Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition

“personal choice” 98% (78-99 %)
–too young/immature/not ready for responsibility (32 %)
–economic 30% (21-36 %)
–to avoid adjusting life (16 %)
–mother single or in poor relationship (12-13 %)
–enough children already (4-8 %)
–sex selection (<0.1 %)

Quantifying cases involving the “mental health” of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.

These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the “hard cases” are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases–rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby–are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI's surveys of 1987 and 2004 (as well as the detailed statistics from Minnesota) suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.

That is a lie. Absolutely untrue, and not even knowable. Your presumption is breathtaking.

He does have his posted study, and while it doesn't equla 93% it adds up to 82%

What about you Kathy, where are your facts?

In music, or politics?

In music only, my mom is a moderate, who shares my belief that a woman should have the right to chose early in the pregnancy before mental activity can take place in the fetus but opposes late term abortions, and that taxpayers should not be burdened with stupid decisions made by others including abortions for women who couldn't afford the cost of their pregnancy, an abortion, or the day after pill. My father on the other hand is strictly pro-life, but he never discusses the issue unless directly asked and doesn't seek to push his views on others beyond his vote.

My mom is also I big opponent of the welfare state, and was very fond of Hiliary Clinton for what she represented to women. Had Hiliary won the nomination she had said she was undecided on who to vote for, but she voted for McCain since Hiliary wasn't running. My mom is also strongly anti-war as she sees war as always the wrong answer, yet she is supportive of the troops and getting them the best as her brother was a marine in WWII, my father was a soldier, and my brother served as well. She may hate war, but she certainly loves our soldiers.

It's from a 2004 study.

I'm not sure why you sound so shocked by the statement, either. Almoderate said pretty much the same thing and you didn't even refer to it, much less ask for sources.

Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!

I gave you MY source for my figures. 93-98% of abortions are for UNWANTED pregnacies not resulting from rape or incest.

UMMMMM. Your assertion is completely false – as far as my research has taken me. It is possible that I missed something. Eductate me, Kathy. Tell me your sources of your claim that most aborted pregnancies are WANTED! I'll go ahead and hold my breath.

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: 2004 Study
Not Ready for children: 25%
Too immature: 7%
Relationship problems: 8%
Has all the children she wanted already: 19%
Can't afford a baby right now: 23%

Wow. It really looks like those children were “wanted” huh?

That's why I can't “understand that”.

Ummmm, then why do you keep writing things like this:

“Kathy, with the exception of rape and incest, no one FORCES pregnancy. Why do you fail to realize that?”

and this:

“Women are free to chose with whom to sleep with and to choose to not have sex at all. Once again, why do you not see that?”

and this:

“Instead of individual responsibility prior to pregnancy, you want the government to support after-the-fact regret.”

when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?

Why do you keep repeating the same ridiculous lines about loose women and forcing Americans to pay for UNWANTED pregnancies when in most cases the pregnancy WAS wanted?

I don't understand why you do that, JD. Why do you do that? Why don't you realize that most of the time women who choose abortions do so because something has gone terribly wrong with a pregnancy they PLANNED and WANTED, or there is some unforeseen threat to their health or life?

Why can't you understand that?

I have acknowleged their points. But I have to admit, I'm a bit busy warding off your constant ramble to give them the time they deserve. The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical. Yours are not. I get along with moderates, conservatives, AND liberals – when they use logic in their arguments. You have already proven to me that you don't read my threads – only a hitpoint or two to counter. I have used logic to the best of my ability. If others point out flaws in my logic, then I'll address it or recant it. You do not do that. When someone points out a flaw to your logic or argument, you only attack or belittle.

I didn't think you were defending irresponsibility. Based upon what you've written in the past, that really doesn't seem like your approach. I did not mention anything about when the life of the mother is threatened. That is an ethical decision that a mother or doctor must make. My wife has told me in the past (as most parents would) that if that were the case, she would want for the child, not her, to live.

And I agree that it takes two to tango. Personal responsibility does not fall only upon the woman – that is a sexist approach. Yes, any woman could “accidentally” get pregnant in order to better her situation – that happens now and has throughout history. Once again…. men, too, must reap the benefits of an adventurous penis. If you cannot afford or want a child (or don't want to pay child support for 18 years), DO NOT HAVE SEX! That goes for men and women.

But as I stated earlier…. What about illegal aliens in reference to your definition of a citizen? You did not address that. You said that non-citizens are not covered. Can I then legally kill illegal aliens?

Want to change the definition? Amend the Constitution. But consider all the ramifications of subordinating one person's rights to another. On your conscience would be the deaths of all women who die during a pregnancy or childbirth that they and their doctors did not believe were in her best interest. But I don't think you particularly care about that. You would still feel righteous about fetuses being protected, even if women died as a result. After all, it was their “irresponsible behavior” in the first place, right?

But beyond that, consider the other ramifications, which I have elucidated. If the fetus has rights elevated above the woman's, why should she not be forbidden by law to drink, smoke or undergo any medical procedures or take any drugs that could threaten the now more-sacred-than-her fetus within her? Now you have potentially hundreds of women who get pregnant by accident but must sacrifice their health and life for “her baby” which may very well not survive the pregnancy anyway.

Another point. It takes two to tango. Do you support forcing the father to marry her, to participate in parenting, to pay til the child is 18? Then any woman who wants a baby and a meal ticket can “accidentally” get pregnant and bingo, child support.

1. Stop defending irresponsible sexual practices. It is the cause of at least 93% of all unwanted pregnancy. A woman and man makes the decision to have sex in every one of those cases. Of course, the “me generation” wants to keep sex as a fun hobby and to be lifted up to the status of recreation. People have that right, of course; but sex comes with responsibility. If you cannot take the responsibility of a possible pregnancy, DO NOT HAVE SEX!!!!

2. The beginning of life. That's the big debate. When your “mass of cells in the uterus” begins to fire synapses, it becomes life. As far as your citizen argument, it doesn't hold water. With your definition, I can go ahead and murder any illegal alien I can find. They're not citizens – they were not born here nor naturalized – why not kill them because I can't afford to support them (with my tax dollars) either.

And “obviously” blacks were not human beings either. They had no legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word “niggar”, “slave”, “darkie”, or “negro”. Your thought processes are so polluted by liberalism that you are talking in freakin' riddles. You have made your own mind up (just like the racists of the 19th Century) that a “fetus” is not a human being. All hail Kathy the “god”.

Okay. But I just don't believe you when you say that ALL war is murder. Would you consider it murder if you shot someone attempting to rape you? Would you consider the Army committing murder if they were defending against a, say, Chinese invasion of New York?

I have justified my comments on the abortion is murder subject. Now why don't you actually justify your position on “war is murder” instead of talking in circles and using rhetorical crap?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion…

And I agree with you on war. If you do not support the war, your tax dollars should not support it. I totally understand that opinion. As I said, because I wear the uniform, doesn't mean I like war. I actually hate war. Any warrior worth his/her salt would tell you the same.

That's absolute crap, but typical out of you.
The prior statement included men in the same exact context. If you cannot keep your legs closed or if you cannot keep your penis holstered; you should not expect (yes, EXPECT) government assistance to pay for your irresponsibility. It's that kind of entitlement mentality that drives moderates and conservatives nuts.

A woman IS a citizen, and her rights are protected. If a mass of cells in her uterus that MIGHT become a citizen is to have ITS rights elevated above the ACTUAL, living citizen, that is a slippery slope indeed. There is no circumstance under our constitution in which you can be forced to undergo or not to undergo a medical procedure to benefit another person. If the fetus (or morula if it's not a fetus yet) has greater rights than the living citizen, then she could also be forced to stop all medical treatment (chemotherapy, blood thinners, blood pressure medication, etc.) that could threaten the viability of the fetus. Take a look sometime at the drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy. It's almost ALL prescription and many OTC drugs. So now a woman must risk her life and health to benefit another citizen, oops, a noncitizen POTENTIAL life.

Now consider that pregnancy itself is statistically way more risky than abortion, to the woman. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, you are suggesting that a woman who becomes pregnant must be required by law to take the riskier path, medically speaking. She no longer has the right to make her own decisions about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

By what right, and on what legal basis do you suggest that any person's constitutional rights should be subordinated to the rights of another, especially a mass of cells that very well might not become a live birth?

Think about it. You who rail about a “federal takeover of health care” now suggest that the feds take from women their fundamental right to make medical decisions based on their own and their physicians' best judgment. Talk about nanny state!

Indeed I did. Except I've never heard of a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Do you have any real-world examples?

“A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word “child” or not.”

As the law works right now, the child has all the rights of a normal child — except against the mother. Otherwise, killing a pregnant woman, or causing a miscarriage would not be considered child murder.

” 'If a person can be legally killed, they have no rights.'
Wrong again. Even prisoners on death row have certain rights.”

I'll accept that. What I meant was “If a person can be legally killed, they effectively have no rights.”

Well, mark it down, Prof, forced pregnancy is any pregnancy that a woman is forced to carry to term. You learned something new today.

Also, he was obviously equating the rights of slaves to the rights of the child, not the mother.

Obviously. And just as obviously, he was wrong. A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word “child” or not.

If a person can be legally killed, they have no rights.

Wrong again. Even prisoners on death row have certain rights. Even civilians in wartime have certain rights that can be asserted, despite the fact that if they are killed by a cruise missile, their deaths are nominally legal.

The baseline right that every human being has, by virtue of being human, is bodily autonomy. If a woman does not have control or choice over what happens to her own body; if a woman can be compelled by law to allow another being or life to use her body for its own protection at the expense of hers, then she lacks the most basic right any human being has — without which there simply are no other meaningful rights. No human rights are possible if a person's body is owned by the state. In fact, that is the very definition of a slave — someone whose body is owned by the state (or by another person).