If birth control is invented which is 100% effective

If in the future, a form of birth control is invented which is 100% fail-proof, will left-wingers still support abortion?

 

I don't "support abortion". I support a woman's right to choose what's best for themselves. They want to keep it? Great, congratulations. You don't want to keep it? Well, that's your choice.

The effectiveness of whatever form of birth control doesn't change my opinion that a fetus isn't an individual until it is capable of supporting itself with it's own metabolism, and thusly isn't entitled to the same rights as an individual that can.

 

"Birth control" and abortion are both anti white.
Negroes and mexicans don't use either very much.

 

Yes. The personhood of the fetus (or lack of it) is not dependent on birth control quality.

 

if it's 100% effected and 100% of people have access to it, would not mater if one was for or against it, it just would not happen

would pro-lifers support government assistance to make sure everyone had access? from what I have seen many of them are against birth control too


.

 

Incorrect. Blacks and mexicans have higher rates of abortion than white people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortions_and_ethnicity

If you are a white nationalist, you should support abortion.

 

Liberal abortion rules go hand in hand, given more successful birth control action, with lower abortion rates. Its simply irrational to be pro-life

 

I was surprised to see those stats, honestly...then I looked at this from your (unreliable propaganda source) wiki;


Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant.

huh?
Women who aren't pregnant are counted among those who have abortions?..Say WHAT? Well, THAT will tend to skew the numbers..Good ol' wiki.

 

Yes indeed they will.

 

.

"Religious school grads likelier to have abortions"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31048153/ns/health-health_care/


.

 

Yes.

I would anyway, because my belief in abortion being a choice has nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with privacy and personal rights. The government has no business inside a woman's uterus, for any reason. Now, I understand the reality of the world I live in, and that some people obviously feel the Federal government should be used to enforce their own subjective whimsical morality, so I would support hypothetical(at this point) compromises on the window for abortion if it would lock in place the woman's right prior to the cutoff date. That would have to be a must.

But, in the event that a 100% effective birth control were created, my position on abortion would not change the slightest. I am pro-choice because it's the woman's body and her destiny, and her choice, not the choice of people who will have absolutely nothing to do with the mother and her child as they sit in their homes drinking their tea and complaining about the decline of morality in America.

You know, if we got rid of abortion as a divisive political issue, for both sides, imagine how much more attention could be paid to the things that have actual consequence on most, if not all, of us. Abortion affects the mother, and sometimes the father, and perhaps by extension their families(but that's really a stretch). Economic issues, defense issues, national policy issues, affect quite a bit more people so I would rather people's energy be focused on those instead of personal privacy issues that people unequivocally have NO business sticking their noses in.

 

Not being a control freak, my views on abortion have nothing to do with whether a woman could be considered "at fault".

 

A 100% effective birth control will reduce the abortion rate but it will never stop the need for abortion - not while there are males out there who promise the world to women only to take off with everything the woman owns when he finds out she is pregnant - and then of course go on the internet and deride all women for being murderers

 

Hey it's her problem if she's too lazy to fill out adoption papers. While going online and blaming men because she chose to have an abortion out of laziness.

 

Your position is based on an innate hatred of women. The evidence shows that successful birth control and liberal abortion policy go hand in hand. Want to reduce abortion rates and support birth control policy? Reject the folly of pro-life irrationality!

 

And what has this to do with men abandoning pregnant women and leaving them with no other option? Didn't like me reminding people that that happens did you? Interferes with the campaign to prove "laziness" A campaign that is on a hiding to nothing BTW since it lacks real world proof

 

100% birth control has been around since man. It is called Noassitol and Sulfadenial so no, left wingers would still support abortion.

 

What about that? Why is it so hard for a woman to adopt her child out if she had a deadbeat husband who won't support it?

 

No, You seem to not understand how statistics works. They dont count not pregnant women among those having abortions (numerator), that would obviously not make sense, I dont know how you arrived at such notion from the sentence. They count them in the 1,000 (denominator). It says how many women are having abortions per 1000 women of reproductive age in a particular demographic.

The statistic is sound. Here are the citations:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080311171704/http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

 

Who said anything about husband? If there were no such thing as seduction then there would not be a word describing it. There are males out there who are really not fit to be humans.

Now lazy or otherwise how is a woman who has had everything stolen from her by the "baby daddy" as he POQ'd elsewhere going to support herself during the pregnancy? Especially in those areas where there is little to no employment opportunities and welfare is not always available???

 

So your argument against abortion now is laziness? ROFL! Well last I checked laziness is not illegal so nothing wrong with a woman choosing abortion out of 'laziness'. LOLOLOLOL!

 

But "fetuses" (actually unborn babies) in the later stages of pregnancy can (or at least have the potential to) support themselves with their own metabolisms; they just need AIR, which is not available inside the womb.

 

Remember fetuses at this stage of development aren't aborted unless threatening the woman's life or health. Women don't CHOOSE to have abortions at this stage.

 

What about the fact that late-term abortionists, such as Dr. George Tiller did allow this, and would abort up until 1 day before live birth?

 

Those late-term abortions were because of life or health endangerment. Tiller was investigated and cleared of all wrong-doing.