Comments on: How to Reduce Abortions

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:08:40 +0000

@Thrifty Karen: Like all debate– liberals like to take the discussion to the edges. Rather than talk about all of those women that are having abortions which are convenient, they’d rather talk the hard cases, thereby implying that they’re all hard cases.

And yet there are many babies that are losing their lives to a choice because “I’m not ready” which is sometimes code for “I’m happy with my life and a baby would ruin it.”

I’ve always argued, however, that these women usually know the natural result of the activity that they’re involved in. They’re just choosing to ignore it until there is a new life, and then they act as if someone’s played a nasty trick on them.

By: Thrifty Karen

Thrifty Karen — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:55:45 +0000

Interesting information. Abortions are too easy to come by in the US. Perhaps if they were more difficult to come by (people having to travel to different states) then women would think twice about having unprotected sex. It has been obvious for quite some time that women are using abortion as a form of birth control. Getting a liberal to admit it though is just about impossible.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:45:34 +0000

@Kelly: Do you think that the numbers of abortions prior to 1860 were big? I can’t imagine that they were that big considering the state of medicine at the time.

In any case, great observations.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:31:02 +0000

In 1967, Colorado legalized abortion. Perhaps the 8,000 legal abortions were from Colorado.

The chart is a bit misleading too. It says <1967 as if abortion were illegal since the begining of time. In fact, the first state to limit abortion was Connecticut in 1821, but less than half the states had followed suit by 1860.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:02:14 +0000

That’s true, Katie. I’m sure there would be a lot of interstate travel. In a lot of ways it parallels slavery where you would then have some pro-life states and some that are not. Then those that allowed it would have to decide the morality of it and be accountable for their decisions. I believe that you might even see people moving from pro-abortion states to pro-life states (though I don’t know if it would be massive quantities).

And there’s the Unseen factor. If states stood for life, would God bless them more than those that did not?

By: Katie Gillet

Katie Gillet — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:46:51 +0000

Of course, if some states have legal abortion and others don’t, there will be a great increase in travel to that state for that purpose (just as people went to Nevada for quick divorces before no-fault divorce.)

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:06:02 +0000

The column with the label that says “States” shows how many states had legal abortions that year. I’m new to this chart as well, but from what I gather there were actually states that had legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, but Roe v. Wade mandated it for all states.

Same thing with if Roe was overturned. It would not immediately ban abortion in all states, but simply revert back to the state’s laws on the matter. Hence why there are many southern states that have “if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, then all abortions are banned” language on their books now.

One of the arguments that Constitution purists make is that Roe is bad law because it breaks apart Federalism– that the states should have been free to make up their own minds because there’s no right to an abortion in the federal Constitution. I tend to agree with this position as well.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:39:24 +0000

These are good statistics. But you’ll have to bear with my ignorance for a moment…

If abortion was illegal in every state in 1967, how were there 8,000 legal abortions?

Amanda’s last blog post..Pros and Cons