If you want to reduce incidences of abortion, reduce unplanned and unwanted pregnaancies.
If you want to do that provide contraception free of charge.
Can it work in the US?
Has been working in Colorado.

WALSENBURG, Colo. — Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.

What are the benefits beyond the reduction in abortions?

“If we want to reduce poverty, one of the simplest, fastest and cheapest things we could do would be to make sure that as few people as possible become parents before they actually want to,” said Isabel Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. She argues in her 2014 book, “Generation Unbound: Drifting Into Sex and Parenthood Without Marriage,” that single parenthood is a principal driver of inequality and long-acting birth control is a powerful tool to prevent it

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/scien ... .html?_r=0

Does this not make sense bbauska?

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/327/two-in-five-single-mother-families-are-poor

Single mothers are 4 times more likely to be in poverty than married couples.

RickyP, I am all for contraception.

noun
noun: contraception

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Origin
late 19th century: from contra- ‘against’ + a shortened form of conception.
Translate contraception to
Use over time for: contraception

However, after conception, people (father and mother) must accept responsibility for their actions and carry this child to term unless there is a claim of rape or incest (to the police).

You seem to think that abortion is contraception. It is not. That goes against the very derivation of the word. In my opinion, after conception, there should not be a choice as to kill or not kill the fetus.

We both agree that poverty rates are impacted by people's bad choices concerning getting pregnant. We both agree that contraception is good.

I do not agree that abortion is contraception. Break down the word.

bbauska

RickyP, I am all for contraception

But are you for providing that contraception free?
And are you okay with Planned Parenthood providing that free service ?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

RickyP, I am all for contraception

But are you for providing that contraception free?
And are you okay with Planned Parenthood providing that free service ?

Yes, as long as they do not provide abortions. I would give them federal funding if they did not provide abortive services.

The question is, are you ok with a Planned parenthood not giving abortive services?

bbauska

The question is, are you ok with a Planned parenthood not giving abortive services?

No. Not really.
All that is, is an attempt to eliminate access to safe abortions. (Even though Planned Parenthood isn't focused on provision of such.)
Criminalizing abortion didn't eliminate abortions. All that it did was drive desperate women to seek abortions from illegal providers who were often unqualified and unsafe.
Women still made the choice. They were just forced to take far greater risks. And many suffered as a result.
Why is it that you want the government to attempt to control this decision for women?

I also have a hard time with the concept that life begins at conception. Here's why:

However, there's some serious problems with the logic of ensoulation at the point of conception. The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

rickyp wrote:Publicly funded medical service providers generally provide services more efficiently than private for profit services.

Let me destroy that argument: VA.

Which is why, every developed country in the world provides medical services to their entire populace for anywhere from half to 65% of the GDP that the US does. Mostly because the US medical service provision is mostly for profit.... Making services more expensive for poor people whilst driving up costs...

Nonsense. This leaves a good deal of the truth out of the equation, including but not limited to: time you have to wait for services, limits on services, taxation required to pay for it, etc.

The question is, do you want to help avoid unwanted pregnancies effectively? If so than you should be in favor of taxes helping poor young women avoid pregnancy.

For the most part, contraception is cheap. Very cheap. Cost is not a genuine issue. How much does "the pill" cost--if one shops? How much are condoms?

This is, for the most part, a matter of priorities and not cost.

Your opinion is noted.

We do not agree. This is just another example of your inability to compromise your opinion to something more moderate, as you expect others to do to move

rickyp wrote:
I also have a hard time with the concept that life begins at conception. Here's why:

However, there's some serious problems with the logic of ensoulation at the point of conception. The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not life begins at conception. Some life ends shortly after conception--that does not change what life is. Spontaneous abortion does not change it either, nor should it be confused with abortion of choice.

Your current form of argument: repetition ad nauseum with a twist of irrelevant information.

Hmm, not sure what you mean by compromise, Brad. Kind of hard to compromise when the other side seeks a complete ban on abortions. It truly is a slippery slope to put more and more restrictions on abortion...

What's astonishing to ponder is that each generation of our ancestors going back tens of thousands of years had to make it to being an adult and then have surviving children. Each person is special because they have hit the evolutionary lottery--if any of their ancestors going back untold generations had failed in their biological imperative (i.e. reproduce) they would not be here.

But that also holds true for women. Women living today are not going to have a lot of ancestors who chose to have children when it was not prudent to do so. For one thing, until relatively recently mortality were very high for young children. There is a reason why some/most cultures celebrate the passing of an early childhood marker shortly after birth (you wonder if those dates were also markers for when a child was identified as part of the community and thus not subject to infanticide). Mortality rates for women in childbirth was also very high until relatively recently. So for much of human history the cost of a woman making a poor decision about whether to have or give up a child could have been the end of their line. So...it stands to reason that women who live today would be selected for genes that cause them to be less likely to go through with disadvantageous pregnancies.

So the idea that making women feel bad about abortion is going to work seems very questionable given that women have in general been selected to make a good costs/benefits analysis about whether having a child at a particular point is advantageous.You need to put a lot of pressure (legal/social) to get women to stop having abortions. But like Ricky has said probably more than once women tried to get abortions even when it was illegal and even when it was dangerous for them.

Whether we could reduce abortions by making contraception more available is difficult to know. DF thinks that contraception is cheap and readily available. I am not certain. But even if available people tend to be--especially if they are young--a bit self-conscious about getting it sometimes. There is a complex dynamic involving knowledge about contraception, inexperience and immaturity, access to contraception, openess to sexuality in the culture, power relations between men and women, and probably other stuff that I have not thought off that affect whether contraception is used or not. For instance, Evangelical Christians think premarital sex is wrong...but many of them have premarital sex. Does that conflict affect contraceptive use? I don't know.

Anyway, perhaps we could get higher levels of contraceptive use. When that fails then good access to emergency contraception to try and end the pregnancy at a very early stage is another option.


Rather than investing so much energy in stopping abortions, maybe putting more effort and money into better, more unobtrusive, and more effective contraception would have a better effect.

freeman3 wrote:Hmm, not sure what you mean by compromise, Brad. Kind of hard to compromise when the other side seeks a complete ban on abortions. It truly is a slippery slope to put more and more restrictions on abortion...

No, it's actually what people want. Have a look at polls asking about third trimester abortions.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Hmm, not sure what you mean by compromise, Brad. Kind of hard to compromise when the other side seeks a complete ban on abortions. It truly is a slippery slope to put more and more restrictions on abortion...

No, it's actually what people want. Have a look at polls asking about third trimester abortions.

But clearly as outlined above you do oppose abortions more than just in the last trimester. Any abortions you would not want banned?

fate

Have a look at polls asking about third trimester abortions

Asking people about something that is virtually nonexistent anyway?
Rickyp

Late term abortions are another right wing myth. (Like welfare queens)
Here's the truth. They are very rare. And even then really only done out of of necessity to save the mothers.

In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[15

]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term ... _pregnancy

Fate

Some life ends shortly after conception--that does not change what life is

You have no real evidence that life begins at conception. Only that development of the fetus begins at conception.
If nature, or God, intended for life to begin at conception, why would nature or God then destroy so much of his creation? 70% And much of it before the mother is even aware it exists?
You'll say, "God works in mysterious ways" I suppose.
I think its evidence that life hasn't begun .... And this is just as mysterious as to why...

Freeman:

Hmm, not sure what you mean by compromise, Brad. Kind of hard to compromise when the other side seeks a complete ban on abortions.

Brad has indicated that he is not in favor of a complete ban on abortions and that he is willing to have public funding of contraception. I think he is compromising from an absolute position.

Perhaps, Freeman, since Ray Jay was kind enough to validate my position, you could explain how RickyP's position is a compromise?