I get tickled sometimes by the way people present themselves via stickers on their cars. This one gave me a genuine hardy laugh….. The top sticker reads, “Sugar and spice and reproductive rights”…….. Once I took that in, I had to really study on the bottom sticker, but that’s the one that gave me the laugh, “I stab people for a living”…. I’m sorry, I just find the juxtaposition to be absolutely hilarious….
I'm puzzled by the whole "Reproductive Rights" thing. I mean, don't the words Reproductive Rights connote the right to reproduce rather than the right to kill? Once again, the Left wins an award for twisting the English language into something it's not. As for stabbing people for a living, I guess I now understand the driver's attenuated sympathy for the unborn.
I know. If I was a bumper sticker guy, I would get a giant sticker that said, “SCOTUS does not write laws”…. It makes me nuts…… These are the same folks that would press charges if you neglected a puppy. I suppose baby animals have rights but baby humans don’t.
Speaking of bumper stickers . . . I'm working on one to release in September. I've been sitting on this for months now, waiting for the election to get closer. I've never done this before, and am still trying to figure out how to prevent others from copying the content while I push out a tremendous quantity (mailing will be the issue), but am not sure it can be done.
The right to reproduce or not is a fundamental human right. No one should tell you that you have to bring a child into this world or not. It is exactly like countries that have forced sterilizations. No one should be force to or prevented from having a child if that is what you choose. Having the government force you to have a child is simply the greatest overreach a government can have.
I'll be sure to let you know . . . The right to not reproduce has everything to do with abstaining. When one has sex, one accepts the attendant risks, one of which is conceiving, bearing and raising a child. A woman’s right to choose is exercised when she chooses to take that risk. The government doesn’t force a woman to bear the child . . . Mother Nature does. The government enforces the right of the baby to life.
If that were really the reason for these laws then there would always be exceptions for rape, but there's not. In fact, plenty of the trigger laws have either no or limited carveouts for rape.
I believe there are exceptions in some states, but not in all that prohibit abortion. I agree that rape and incest should both be excepted on moral grounds, just as the child should be born in all other cases, based on moral grounds.
I'm glad to hear you agree on that, but it's disheartening that the laws being enacted in many states don't feel the same. It leads to me doubting the motivations of the lawmakers. At least in those states (10 currently), the government is forcing people that are raped to have children, and that's pretty messed up.
I think in cases of rape and incest the mother contemplating abortion has not already made the decision which is morally hers to make. I am still at odds with a third trimester abortion however. The mother has had more than enough time to come to terms with her condition, to make her decision, and to have the abortion by the end of 26 weeks.
There were 930,160 abortions in the US in 2020 according to the Guttmacher Institute (GI). GI is a pro abortion group that tracks abortion worldwide. According to their data, about 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest, and approximately the same percentage for the life of the mother. So let’s round that up to 5%. 930,160X .05= 45,508. Remember this number all….45,508. So let’s take the 930,160 abortions and subtract a liberal percentage for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, that would be 930, 160- 45,508=833, 652. Our own @GeneWright posted that contraceptives are only effective 99% of the time. Let’s take him at his word. 833,652X.01=8,337 rounded to the nearest whole number. So….. 45,508 +8,337= 53,845. Now let our friends please explain why there were 878, 315 (930,160-53,845) more abortions than those that they say are necessary.
It doesn't matter, why not exempt them? Especially if it's a small portion? That's... not how statistics work. Think hard about the numbers you're using and what they represent in reality.
Keep in mind the #45, 508. Really? Did you not say contraceptives are only 99% effective and continued to enlighten me about Covid crap and the efficiency of vaccines? I believe I can copy and past. Are you now retracting your 99% effectiveness statement on contraceptives? I know exactly how statistics work. It all depends on the formula and data you use to come up with a desired outcome. Now doesn’t it??? So tell us, how many abortions are performed due circumstances other than Rape, Incest, life of the mother, or contraceptive failure.
So you do think rape victims should be exempted? Here's where you're going wrong. The 1% isn't describing pregnancies resulting from failed contraceptives, it's describing the rate at which contraceptives fail in every sexual encounter. I'm sure there are some abortions not due to failed contraceptives, but in theory they could all be due to it so long as there were greater than or equal to 833,652/0.01 = 83,365,200 sexual encounters total per year.
Ok, failed contraceptive sexual encounters that end in abortion is even less, now isn’t it? So please tell us why there are so many abortions that are preformed if they don’t fall under the advocates narrative? I was being “Liberal” with the numbers and keeping in line with the pro abortion center GI.
Because of all the failed sexual encounters using contraceptives that didn’t end pregnancies, therefore abortions, much be subtracted from the 1% failure rate, Right?
