Comments about ‘Pew: Abortion divide widens along geographic lines’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 30 2013 5:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Andrew
American Fork, UT

Not one person who voted in this poll was aborted. They should be thankful for that. 4,500 Americans died on Sept 11 2001 from abortions. Hardly anyone said a word.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Andrew;

Since those abortions were never really people to begin with it hardly matters that nobody said a word. Fetuses aren't people (yet). Blastula's aren't people (yet).

Is it your body being used as an incubator? No? Then it isn't any of your business.

Rational
Salt Lake City, UT

RanchHand,
You have a low view of the sanctity of life and the human body. Women aren't heifers, though some have forgotten that.

trekker
Salt Lake, UT

ranch hand, babies move feel think early on the womb. I know woman who was lied to by an abortion doctor saying it was just cells, after she saw pictures and videos of babies at all stages of development in the womb she nearly committed suicide. i think if more woman were required to see this info before, abortion rates would drop. Are people so selfish they can't be pregnant for 9 month out of there life and give the baby to a couple who desperately wants to have children but can't?. The only cases of abortion that should be considered are rape incest mothers life in danger. Otherwise, you don't want kids have your tubes tide.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Free birth control led to greatly lower rates of abortions and births to teenagers, a large study concludes. The two-year project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured, who were given their choice of a range of free contraceptives. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday. There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study, compared with a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010. There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women in the St. Louis region, Dr. Peipert calculated. The national rate is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women. Women’s health specialists said the study foreshadows the potential impact of the new health care law, in which millions of women are beginning to get contraceptives without a co-payment.
(NY Times)

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"This article gives a review of the main factors that are related to the low abortion rate in the Netherlands. Attention is payed to figures on abortion and the use of contraceptive methods since the beginning of the 1960s up to the end of the 1980s. The introduction of modern contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services."
("Contraception in the Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained" NIH)

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

To "Truthseeker", reductions in the number of children killed through abortion is laudable but has nothing to do with the argument about the ethics of those who are killed.

To "Ranch Hand", simply stating that humans at some stage of their development aren't people (yet) is no more meaningful than saying that people of African descent are only 3/5ths human, and it is done for the same reason of conveniently disregarding that human because you want to feel free to kill/enslave them.

The fact that you, I and everyone else can walk around, meet and greet other people and even write responses to articles in the D-news doesn't alter the indisputable fact that we all are, ultimately and essentially, simply a much larger cluster of cells than we were soon after our conception and even birth. And the process that brought us **all** to where we are now and wherever we will be in the future started with that conception.

Except for some very rare cases, the only difference between us and the millions of others killed before they were born is time and someone's greater love of life.

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Re: "Not one person who voted in this poll was aborted. They should be thankful for that."

Why should they be thankful for it?

Ecclesiastes 4:

"So I again considered all the oppression that continually occurs on earth.
This is what I saw:
The oppressed were in tears, but no one was comforting them;
no one delivers them from the power of their oppressors.
So I considered those who are dead and gone
more fortunate than those who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has not been born
and has not seen the evil things that are done on earth."

People ought to consider what they're doing. I don't understand how anyone who stopped to think for a moment could want to subject even more people to this world of pain and suffering. Haven't enough suffered already?

If you're against abortion, don't have one. Let other people make their own decisions.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@trekker
"Are people so selfish they can't be pregnant for 9 month out of there life and give the baby to a couple who desperately wants to have children but can't?."

You make it sound as if pregnancy is so easy... I take it you're a guy (incidentally I am too, but I'm not going to think pregnancy is some walk in the park). By the way, there's plenty of children at adoption centers already, the couples who can't have kids already has options. Or is it like with animals? People go to animal shelters and always want a kitten or puppy rather than an older animal, does that apply to babies/children too?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

As someone who would like to see abortion reduced in frequency, I support the things that work across the work like universal coverage of birth control, and comprehensive sex education. The fastest way to reduce abortions is to reduce unplanned pregnancies. (Yes, abstinence is most effective but it's nice to have a backup plan when that inevitably doesn't get selected by a large portion of the population).

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ trekker: About 650 women die every year from pregnancy related complications. True, that is not a high number - unless you are the family of one of those women. The choice to carry a baby to term is not just about being "selfish" or "unselfish."

You state that you support abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Many of the new abortion laws that are being passed prohibit abortions after 20 weeks - which is often before it can be determined if the mother's life is in danger.

How do you feel about abortions in circumstances where there is a fatal fetal defect or a severe birth defect?

@ rational: You want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term and you think Ranchhand is the women treating women like cows?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:samhill
"nothing to do with the argument about the ethics of those who are killed."

"we all are, ultimately and essentially, simply a much larger cluster of cells than we were soon after our conception and even birth."

If a "cluster of cells" is basically equivalent to adult humans, what is then ethical about "killing/terminating" that innocent "cluster of cells" in cases of rape and incest?

the truth
Holladay, UT

@RanchHand

Not People?

Well they certainly weren't forks or frogs were they?

They were human and could only be human.

They could not be anything else.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

It's interesting that the government condemns murder and made laws against it. Then the left wing flaps in and wants to legalize some forms of murder. They call it "womens rights" or "womens issues" or justify it by saying "it's their body".

All of these labels stir deep emotions and makes one feel like that they should support such a cause.

Let's look at the issues. Two consenting adults engage in a behavior. A child is created. Now they strip the father of his rights, by calling it womens rights. And gives the woman the ability to destroy a human life, because it's her choice and her body. How would you feel if your life could be terminated soo quickly because your mother decided after the fact that she and the father shouldn't have engaged in such activities?

I just don't understand how the left wing people can condone murdering children. They jump up and down during war time and scream for the children. But why not unborn children?

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Re: "They call it 'womens rights' or 'womens issues' or justify it by saying 'it's their body.'"

It is their body. The woman is not just a "host." The fetus is not more important than the woman. It is a part of her body, and she should have the final say. Not the man. Not the government. Not the church. Not the mob.

"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee ... And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee ..."

Re: "How would you feel if your life could be terminated soo quickly because your mother decided after the fact that she and the father shouldn't have engaged in such activities?"

I wouldn't "feel" at all because I wouldn't know, and I'd be no worse off than I was before conception. On the other hand, if there's an afterlife, and if I already had a soul, according to Mormon doctrine I would go straight to the Celestial Kingdom, and I would know and "feel" thankful that the woman had spared me the pain and suffering of this earth.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments