interesting but where are the facts to back such assertions.
@Lochias - Careful you don’t want to equate God creating life in this case with examples of penalties.
Also the creation of life isn’t an automatic result of having sex. God steps in creatively and willfully to create a new person when conception does take place.
If birth control was expanded any more to become even more available, that would entail treating our drinking water with it.
Oh, that’s already a done deal. Our drinking water is full of all kinds of drugs, with a high incidence of hormonal contraceptives.
Hmm. The 2003 study chose countries with stable and falling fertility rates. I wonder what a rising fertility rate would do?
Bernard Nathanson was one of the original abortionists that worked to get it legalized in the USA. In his memoirs, he freely admits that he and his fellow abortionists looked hard and wide for ways to substantiate large numbers of illegal abortions occurring before Roe and simply could not substantiate that more than a handful were occurring. Thus, they made up a big figure (i.e. lied about it) and simply repeated that lie often and loudly enough that people believed it.
Its simple public records as to how many adoptions occurred in the years before Roe versus afterwards. We didn’t have 1 million plus fewer adoptions in the late 70’s compared to 1970. Those were mostly NEW unwanted pregnancies that resulted from changes in people’s behavior because they had been altered from a mindset that promiscuity will result in a baby to a mindset in which sex could be thought of as if it had nothing to do with babies (since contraception and backup abortion promised to make that so). Their decision making patterns changed accordingly and promiscuity rates have gone WAY up since contraception first started becoming commercially available in the 20’s (just condoms then).
It’s also plain public record to look up the unwed pregnancy rates changed from the 20’s to today (steady rise correlates with increased availability and social respectability of contraception over time). Same reason of altered perception by folks like seekerz who assume that contraception will prevent pregnancy. What it really does is reduce the chance of pregnancy PER INCIDENT. But if the number of encounters goes up by large enough numbers, pregnancies increase anyways, as the historical record shows.
Are you really asserting that one needs a peer reviewed article to draw conclusions from this plain data?
The CDC figures for the years preceding Roe were aprox 400,000 legal and illegal a year. Deaths from botched abortions numbered under 400 a year
Only if the plain data doesn’t support your poistion
Risk compensation- when you believe that you’re being made safe from the consequences of your actions by technology you tend to compensate by engaging in riskier behavior. You’re failing to take into account the effect pushing contraception on a population will have in creating a culture of sexual disinhibition. Men and women who have free access to contraception will have higher rates of sexual activity and riskier sexual encounters and thus higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.
She supports keeping abortion clinics open but tells Action 4 News she doesn’t want to see any babies killed before they’re even born.
She simply wants to give women the option of terminating their pregnancy if they choose to.
Does not compute.
She doesn’t want any babies killed but she wants women to have the “choice” to kill their baby.
It’s more than “risk compensation” as you define it. Rather it is a total philosophical redefinition of what sexual intimacy IS. The culture of contraception and abortion redefine sex to a fantasy definition that has no connection with babies. Thus, when a baby DOES result, it seems to many that they must have some sort of RIGHT to “undo” that unhappy malfunction. (“Undo” being a euphemism for killing the baby, of course)
well atlesat citations would be nice. but i guess anecdoatal evidence will do, poorly, but will do