CDC: Abortion Rates in U.S. Hits Historic Low

[America Needs R'hllor]

Democrats would be well advised to stick to the Clinton-era mantra of keeping abortion 'safe, legal, and rare', while promoting contraception and comprehensive sex education. 

What does that mean exactly?

That abortions, while they should absolutely remain legal, should also ideally be safe and rare, because they're hard and sometimes heart-breaking decisions. Part of what will make them rare are contraceptions and sex education (as opposed to stupid laws to make them illegal and force some women to try unsafe, illegal solutions).
Also, I absolutely agree with this:

Are unwanted pregnancies at an all time low? If so, that's the real good news.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Safe, legal, and rare.

Terrific news. (Objectively, it’s great news. Abortion is an extremely difficult decision whether one goes through with one or not, and the fewer women forced to face that decision in the first place, the better).

Yep, pretty good news

[Person Man]

Democrats would be well advised to stick to the Clinton-era mantra of keeping abortion 'safe, legal, and rare', while promoting contraception and comprehensive sex education. 

What does that mean exactly?

That abortions, while they should absolutely remain legal, should also ideally be safe and rare, because they're hard and sometimes heart-breaking decisions. Part of what will make them rare are contraceptions and sex education (as opposed to stupid laws to make them illegal and force some women to try unsafe, illegal solutions).
Also, I absolutely agree with this:

Are unwanted pregnancies at an all time low? If so, that's the real good news.

Isn't that what we are already pushing?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Very good that only 650,000 people were killed last year instead of a million. Terrific

[Dr. MB]

Well, that's good.

[Keep cool-idge]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

[America Needs R'hllor]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

Please stop.

[Person Man]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

Is it better to have abortion be illegal but not certain if it is still happening or to simply know it's not happening. 1935 almost had as many abortions as 2015 and abortion was illegal everywhere back then.

[emailking]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

Is it better to have abortion be illegal but not certain if it is still happening or to simply know it's not happening. 1935 almost had as many abortions as 2015 and abortion was illegal everywhere back then.

Of course that could be cut down a lot by better enforcement. But it would be even better to avoid the desire for such abortions by pouring more resources into the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, e.g. through government funded birth control and making the morning after pill available otc.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

While it is tragic and terrible abortion-on-demand is available in the United States (Roe vs Wade was, is, remains, and always will be a disastrous and heinous legal decision), it's encouraging to see any declines in this metric. Hopefully the next generation is wedded less to birth control and more to rearing children.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

Please stop.

[MasterJedi]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

[Person Man]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

The only role of the government is to enforce unfunded mandates.

[Kingpoleon]

While it is tragic and terrible abortion-on-demand is available in the United States (Roe vs Wade was, is, remains, and always will be a disastrous and heinous legal decision), it's encouraging to see any declines in this metric. Hopefully the next generation is wedded less to birth control and more to rearing children.

Excluding abortion, do you oppose birth control?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

While it is tragic and terrible abortion-on-demand is available in the United States (Roe vs Wade was, is, remains, and always will be a disastrous and heinous legal decision), it's encouraging to see any declines in this metric. Hopefully the next generation is wedded less to birth control and more to rearing children.

Excluding abortion, do you oppose birth control?

One can't legislate away the high prevalence of birth control in this society. Only by changing hearts and minds is this possible.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Safe, legal & rare is the best way to handle this issue.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

While it is tragic and terrible abortion-on-demand is available in the United States (Roe vs Wade was, is, remains, and always will be a disastrous and heinous legal decision), it's encouraging to see any declines in this metric. Hopefully the next generation is wedded less to birth control and more to rearing children.

Excluding abortion, do you oppose birth control?

One can't legislate away the high prevalence of birth control in this society. Only by changing hearts and minds is this possible.

Traditionalist views like this go against human nature. Sex is fun, and you can't expect anyone to only have sex within the context of producing children, assuming they're heterosexual.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

While it is tragic and terrible abortion-on-demand is available in the United States (Roe vs Wade was, is, remains, and always will be a disastrous and heinous legal decision), it's encouraging to see any declines in this metric. Hopefully the next generation is wedded less to birth control and more to rearing children.

Excluding abortion, do you oppose birth control?

One can't legislate away the high prevalence of birth control in this society. Only by changing hearts and minds is this possible.

Traditionalist views like this go against human nature. Sex is fun, and you can't expect anyone to only have sex within the context of producing children, assuming they're heterosexual.

Agree.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

[Person Man]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

It's exactly what the abortion debate is.  Pro-lifers say murder should be illegal, then pro-choicers essentially say "but you won't pay for social programs for these children" as if that justifies murder.

[IceSpear]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

It's exactly what the abortion debate is.  Pro-lifers say murder should be illegal, then pro-choicers essentially say "but you won't pay for social programs for these children" as if that justifies murder.

So I'm curious. What do you propose we do with the millions of children you force into the world if you don't want to take care of them?

[Green Line]

They should be even lower.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

It's exactly what the abortion debate is.  Pro-lifers say murder should be illegal, then pro-choicers essentially say "but you won't pay for social programs for these children" as if that justifies murder.

So I'm curious. What do you propose we do with the millions of children you force into the world if you don't want to take care of them?

We will take care of them.  Private charity will do most of it, but I'd be willing to pay more money in tax dollars if its necessary.  Or, better yet, the government could come up with the money by cutting Planned Parenthood funding and part of the defense and foreign aid budgets.

But I'm almost certain that even if the pro-life side made every concession on social programs, the pro-choice side still wouldn't budge.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

We will take care of them.  Private charity will do most of it, but I'd be willing to pay more money in tax dollars if its necessary.  Or, better yet, the government could come up with the money by cutting Planned Parenthood funding and part of the defense and foreign aid budgets.

Are you willing to make the case that, right now, private charities, foster care, etc. are adequately addressing the needs of poor or impoverished children? Or more generally for all children? Many people would not; it's not a good argument that we could take care of more children in need if we aren't doing a good job of fixing child poverty and other related issues right now.

Also, a pitifully small amount (in the neighborhood of 3%) of funding to Planned Parenthood goes to abortion services. They provide other services for women, such as disease testing, family planning, and birth control services. If you want to suggest a hypothetical where there are more children in need of support, you would want to increase Planned Parenthood's funding, not decrease it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is correct.