You shouldn't. Anyone looking into the presentation should be able to spot the problems with it unless they're bias blind.
In short...the universal application of: "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
I understood that. It was the exclusivity of your concentration that I was underlining.
Well, if one bothers to take an objective, birds-eye-view of abortion they'd conclusively coalesce the woman's perspective into the discusson ..
beyond the limitations of her role as sexual/moral transgressor, that is.
As such, any extant "exclusive concentration" may have indeed hit its mark...rather though, it's the shooter's
mark that's at question here.
Or, we agree about the impact of legalizing nearly anything. You invite greater participation and you get it. I've noted the problem with comparing anecdotal evidence from cultural contexts and legal frameworks with very different contributors and historical markers.
The precursory circumstances and fundamental propensities to abort still remain. As shown, morally applied perscription does not significantly alter these propensities... such only serves to exacerbate existing distressed circumstances, with possible fatal consequences. Proscription serves little.. save its enthusiastic efforts at satisfying castigation and personal mollification.
The literal meaning wasn't in question. Your application of it was. So...if you don't want to spell that out you'll just have to ask questions relating to your aim with it, I suppose.
As per the aims of rhetorical questions, food for thought was served.
The buffet is yours...I've no questions to bid.
What I underscored was that in the countries typically noted with strong anti-abortion law there's an equal want of reproductive education, often coupled with proscription pertaining to contraception.
Noted. A concise synopsis favoring objections to anti-abortion legislation
provincially. Though, I'm sure that was not your intent.
That invites both population growth and a growth in abortion numbers among a class of people who have a limited understanding of and access to the means to avoid pregnancies. But we're a much different compact. Protecting the unborn needn't be coupled with a want of information about contraception or restrictions of the sort I'm noting relating to it.
What I gather from this is a basic matter of perspective, locally versus abroad. Our compact's
bar is seemingly set higher (whether this is simply prepossessing hubris remains saved for another discussion.) than the compacts prior noted....though, what this assertion cannot indicate is a significant reduction in abortion rates in relation to it's
proscription ....relative to these respective
bars.
Effectively, all you've done here is presumed a loftier moral/educational arena to prop your camp upon. You've offered no support to the assertion:
"Protecting the unborn needn't be coupled with a want of information about contraception or restrictions of the sort I'm noting relating to it."
Quite the contrary, given our compact's popular, current moral objections regarding public sexual education and contraception.
A lot of subjective valuation there. I'd say the risk to the unborn was demonstrably, unacceptably higher.
Wishful moral prescribing. The risk to the unborn remains virtually equal. The potential risks for the mother though....
What you propose offers up more harm than it effectively mitigates.
