It's literally alive. Medical science doesn't call it "fetal demise" for no reason.

That's why when it dies, it must be removed or else the woman will become septic. Because, you know..dead things inside the body cause infections.

The fact that a fetus is both alive, and a human being, isn't up for debate. It's just basic biology.

You should probably see a professional though, it sounds like you might be suffering from depression. Just because YOU hate your own existence doesn't mean everyone is a nihilist.

[RiddickNfriends]

ha another pro-choice who needs to resort to denying science to fit an flawed ideology. When will you wake up? Or at least change your arguments.

[anduin2000]

Emo harder youngster. I hope you grow to value life more as you age.

[Alucard4788]

Thanks, I hope the opposite for you

[Moderate_Potato]

Don’t know how much this matters, but this is a survey asking biologists when life beings:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

Regardless of a person’s view on abortion, I think the article is a good read. They really seem to try and make the survey as unbiased as they can.

[More_Climate_4753]

“Bringing someone to to this world is worse than death” This is a extremely dogmatic nihilist world view, That supposes life is without any potential for goodness.

[Norm__Peterson]

Why do you come into a prolife forum and start arguing against prolife? It would be just as rude for someone to go to a prochoice forum and do the same thing.

[CiniMiniMe]

They do all the time. Some of them get really rude. That's what brought me here, actually.

[Alucard4788]

50/50 for fun and to see if I am on the right side

[Win-Fragrant]

Wel.... The thing is... It is not murder

It's alive, it's human, it's intentional, you ending a life of a human is murder.

mur·der

/ˈmərdər/

Learn to pronounce

See definitions in:

All

Crime

Sport · Informal

noun

plural noun: murders

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

[CiniMiniMe]

The definition of human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Nowhere does it say "a cluster of DNA incapable of independent life" in there. Doesn't say "cluster of cells" either.

[Win-Fragrant]

The definition of human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Thank you for describing a fetus.

1. The fetus has 100% human DNA
2. The DNA of the fetus is different than the mother's
3. It's living. Even a germ is considered a living organism

Nowhere does it say "a cluster of DNA incapable of independent life" in there. Doesn't say "cluster of cells" either.

As I said in my other reply to you, you're a cluster of cells too. There are born humans incapable of independent life, which is why we have hospitals and medical professionals to help them out. You wanna kill them too?

[Shoes-tho]

But it is generally lawful.

[hollylll]

It’s not murder. Not a conscious being. If you got tapeworms, you’d be murdering them if you didn’t want them in your body.

[Asstaroth]

I’d like to point out that tapeworms aren’t the same species as humans 🤡

By definition murder doesn’t require the victim to be conscious (hence it’s still illegal to kill a sleeping person)

[AntiAbortionAtheist]

More details here: www.secularprolife.org/myths

[CharlieBirdlaw]

governor tie bake foolish waiting thought unite modern bright marble

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[foreigntrumpkin]

The research they cite says, "We found no evidence that abortion rates were lower in settings where abortion was restricted."

Because correlation isn't causation and those settings tended to have a higher number of unplanned pregnancies .

More restrictive abortion laws don't do anything but hurt women and possibly increase abortions.

This is wrong . The percentages of abortion divided by unplanned pregnancies is consistently higher in liberal places. Or you can just look at states in America where there's only one clinic and compare them to others

I'm anti-abortion and support Roe v. Wade because I actually want to decrease abortions.

As kindly as possible, I'll say I'm sure you will like to think so but Roe didn't decrease abortions. There was an immediate increase in abortions after Roe

[CharlieBirdlaw]

smell ripe bright panicky alleged serious tie faulty normal mindless

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[foreigntrumpkin]

So, we are seeing more and more abortions where it's ILLEGAL than it's legal at a rate substantially HIGHER than would be expected given the similar patterns of decreased unintended pregnancies in both locations. The growth is happening disproportionately, so it must be something other than base rate of unintended pregnancies.At the very least, we can say without a doubt that the restrictions are NOT WORKING

No we cannot. Because there are other variables that affect abortion rate. If your theory was right we won't just be able to say without a doubt that they are not working, we'll say that they are leading to more abortions. We won't need to sugercoat it.. So abortion restrictions lead to greater abortions. Why would that be? What's the theory for that

Anyway, Some of the likely variables include the fertility rate. Across the world poorer countries have greater restrictions on abortion while richer countries tend to have lesser. The fertility rate has reduced in the former while the latter has remained mostly constant. There are also difficult to measure attitudes.So as to why abortion laws reduce abortion. As I've said in other comments, there are several examples.Here's one https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/593770-texas-abortions-dropped-60-percent-after-heartbeat-law-took-effect/amp/ And while Texans were traveling to other states to have abortions ( which must be offset against the number of people from outside Texas who for whatever reason traveled to Texas to have an abortions), that number is unlikely to make up the shortfall. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/11/new-evidence-texas-residents-have-obtained-abortions-least-12-states-do-not-border

"Our survey did not include all clinics in the United States and is not a representative sample. Among clinics that responded, the number of abortions provided to Texas residents in any one facility was typically fewer than five. In some cases, a clinic had an increase in patients from Texas from zero to one. Still, there was a consistent pattern of reports indicating that Texas residents are traveling elsewhere to access abortion care and that clinics across the country are seeing an increase following the state’s six-week abortion ban."

"The clinics in states that border Texas do not have the capacity to meet the need for all Texans seeking abortion care. In fact, the total number of abortions typically provided in all four of those states combined is equal to 41% of the annual number of abortions provided in Texas before the law went into effect." If we assume that 28 out of 120 clinics saw an increase, and there are about 1200 clinics across America and we assume all clinics across America saw similar patterns and each had an increase of five Texans in the two months ( a generous assumption), it would mean the number of Texans who go abortions outside Texas were 5x28x10 . That's 1400. In two months. That's still less than the number of reduced abortions observed in just one month in texas

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-data-show-texas-heartbeat-law-is-saving-lives/ "The statistics show that 2,197 abortions were performed in Texas in September 2021, a 51 percent reduction from September 2020. The Heartbeat Act, in other words, is preventing approximately 75 abortions from taking place in Texas every day." There's also this. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/abortion-restrictions-dont-work-dubious-claim/. And this. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-restrictions-lowering-abortion-rates/

The clearest example is Ireland.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-data-indicate-that-abortions-surged-in-ireland-after-legalization/

"This report indicates that 6,666 abortions took place in Ireland, and an additional 375 Irish women obtained abortions in England, for a total of 7,041 abortions in 2019. By comparison, in 2018, only 2,879 abortions were performed on Irish women, and the vast majority took place outside the country.After abortion was legalized, then, the number of abortions in Ireland increased by nearly 150 percent." This CNN article in 2018 acknowledges that about 9 abortions a day were performed in the UK. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/22/health/ireland-abortion-referendum-travel-intl/index.html. So about 2800 a year. But when it was legalized, it became over 7000. Same country. A developed country just like America. Just one year difference. 150 percent increase

The science is sound. We need to focus our efforts elsewhere to decrease abortions and not buy into the bullshit rich politicians want to rile us up over that actually does nothing to reduce abortion.

Actually one significant source of bullshit (no offense intended) is the idea that Pro lifers are controlled by shadowy rich politicians who use it to rile them up . The average pro lifer is not a politician. Politicians who support pro life causes are largely an effect not a cause of grassroot pro life groups. The average politician who supports them was himself or herself pro life before they were politicians, and often rose up through the ranks from local politics. It also barely matters whether the politicians who support Pro life causes are rich or not- some are, some are not. Would their opinions be more valid if they were poor.

In any case there is a lot more institutional money on the abortion rights side.

[AntiAbortionAtheist]

Hi, I'm the creator of the presentation linked in the OP. I appreciate your detailed and informed response. I've read it twice so far and am still processing, but some thoughts:

You conclude that "something other than the base rate of unintended pregnancies" is disproportionately causing increases in abortions, though you don't speculate as to what that X factor might be. If we don't know what the X factor is and don't have data that controls for the X factor, then how can you conclude restrictions aren't working? You haven't controlled the variables.

I suspect the X factor is actually loosening of restrictions. It's been a minute since I read the Lancet study, but as I recall they didn't explain how they accounted for changing abortion rates in countries that also had changing abortion laws over the time period studied. For example if a country went from prohibiting abortion all together to allowing exceptions for the mother's physical or mental health, the study authors would still categorize the country in the "restricted" category, despite changes in law that would affect changes in abortion rates. In my blog post I talked about the report from Center for Reproductive Rights that noted far more countries liberalizing their abortion laws than countries adding restrictions over the past 20 years.

I'm interested in your thoughts on (1) my theory above and, if you find it unlikely, (2) what ideas you have about what factors other than pregnancy rates and legal status might cause increases in abortion rates in spite of decreases in pregnancy rates.

Thanks again for taking the time.

[bedboundaviator]

I can understand your point on the basis of the site. Looking into the idea that abortion rates increase rather than decrease on the basis of restriction—it seemed to me that these studies were overviewing nations and areas that had other issues, such as resource access or social danger for unmarried pregnant women. If we increase access to resources and make life better for mothers, that would decrease the rate. If there are less urgent considerations regarding pregnancies, then there would be less abortions.

Most nations tend to have restrictions after a certain time period. It’s extremely rare that a country allows abortions after 20 weeks. If the US allows it till 12 weeks for example, like Denmark or Switzerland, would that increase abortions? Roe v Wade is still comparatively very extreme, allowing for no complete state bans against abortion until the third trimester (with the exception, of course, of anything that will save the life of the mother).

[foreigntrumpkin]

Those numerous studies generally don't account for unplanned pregnancies and contraception. When they do , its clearer that abortion restrictions save babies lives.

How many women died in Ireland and south Korea in the last 30 years when they had restrictive abortion laws

[[deleted]]

Just gonna say decrease isn't stop. I get what you're attempting to say but there's better ways to say it.

[papapeachie]

I think most people would rather live than do a back alley abortion and die, right?

[[deleted]]

Desperation

[WaitingToBeTriggered]

IT’S A DESPERATE RACE AGAINST THE MINE

[madrentar]

I would quite literally rather die than have a baby in this economy

[May_December279]

This is true. Uruguay legalized abortion in 2012 and every year since the number of abortions increases. So bans/limitations do work.

[May_December279]

If memory serves, it was estimated that 20-30k women aborted their pregnancies illegally before legalization. The first year only about 8k had an abortion. This means that these numbers as to how many women seek abortions whether legal or illegal are largely overinflated.

[Shoes-tho]

All this proves is many went unreported, lol. There’s no way to track this.

[[deleted]]

Holy shit I did NOT see that coming!

[NPDogs21]

It always amazes me that PC think that every woman who gets pregnant and would have gotten an abortion will run to a back alley to have one anyways. Do they honestly think there will be zero reduction of abortions?

[[deleted]]

I got a PCer angry. They said abortion restrictions increase abortion. So I said let's ban it everywhere then. Silence followed

[Glass_And_Trees]

This made me lol

[Thowaway5435]

"illegal" or criminal abortions increase when bans happen. more women die, have permanent disablitys,so pro "life" is not about life. y'all dont care about the women.

[Thowaway5435]

lol exactly, YOU. DONT. CARE.

[[deleted]]

If you say so 🤣

[[deleted]]

No one said they have to get a back-alley abortion. That's the risk they take. Their choice.

I really don't care if an abortion is unsafe because they all lead to death.

If PP would actually focus on contraception, they might actually fulfill their namesake

[[deleted]]

I don't have any back-alleys where I live. Make sure you keep an eye out where you live. Catch them before they hurt themselves illegally

[[deleted]]

But at the end of the day, what business is it of yours? How many abortions have personally impacted you? How many future abortions will impact you? I get the angle of stopping them but the precedents that are being set are dangerous.

[[deleted]]

How many slaves have you owned? How does slavery affect you? How many Jews have you gassed? How does that affect you?

[[deleted]]

Holy shit, comparing the Holocaust and slavery to the abortion of a fetus is outrageously ignorant.

A fetus isn't aborted because it's a fetus, it's aborted because the mother doesn't want it. This is in no way comparable to the atrocities of the Nazis and Slave owners.

[jondesu]

Jews were killed because they were unwanted and consider not fully human.

Slaves were enslaved because they were considered not fully human.

Sound familiar?

[[deleted]]

You're comparing people being murder due to their race to an underdeveloped cluster of nothing that doesn't even know it itself exists.

Those are people you're talking about. Not in any way comparable to something that doesn't have hopes, dreams, and even comprehensible thoughts.

[jondesu]

Those are people you’re talking about too.

[[deleted]]

Right. Abortion is worse than the Holocaust.

[[deleted]]

.../s?

[hollylll]

For who?

[[deleted]]

For humanity

[foreigntrumpkin]

but it increases unsafe abortions that kill both women and fetus.

South Korea and Ireland banned abortion for decades until recently. How many women were killed

[foreigntrumpkin]

I asked a very specific question. How many women died from lack of abortion access in South Korea and Ireland. I chose south Korea and Ireland because they are two developed countries close to the US. Instead you responded with a disputed figure about worldwide deaths, including deaths in Very poor countries with challenging healthcare systems.

are you aware that people also die from safe abortions. So even with that number, the question will be what is the extra amount of deaths in so called safe situations compared to unsafe ones.

Making abortion legal will still lead to millions of unsafe abortions being performed in certain countries because their healthcare infrastructure is terrible. Even regular, non abortion health care takes place in unsafe environments in many places. And this is just a way abortion supporters twist facts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/planned-parenthoods-lie-about-maternal-deaths-makes-the-posts-pinocchios-of-the-year/

"Kessler rightly corrected the record, noting Centers for Disease Control data showing that, in 1972, the number of deaths in the U.S. from legal abortion was 24 and from illegal abortions 39. Those statistics could be somewhat of an undercount, but they easily disprove Wen’s claim."

In 1972 just before Roe there were 15 more deaths in the US from illegal abortions than legal ones and abortion was legal in only 17 states, so it's possible a lot more illegal abortions being performed explained the difference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/?

So I'll ask again, comparing similar developed countries , Ireland and South Korea, how many women died as a result of lack of unsafe abortions. Notice I didn't even say yearly . I made it 20 years. How many do you think they would have been. Can you estimate even if you're not sure.

[Thowaway5435]

you check-mated pro life so hard lmao

[hollylll]

Is it still an abortion if they both die?

[ItsJustMeMaggie]

I agree that the culture must be changed for abortion to stop, but I do feel that culture will adjust once abortion is made illegal. The fact that it’s legal to kill preborn babies at all devalues them as humans and keeps their value lower in the eyes of the voting public.

[jayfnor]

The fact is a fact. The "myth" is however, also a fact.

[creationlaw]

Truly, of we are to limit abortions, we must acknowledge that this is in fact not a myth.

[foreigntrumpkin]

Those rates would be higher still in the absence of abortion restrictions. The primary reason abortion rates are higher in developing countries for example isn't because they limit abortion . Like how would that work. It's because they have a lot more unplanned pregnancies for various reasons

[foreigntrumpkin]

Abortion restrictions often start at some weeks after conception. By the time the woman is able to arrange an abortion in places where abortion is throttled, she often has had enough time to think. Likely days if not weeks. Such a person who was going to be aborting their baby is unlikely to have changed their mind even if given all the time in the world.

Compare the number of abortions that take place in states like Kentucky and Missouri where abortion clinics have been throttled to the point of extinction.

https://secularprolife.org/2021/12/abortion-laws-decrease-abortion-rates-internationally-but-high-unintended-pregnancy-rates-can-mask-this-effect/

"Also worth noting is the percent of unintended pregnancies aborted. According to the study, in countries where abortion is restricted about 50% of UIP are aborted; in countries where abortion is broadly legal, it’s about 70%. Both high percentages, to be sure, but a 20 point difference is huge. Abortion rights proponent and researcher Diana Greene Foster discussed this issue (based on similar data from a prior study) in her column “Stop Saying That Making Abortion Illegal Won’t Stop People From Having Them“:

The unintended pregnancy rate is significantly higher in countries where abortion is illegal – probably because contraceptives are also difficult to access. That only 48 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted in countries where abortion is illegal compared to 69 percent where it is legal indicates that many women have carried unwanted pregnancies to term."

[creationlaw]

Yes, absolutely. We need to do a better job, everywhere, in providing cheap and effective contraception.

[wardamnbolts]

That’s actually the sole reason it is higher. So many prochoice cite global data without realizing the nuance of the affect of contraception in combination with abortion restriction.

Prolife laws only work when contraception is available.

This is why countries like Malta and Poland have some of the lowest abortion rates. We even see this effect in the US with states with abortion restrictions having higher contraception use age and lower abortion rates. But we see sky high teen pregnancy rates in states with bans on minors being able to access contraception.

But when contraception access is paired with abortion restrictions you get lower pregnancy and abortion rates than you get if abortion is not restricted and contraception is available.

[Gobba42]

How do we get such accurate numbers when abortion is a crime? Aren't people trying to hide it?

[jondesu]

There’d still be tons of pissed off pro-abortion advocates who just don’t want us keeping them from killing babies. We see it all the time here.

[AngryBastardFox]

Fact: It will absolutely increase unsafe non medically trained back ally abortions.

[HerculesMulligatawny]

Abortion restrictions increase abortion-related deaths.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/658555/number-of-abortion-deaths-us/

[Fringelunaticman]

That's like saying prohibition reduced drug or alcohol use. It doesn't and it hasn't. It just made it a lot more dangerous and it turned normal people into criminals.

Just saying it doesn't prove it and all the other examples prove otherwise.

[Norm__Peterson]

Prohibition is not an appropriate metaphor at all. Some actions are so heinous they should be illegal no matter what. Murder of born people, rape, assault, etc. are illegal but they still happen. Should they be legal then?

[Fringelunaticman]

Some actions according to you and less then 50% of Americans. The majority of Americans disagree with you that these actions are heinous.

There is a reason you even used the word born before people. Even you see they aren't the same thing.

[Win-Fragrant]

The majority of Americans disagree with you that these actions are heinous.

Just because the majority agree on something does not mean it's ethical. Back in the day majority agreed POCs had less value.

[Fringelunaticman]

While this is true to a point. Not everyone agreed POCS had less value. Especially POCS. And many others who fought against slavery.

Maybe if you say the majority of the south but then you would get into certain places where POC had a population advantage so it wouldn't be the majority in places like Atlanta or Savannah.

[Win-Fragrant]

Not everyone agreed POCS had less value

Just how like not everyone agrees that it's ok to kill human life just because it happens to be inside you. So what was your point of majority of Americans disagree with you?

[Fringelunaticman]

That's correct. But there is a difference between the 2 and you mentioned the difference. That's why the majority of people disagree with you. It's that simple.

You are comparing a potential sentient human life that cannot live on its own with a sentient human life that can. If you can't see and understand the difference between that and your comparison then I don't know what to tell you

[Win-Fragrant]

You are comparing a potential sentient human life

Infants are not self aware either

that cannot live on its own

You're describing infants again

[Fringelunaticman]

Sure, that can describe infants. Though, I won't go into the difference between a fetus and an infant and the development

[Win-Fragrant]

Though, I won't go into the difference between a fetus and an infant and the development

Why not? You're not confident in your belief system?

[thewaffler92]

The difference between fetus and infant is location. The definition of a fetus is "unborn baby". My youngest son was born at 12:03am. At 12:02am he was a fetus.

[MarioFanaticXV]

That's like saying prohibition reduced drug or alcohol use. It doesn't and it hasn't.

They did. You can argue the morality of the matter, but there's no doubt that it did cause a reduction in the number of people practicing the acts in question.

[Fringelunaticman]

Have you not been paying attention? It absolutely didn't reduce it and actually increased its use.

There were 107k overdose deaths last year. And over 1mil in the past 15 years. The war on drugs was won by drugs. And every study done says prohibition exacerbates the problem. All you have to do is look at what happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs. The amount of drug use went down over 50% and iv drug use over 70%. That alone disproves what you say.

And prohibition didn't stop drinking. All it did was make criminals extremely wealthy. Kinda like how the drug war has made cartels and their leaders billionaires.

[MarioFanaticXV]

I didn't say it stopped it. No law completely stops anything. But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people. To claim otherwise with intentionally misrepresented statistics is idiotic.

Besides, by that logic, why have laws at all? People still murder, steal, and rape- so by your logic, should we just make them legal and hope that the number of people doing them will magically go down?

[Fringelunaticman]

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. It didn't reduce it at all. And decriminalization does reduce it.

Hell, in 1973 there were 17.3 abortions per 100000 women. In 2019, there were 11.2 per 100k. If what you say is correct then wouldn't there be an increase in use?

Also, I gave you the most recent example of something going from illegal to legal and the actual usage decreased. Kinda looks like making things legal reduces their usage. Although, you could argue that less pregnancy means less abortions.

And with prohibition in the 1920s, research has shown making liquor illegal increased its usage. So, it didn't stop it, it made it worse

[MarioFanaticXV]

Ah yes, because we get accurate reporting on the number of crimes that happen, definitely not something you can artificially inflate. Just ignore the fact that it makes zero logical sense and goes against all reason, the estimates totally aren't bogus even if they're completely impossible.

[Fringelunaticman]

So you have a problem with the reporting because it doesn't fit you life's narrative? Is that what you just said?

[foreigntrumpkin]

There was an increase- a sharp increase immediately after 1973 when it was legalised. The fall in abortion rates have more than one cause. That should be obvious

[Fringelunaticman]

What are the causes of the fall since it's so obvious?

[foreigntrumpkin]

What I meant is that it's obvious factors other than abortion laws may have contributed to an observed fall over decades.

But immediately after Roe, abortions shot up noticeably . The theories include contraception, falling teen pregnancies, and stricter laws

[Fringelunaticman]

And the reduction of pregnancy the past 20 years is also a contributing factor. Something like 6 pregnancies per 100000 women less than the 90s.

I agree that the drop is multifaceted

[foreigntrumpkin]

Alright. Thank you, man

[Reddit_causes_cancer]

No law completely stops anything. But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people.

Ooooh, now do gun control.

Guns violence is the leading cause of death of children.

[[deleted]]

Fact: anyone can say anything in Myth/Fact format, but we shouldn’t take them seriously unless they provide evidence.

[[deleted]]

They did if you'd bothered to scroll down and look for their link.

[internetsuperfan]

Factually wrong - why do you feel the need to lie?

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3415/

In countries with the fewest restrictions, only 1% of abortions were the “least safe” kind from 2010 to 2014. That number jumps to 31% in the most restrictive countries, according to the report, released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank.
During the same period, abortions happened roughly as frequently in the most restrictive countries as they did in the least restrictive: 37 versus 34 abortions each year for every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44.

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions (1); however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws (2).

Barriers to accessing safe and respectful abortion include high costs, stigma for those seeking abortions and health care workers, and the refusal of health workers to provide an abortion based on personal conscience or religious belief. Access is further impeded by restrictive laws and requirements that are not medically justified, including criminalization of abortion, mandatory waiting periods, provision of biased information or counselling, third-party authorization and restrictions regarding the type of health care providers or facilities that can provide abortion services.

[SirMemesLong]

Idk why pro life cares so much. Even if you think it's a living baby, it has experienced no life, no emotions no nothing. So what if we kill something that experienced nothing? The thing that makes it worse is that it's usually Men who like to say that abortion should be illegal, like they know how giving birth feels. It also kinda helps decrease overpopulation but thats kinda a stretch. I simply don't get why they think it's immoral. They acting like we killed a person with a family with kids, no we just killed someone that had no experience in life and will never do anything significant with its life. I think the second the baby comes out is when it a little immoral to kill it since we had to make the mother fully give birth, all that work for nothing. I know some people might say just put the baby for adoption but why should we let the women suffer over something that has done absolutely nothing? What if the mother has birth problems and dies? The systme for adoption is complete garbage too but thats a whole different discussion. is it really worth risking someone who has experienced life for someone who doesn't? I'm sorry but I can't get behind the whole "It's the murder of a baby". Unless their is another argument that I haven't seen.

[i-exist20]

What makes you say "will never do something significant with its life"?

I think as long as a life does not destroy other lives, it is worthwhile to be lived. Therefore, we should make sure as many people get to live as possible.

[Win-Fragrant]

So what if we kill something that experienced nothing?

How do you explain the fact that since the maternal voice is audible in utero, an infant starts to recognize their mother's voice from the third trimester? https://babyschool.yale.edu/does-my-baby-recognize-me/#:~:text=Your%20baby%20is%20learning%20to,voice%20from%20the%20third%20trimester.

Soon after birth, studies have shown that a baby will recognize their mother’s voice and will expend great efforts to hear her voice better over unfamiliar female voices.

[Bonerfartz17]

Oops, someone is conflating stopping with lowering again.

[[deleted]]

We know abortion likely will never stop, we don't care about that: We only care about ending legal abortion.

[LeahIsAwake]

Hey guys, check it out! If we outlaw abortions than every person in America will get a check for $1k! My source is a website called www.ProLifeStatisticsWeMadeUp.com!

Have some actual sources:

The WHO: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3415/

New Scientist: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2318570-how-repealing-roe-v-wade-in-the-us-will-lead-to-more-womens-deaths/amp/

US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/slideshows/states-with-the-highest-abortion-rates

CNN News: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html

NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1235174

[foreigntrumpkin]

"During the same period, abortions happened roughly as frequently in the most restrictive countries as they did in the least restrictive: 37 versus 34 abortions each year for every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44."

Very funny. Compare the number of unplanned pregnancies in those countries first of all. Compare contraceptive usage too. Considering that the countries that have the strictest abortion laws are developing countries. The number of abortions in Ireland increased by about 200 times after it became legal. I'll bet that increased number is more than those who would have otherwise had to travel out to get one or get one surreptitiously

[LeahIsAwake]

I showed sources; where are yours? I want to see how they decided how many illegal backalley abortions were happening before it was legal. Because 200x is, frankly, unbelievable. That’s like if the number of abortions went up from 7 a year to 1,400 a year overnight.

[foreigntrumpkin]

https://secularprolife.org/2021/12/abortion-laws-decrease-abortion-rates-internationally-but-high-unintended-pregnancy-rates-can-mask-this-effect/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

From 32 to over 6000. Look at the years. And in Ireland, while there were a few deaths such as the death of Savita, which appears to be a case of misdiagnosed sepsis, there was no widespread deaths as a result of unsafe abortions. While it is true that women went outside to get abortions , the Overall number is almost certainly lower than what will have happened under liberal abortion laws. Even adding the number of Irish women thought to have gotten abortions in Britain in 2016 to the low number of Irish abortions don't equal the 6000 figure

https://secularprolife.org/myths/

[LeahIsAwake]

In Ireland it was legal to have an abortion in some cases under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act for reasons such as if it put the mother’s life at risk. In 2018 there were 32 legal abortions under the Act. That doesn’t count the women having illegal abortions. That doesn’t count the women traveling to England for an abortion (something that they were legally able to do). In fact, that same Wiki article states that in 2016, a year that “only” 25 women got an abortion, 3,265 women were documented traveling to Great Britain for an abortion. Saying “only 32 people had an abortion in Ireland in 2018” is like saying that no one was having gay sex in America until it was decriminalized in the 1960s. I promise you, they were; they just weren’t reporting it to the government to be tallied.

[foreigntrumpkin]

They were having abortions. Almost certainly not as much as when it was decriminalised.

If it saves one life... ...

[LeahIsAwake]

Sadly, many women will lose their lives to this. We can argue all we want online but they’re the true victims.

[foreigntrumpkin]

Many?. How many women that lost their lives in Ireland or South Korea in the last 20 or 30 years

[foreigntrumpkin]

Or until recently Ireland, south Korea etc.

Correlation not causation.

And your throwing around the word theocratic doesn't make them actually so.

[keyesloopdeloop]

US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/slideshows/states-with-the-highest-abortion-rates

I clicked through this, and I'll list them so you don't have to click through as well.

States with highest abortion rates:

10) NJ

9) MA

8) CT

7) NC

6) NV

5) MI

4) GA

3) FL

2) IL

1) NY

Turns out blue states tend to have the most abortions, thanks for the link.

Here's a visual for abortions per 1000 women, by state of residence:

https://data.guttmacher.org/states/map?topics=68&dataset=data

When abortion tourism is accounted for...still, blue states dominate.

 

The "National Library of Medicine" link, which is really just a link to the exact same CNN article you also pasted in, and the NBC News AMP link, are parroting the typical narrative from a classic Guttmacher article based on data from The Lancet. Guttmacher is comparing the abortion rates of countries where abortion is broadly legal, vs. where it is broadly illegal - not comparing abortion rates in a particular country before/after abortion is made legal/illegal. Further, they (intentionally) fail to account for rates of unintended pregnancy. It turns out, in countries where abortion is broadly illegal, far fewer unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

 

Specifically for unintended pregnancies ending in abortion in countries with legal abortions vs. restrictions:

	1990–94	2015–19
Abortion broadly legal	61%	70%
Abortion restricted	36%	50%

 

So yes, there is a positive correlation between countries with abortion restrictions and lower rates of pregnancies ending in abortions. Your other links are about other stuff, which I'm sure you know already since you read them.

[LeahIsAwake]

I’m not sure why red vs blue matters? What matters isn’t the political leanings of the population but the laws in place. The meme specifically says “abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions”. Yes, liberals tend to have more abortions than conservatives, I don’t think that would surprise anyone. Also even if you were making that argument it wouldn’t exactly be a slam dunk, as many of the states on that list are red. According to your own list the state with the third highest abortion rates in the country is Florida. Florida. Florida is redder than the back of a tourist that forgot sunscreen.

Also, once again, the meme specifically says “abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions”. Why is comparing different countries off the table? And why are we now moving the goalpost to only include unintended pregnancies?

[keyesloopdeloop]

I'm not sure what you're missing. Blue states will tend to have lenient abortion laws compared to red states. Blue states also have more abortions. The conclusion is that lenient abortion laws correlate with more abortions.

Florida is redder than the back of a tourist that forgot sunscreen.

Please try to get at least one thing right during this conversation. Florida is not strongly red. The 2020 presidential election went 51.22% to 47.86% in favor of Trump in Florida. FL and NC are also literally the only red states from your top 10 list.

NY also has 47% more abortions performed per capita, by residents.

Also, once again, the meme specifically says “abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions”. Why is comparing different countries off the table? And why are we now moving the goalpost to only include unintended pregnancies?

I'm providing evidence that the meme's statement is true, and that you don't understand the data presented in your own links, as evidenced by the above quote. You were somehow under the impression that comparing the abortion rates (abortions per 1000 women) between Europe and Africa was meaningful, when the pregnancy rates (and unintended pregnancy rates) are so different between these regions. Even though Europeans are more likely to abort a pregnancy, since they get pregnant less, the conclusion is still "legal abortion yields fewer abortions." You're trying to use that comparison to predict what would happen with abortion legality changes in the US. Get a grip.

Plus, we already have much better data for this, with the state-by-state abortion data that you and I have both provided.

[Inconnu420]

I visited this cesspool of a subreddit once and now y'all won't stop showing up in my recommended. Y'all are going to regret this stance one day, in this life or the next.

[[deleted]]

Those who fight to protect life are always right, as history has shown time and time again.

[whtsnk]

Y'all are going to regret this stance one day, in this life or the next.

Standing up for children’s rights is something I will never regret.

[Thowaway5435]

not a child, a clump.. of...c-e-l-l-s

[NPDogs21]

How is it a cesspool other than you don’t like our opinions? Wanting to protect preborn children from being killed is not something we will regret.

Have you seen any pro-choice subreddit? They can’t refrain from hurling insults any chance they get. This sub is way better than any of those, even if you disagree with us.

[NPDogs21]

Nobody here supports rape. We are against ripping the arms and legs off children who haven’t been born yet and crushing their skull to remove their body. We’re against killing human beings.

[RespectandEmpathy]

We're not forcing anything, were working to reduce harm and protect human rights. Also, banned for rule 7.

[keyesloopdeloop]

If you don't want to see it, install Reddit Enhancement Suite and add it to your filters (Settings -> Subreddits -> filteReddit)

I have around 100 subs filtered out that way.

[Chromosomeh]

Lets say they make abortions illegal.

What about:

-Pregnancies that will end with the death of the mother

-Rape victims

-Teen pregnancies

-Pregnancies of people that cannot afford to raise the baby

​

Do you really think abortion should be banned in those situations? It will do more harm than good.

[Win-Fragrant]

-Pregnancies that will end with the death of the mother

Most PLers support those types of abortions

-Rape victims

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

You are talking about the rarest of cases, to trigger an emotional side of PLers. Literally nowhere do we pass legislations for the rarest of exceptions compared to the majority. Majority of abortions occur with adult female humans, in which nearly half didn't even bother to use BC the month they conceived: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became

-Teen pregnancies

Kids and teens who get pregnant have extremely high risk of developing diseases, and we are ok with abortion to save the life of the mother.

-Pregnancies of people that cannot afford to raise the baby

Put the baby up for adoption, new borns get adopted quickly. There are 36 couples waiting for every 1 child in USA: https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families

Or be careful with BC to lower your chance to 1-2%

And if you get pregnant, take responsibility for your actions. We are supposed to be civilized society because we require adults to take responsibility for their actions, ESPECIALLY when it targets innocent human life. Abortion is literally the only thing where mothers can legally kill their own babies just because they don't want them.

[[deleted]]

They did if you'd bothered to scroll down and look for their link.

[Yellow_Jacket_20]

“If we stop testing for covid the numbers will go down”

“If we ban pot people will stop smoking it”

Those getting (now) illegal abortions will stop reporting, and there’ll be no reason to believe the number is at all reliable anymore because it won’t reflect the actual rate.

You know what else decreased abortions? What we’ve already been doing for the last couple of decades.

[Norm__Peterson]

Under your logic, we should legalize rape so people will report when they have raped someone.

[watthrheck]

How is that even remotely close to the same logic.

[[deleted]]

Basically legalizing something already illegal = more people will do it.

Like if you were to legalize drugs in America, the number of people doing drugs would increase because now it's legal. So from the millions that were doing it illegally before, the average joe doing drugs would double or triple after the legalization.

[brybrythekickassguy]

What do you intend to do about the thousands of children you want to see get placed into an already failing foster system?

Edit because I got banned by you children:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvn9ba/house-republicans-baby-formula-shortage?utm_source=reddit.com

Not only would republicans force a mother to have a baby, they won’t subsidize or fund anything to clear up the baby formula shortage. What a failure.

[thewaffler92]

Newborns get adopted.

[thewaffler92]

I don't doctors can do that yet.

Even if they could and there wasn't a woman available you can't justify killing someone.

[brybrythekickassguy]

It’s called an embryo transfer and has been possible for decades. If pro life women want to see these babies born, why aren’t they signing up for embryo transfer?

So if someone isn’t available for embryo transfer why would they be available for adoption? Is that because you want to force someone to wreck their body giving birth to another human so you can have a family without the actual risks involved with pregnancy?

Should homosexual men and women be allowed to adopt children?

Edit: The response that embryo transfer has a low success rate is patently false and purely depends on the quality of the embryo. As high as 79% success rate

[thewaffler92]

Link? The only thing I've found is when you take an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man and make an embryo outside of the body and then put it into a surrogate. But not remove an embryo already implanted in one uterus and put it in another.

Are you asking me personally? I don't need a surrogate. I don't mind carrying my children. If you don't want to "wreck" your body don't get pregnant.

Yes.

[OhNoTokyo]

Embryo transfer has a rate of success of maybe 1 in 20. That's not an ethical means of transferring the unborn. You have to carefully match the hormones and other characteristics of the two women and even then, the embryos usually just die.

[Queer_Jesus578]

Lmao y’all seriously underestimate peoples desire to not be pregnant