I cannot, as they were people I knew in real life - mostly people from high school and college.
I see..
Myth No. 2: Women use abortion as a method of birth control.
I hear this one so frequently and yet in decades of providing abortion services to more than 30,000 women, I met only two women who used abortion as a birth control method. And they were absolutely right to do so. These two women experienced blood clots while on birth control pills, ectopic pregnancies with the IUD, and they were allergic to latex condoms and spermicide. Using the rhythm method with abortion as backup was the best method for them. I've never met a woman who cavalierly chose abortion as her method of birth control.
[
Dr. Suzanne Poppema]
Did they mean women like the two women described above by an abortion provider?
Also, could you please provide the link to the article you quoted? Because I found one that is virtually word for word, except a few parts were somewhat different, so I am curious as to which one is correct.
Slow down Bells - I already stated that the vast majority of women DO NOT do this - in fact, it begs a question... why are you begging the question? If responsible women don't do this, and I've already stated that there are extenuating circumstances wherein the "point of no return" can be ignored (such as rape, coercion, etc)... then what are you arguing here? What reason is there NOT to set a late (third trimester) limit, since apparently this isn't a problem to begin with?
So why did you even use the argument?
I want you to think about something. Late term abortions fall into the smallest category of women who get abortions. About 1% of women get 3rd trimester abortions. I think in the States it works out to being about 11,000 women. Where do you think those women will go if you ban them? What recourse do you think those women would then have if they want to have an abortion? Since they can no longer obtain one safely - and there are only 3 doctors who perform late term 3rd trimester abortions (there used to be 4, but Dr Miller was murdered for the service he provided), where do you think these women are going to go? We know that if abortions are banned, access limited in any way, women are simply going to go by way of a backyard and unsafe and often deadly abortion. This is the reality. Is this acceptable to you? The WHO's directives are clear, women need to be able to access safe abortions to stop the pandemic. And you wish to restrict their access further?
What is wrong with still having providers to cater for those 1% who obviously have valid reasons to have waited or found themselves in the 3rd trimester and needing an abortion? You can get late term 3rd trimester abortions now in several states. So it is available. Do you see a dearth of women just waiting until right to the end to abort? The greater majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. So even though it is available now, women aren't being "irresponsible" and leaving it too late. So what's wrong with how it is now? Why do you want to ban it so that those 11,000 women are put at direct risk per year? Where is the merit in that?
What do you gain in knowingly and purposefully endangering 11,000 per year? Because these women are going to get one regardless if they need to have one. Personally, I'd rather they be able to access safe health care and not have to resort to Mary with her coat hanger or a shove down the stairs or punch to the stomach until she bleeds. Do you think this is acceptable?
Or as Quinnsong dismisses, these women can simply be arrested and prosecuted. Ermm okay, so then we fall into the issue where these women won't then seek medical care if and when something does go wrong with a backyard abortion and that 68,000 dead and millions scarred for life figures just goes up. Women who miscarry later on in their pregnancy could find themselves being charged if they did anything that could have caused them to miscarry or naturally abort their baby. Don't think that's a possiblity? That's already happening now. Hundreds of women are in prison for miscarrying and stillbirths because they ingested something or came into contact with something that
could have endangered the baby. Not directly did, but could have. So the mere possibility of danger to the foetus can result in women being jailed for many years. What do you think is going to happen if you ban abortions outright from 27 weeks?
Once again - in an instance where a late abortion is appropriate or justified, such as rape, abuse, danger to the woman, etc, I believe it should be done. In this instance, what is it you are fighting against?
Because once you open that can of worms, how do you go back?
What about women who were denied the ability from accessing an abortion earlier?
What about women who were raped? What caveats would you put in place there? Will she have had to have filed a police report as proof that she was raped? Many victims of rape do not report it for various and obvious reasons. So how will you know she was raped? What happens to that large majority of women who do not report their rape? What about women who are raped at home by their abusive spouse?
Danger to the woman? Okay.. Is her life really in danger? We already have politicians declare that a woman can simply carry it to term, even if the baby is dead. We already have hospitals forcing c-sections on women, some to their death, because of the 'danger to women' argument. Do you see the dangers of such rules and laws? What if the doctor disagrees that her life is in danger? We already have doctors letting women having to travel 90 miles for treatment for their miscarriage and the baby's arm sticking out of their cervix because there was still a foetal heartbeat. And we already have women going septic in some hospitals because of infections that set in after a miscarriage that the hospital refuses to treat due to a foetal heartbeat still being present. So they already ignore danger to the woman, what makes you think they are going to take notice of it in the 3rd trimester?
It is funny though... this is the exact opposite argument that proponents of gun-control laws use...
So that's your response is it?
If she is that desperate, why did she wait so long to make the decision?
Well I don't know. You already gave in to several myths about abortion in your previous response. What other ones can you think up?
If it's a case of abuse/coercion/health issues, then as seemingly everyone is in agreement over, exceptions can and should be made.
Noble goals and exemptions. The 1% of women who get 3rd trimester abortions have valid reasons. Women who are unable to access one earlier (there are some women who are even jailed to stop them from accessing one earlier) should not be forced to have to carry it to term against their will and they certainly should not be forced to having to consider an unsafe illegal abortion that could cost them their lives.
You want to reduce the 1% figure? Make it easier and cheaper to access one in the first trimester. Provide safer and cheaper abortions earlier on and provide a safe place for women to be able to access them without the law and pro-lifer's continuously attempting to restrict them - to the point of threatening to kidnap women who are seeking earlier abortions. This is what women face when they attempt to get an abortion. Harassment, abuse, threats of kidnap, threats of death if they attend a reproductive health clinic. Not to mention the stigma involved, the financial cost that many younger and disadvantaged women cannot afford so they have to wait and save up for it, threats and harassment from their families, inability to access one in their state (with forced closures of clinics and laws enacted to restrict doctors ability to provide the service at all).. Then of course you run into the areas of the myths who claim that abortion is used often as a form of birth control, that women are simply irresponsible and don't get one earlier because they keep changing their minds and are somewhat slack.. All of this is what prevents women from getting one earlier. Banning 3rd trimester abortions won't reduce that figure. It'll just mean that women will be forced to resort to unsafe and often deadly alternatives.
Personally, I'd rather women be allowed to access safe health care. But I guess that's just me.
Except you are assuming they are being forced to use their body in the service of another... they are not. They have six months from the time of conception to decide, for any reason what so ever, to abort the pregnancy. After that, unless some sort of extenuating circumstance, such as abuse or a health concern crops up, they should carry it through as, by that point, the abortion is much more difficult AND the fetus is capable of being harmed by it.
Why do you keep perpetrating this myth about 3rd trimester abortions?
Enough literature has been provided to show that women who get 3rd trimester abortions are for the most part, prevented from accessing one earlier. So why do you carry on as if women are leaving it to that point because they couldn't decide?
If we want to give people the right to do whatever they want with their bodies... then we may as well abolish drug laws cause, oh look, that's doing something to their own bodies. We may as well abolish a fair number of laws actually... and remove a lot of warning labels while we're at it - you want to huff that can of paint to get high? Sure, why not, it's YOUR body, right?
Do you want me to ask Fraggle to lecture you on the push to end the
drug war laws?
The decades-long global war on drugs has failed and it's time to shift the focus from mass incarceration to public health and human rights, according to a new report endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winning economists.
The report, titled "Ending the Drug Wars" and put together by the London School of Economics' IDEAS center, looks at the high costs and unintended consequences of drug prohibitions on public health and safety, national security and law enforcement.
"The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."
The report urges the world's governments to reframe their drug policies around treatment and harm reduction rather than prosecution and prison.
You were saying?
The war on drugs policies is an absolute failure. Everyone recognises this. I'm surprised you actually went there as justification to deny women access to safe health care if they require an abortion in the 3rd trimester.
You have problems with self restraint, don't you... Or do you just prefer to argue in illogical extremes for "lulz"?
How is he doing that?