South Dakota bans abortions

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Our overall abortion rate is about 16 per 1000 women of child-bearing age per year

jesus... that's really high. that's 1.6% of all women of child bearing age getting an abortion every year. i wonder what the % of pregnent women get abortions per year.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

jesus... that's really high. that's 1.6% of all women of child bearing age getting an abortion every year. i wonder what the % of pregnent women get abortions per year.

I have no idea about pregnant %'s but if you say a woman is fertile for 30 years [just a guess] and you multiply 1.6% by thirty years, you get 48% of women will have 1 abortion during their life. Pretty astounding and puts in perspective how big a challenge you face to change the law.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I have no idea about pregnant %'s but if you say a woman is fertile for 30 years [just a guess] and you multiply 1.6% by thirty years, you get 48% of women will have 1 abortion during their life. Pretty astounding and puts in perspective how big a challenge you face to change the law.

I doubt that's accurate. It's more like you'll get 20% having multiples. Or some such figure, but there's probably a lot of multiples because I can't imagine only 52% would rather give birth.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I have no idea about pregnant %'s but if you say a woman is fertile for 30 years [just a guess] and you multiply 1.6% by thirty years, you get 48% of women will have 1 abortion during their life. Pretty astounding and puts in perspective how big a challenge you face to change the law.

So by your calculations, half the women in Canada will have an abortion during their lifetime? I don't think so.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So by your calculations, half the women in Canada will have an abortion during their lifetime? I don't think so.

Like I said, astounding. I'll be glad if you can find better stats. As Firefly says some will have more than one abortion.

[Mike F]

CBC News says:

The number of women seeking abortions across Canada continues to fall slightly, Statistics Canada reported Friday.

Overall, the rate for abortions fell marginally to 15.4 per 1,000 women in 2002, from 15.6 per 1,000 women in 2001
. . . .
Canadian women obtained 105,154 abortions in 2002, down one per cent from 106,270 of the procedures one year earlier.

Edit: Linky no worky, so here's a backup.

More statistics:

About 30% of all Canadian women have at least one abortion in her lifetime

Don't you guys have decent Google-skillz?

[Vulcan]

Here's another link showing http://users.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml in 2002 there was 32.1 abortions for every 100 live births.

edited for accuracy

[Phaneuf3]

Ok, now seeing these numbers this high, does this change what anyone thinks on the issue? I am completely floored that 30% of canadian women will get an abortion in their lifetime. I had no idea it was that high. I am now even moreso anti-abortion and pro-taking resposibility for what you did.

[Eastern Girl]

Those stats don't change my mind about anything.

[JiriHrdina]

Always a tricky topic. Here's my 2.5 cents.

- I don't know when life beings. Frankly no one does. What defines life? A heart beat or is that merely potential for life. Dunno. Those are answers none of have frankly
- Delegalizing abortion would lower the frequency of them for sure, but they would also definately increase the frequency of back alley abortions. That's a major concern in my view. Don't underestimate someone that is desperate in terms of what they will do

I guess at the end of the day I would be hesitant to call myself pro-abortion. Or even pro-choice. But I am anti-anti-abortion. Or anit-pro-life. Something like that.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Always a tricky topic. Here's my 2.5 cents.

- I don't know when life beings. Frankly no one does. What defines life? A heart beat or is that merely potential for life. Dunno. Those are answers none of have frankly
- Delegalizing abortion would lower the frequency of them for sure, but they would also definately increase the frequency of back alley abortions. That's a major concern in my view. Don't underestimate someone that is desperate in terms of what they will do

I guess at the end of the day I would be hesitant to call myself pro-abortion. Or even pro-choice. But I am anti-anti-abortion. Or anit-pro-life. Something like that.

So... you are on the fence on this issue then?

[CaptainCrunch]

I might be ignorant, but if the pro-choice groups challenge this in North Dakota does it force the re-opening of Roe vs Wade in front of the supreme court?

If I remember right, Roe vs Wade is considered a litmus case judgement that allows society to evaluate the makeup of the Supreme Court justices.

Just curious.

Abortion is kinda touchy, I'm kind of a mixture, I'm for abortion if the fetus is putting the mothers life in danger, but really against it as a means of eugenics (Aborting downs syndrome babies or birth defects), or as a means of getting rid of an unwanted child.

buts thats my opinion.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Ok, now seeing these numbers this high, does this change what anyone thinks on the issue? I am completely floored that 30% of canadian women will get an abortion in their lifetime. I had no idea it was that high. I am now even moreso anti-abortion and pro-taking resposibility for what you did.

What is the alternative?

Should we deny women the right to determine what happens to their bodies, and allow the state force nearly 1/3 of the women in Canada to carry and give birth to children they don't want? Should we try to place over 100,000 children each year in adopted homes? (Hint: ain't gonna happen)

And what about women who are determined to take control of their bodies? Should we imprison them for 9 months until they've given birth?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

Those stats don't change my mind about anything.

Nor do they change my pro choice stance, but I think they do show a weakness in supporting pregnant women to keep there fetus. I'm not talking about laying on guilt trips as anti-abortion groups do, but assuring financial and emotional support.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

So... you are on the fence on this issue then?

Not really on the fence. More standing next to it on the Pro Choice side. I occasionally peek over to the other side but its always a bit scary so I scramble back.

I admit there's something doesn't sit well with me in terms of the concept of aborting an unborn child. But at the same time I just don't see a practical way of not allowing abortions. The consequences of making it illeagal are just bad.

[JiriHrdina]

Further to my point above - I think one of the real problems is that the two sides of the debate are so often extreme in their viewpoints that it makes it impossible to have any real discussion.

E.g. the pro-life side could argue for placing more limitations on when a child can be aborted in the pregenancy and perhaps even reasons why the abortion is needed.

But it seems like the two sides are fully incapable of even having a discussion about the big issues.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Mike F

What is the alternative?

Should we deny women the right to determine what happens to their bodies, and allow the state force nearly 1/3 of the women in Canada to carry and give birth to children they don't want? Should we try to place over 100,000 children each year in adopted homes? (Hint: ain't gonna happen)

And what about women who are determined to take control of their bodies? Should we imprison them for 9 months until they've given birth?

Well maybe knowing abortions are now illegal would make people (both male and female) think twice before having sex creating fewer unwanted pregnencies. Maybe its time adults take responsibility for themselves and face the fact that sometimes having unprotected sex while not using any form of birth control isn't as easy to fix as a quick trip to the doctor anymore. Who knows this might even slow the spread of AIDS and other STDs.

And no, you shouldn't imprisson them until they've given birth. You don't imprission someone who might commit a crime, that'd be wrong. After they kill and actually have commited a crime, THEN you could lock her up.

[HOZ]

Have to agree with you JiriHrdina. You pretty much stated pretty much what I think.

Honestly with the level of education and contraceptives that we have abortion should be a rare thing. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons abortion is far more common than it really has to be.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Agree with Jiri too. This issue is turned way too black/white.

I think people on both sides get very passionate about it and just like to fight with each other.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's another link showing http://users.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml in 2002 there was 32.1 abortions for every 100 live births.

edited for accuracy

I'm not sure a website sponsored by "Priests for Life" isn't trying to promote their own agenda. I looked up the stats as they advise ([SIZE=2]1998-2002: Go to www.statcan.ca and search for the word abortion for various statistics), and I find this which says in 2002 there were 13.0 induced abortions / 1000 women.

For the record, I used to consider myself anti-abortion. But listening to both sides of the arguement through the years, I hear what Jiri was talking about, the zealotry of both sides is not only disgusting but divisive, unproductive, and misleading. I have come to believe it is the woman's decision - she has to bring the child to term and the physical and psychological effects are something that I'd imagine I, as a man, can never fully understand. I'm not happy that it is a form of birth control, I hate that; but it is not like having an abortion is a "Get out of jail Free" card, the woman will remember that for her whole life. But it is the woman who ultimately pays the highest price so she should be the one to make the decision.

Originally Posted by [/SIZE

CaptainCrunch]I might be ignorant, but if the pro-choice groups challenge this in North Dakota does it force the re-opening of Roe vs Wade in front of the supreme court?

If I remember right, Roe vs Wade is considered a litmus case judgement that allows society to evaluate the makeup of the Supreme Court justices.

Just curious.

GWB's 2 recent appointments to the SCOTUS are both conservative. The Democrates didn't have enough votes to block the appointments, and the fillibuster didn't last long. Justice John Roberts has even stated in the past that he believes Roe v Wade was an incorrect decision. So South Dakota believes this is as good a time as any to try and overturn that decision.

I'm not sure how this will make it to the Supreme Court. The pro-choice crowd will have already filed to have the SD ban thrown out, it will go to the judge, and the judge will say this was decided based on prior case law (Roe v Wade) and throw out the ban. I'm not sure what grounds SD will have to appeal to the next level?

And for the sake of argument, if it did make it to the SCOTUS, will the new justices want to "write new laws from the bench", something conservative Republicans have been screaming against lately?

Sorry for the rambling, just a few things I wanted to say...