Thanks to a state supreme court ruling Thursday, Mississippi is now set to vote on a Personhood Amendment this fall. The measure would not only make abortion illegal, but would also outlaw popular forms of birth control.
Mississippi voters tend to like this kind of thing. Below, from the conservative site Majority in Mississippi, a map of the Defense of Marriage Amendment vote in Mississippi in 2004. Majority in Mississippi says it got 86 percent of the vote, failing to pull three-quarters in just one county. "Getting 86 percent of people to agree on anything is difficult, but I believe we will see broad support in every county throughout the state for the initiative," the site writes.
(If you're in Mississippi and see signs from this campaign, please send pics.)
Leave a Comment:
Now, if they could take away personhood from corporations ...
Gee, does anyone really wonder why Mississippi leads the way in the ignorance of America?! Fighting for quality education, infrastructure, or health-care are abominations, leading the fight against "other people's lives" - that's Mississippi, just priceless!
So, the pro-abortion crowd are elite, educated, cream-of-the-crop, top tier, cultured, sophisticated, etc. Those who fight for the value of the unborn are ignorant. Just so I understand your position. Thanks.
Yes.
I don't understand how a party that believes that the government should not dictate what a person does can vote for the government to dictate what a person does??? It's so oxymoronical...
Oh, RobDon got his feelings hurt. Poor fella.
Less than 20% of Mississippians finished college. Over 80% voted for DOMA. There is a correlation. That does not indicate causation, but I've probably lost you already with these multi-syllabic words.
Yup.
i like choices don't you?
By "unborn" at RobDon, I'm guessing you mean pre-viability embryos, fetuses, zygotes, that rely upon the bodies of birthed women for life support. Pro-choice is about dominion over our own bodies. We are much more than walking life support machines. This initiative legitimizes gross civil liberties violations against women.
BTW, we are not pro-abortion. We are pro-choice, and that includes the choice to evict a zygote. I'm not sure where we all stand in terms of elitism, being "the cream of the crop," etc. But, one this is for sure...we believe in empirical research and scientific fact, which most of the forced gestation/childbirth crowd does not. The latter bases its claims on superstition and junk science. Debunking the junk science with real research means nothing to them. They make their silly claims anyway and use them to support harassing and otherwise violating the rights and privacy of women.
You could not have described yourself better RobDon Billy Bob Ray! You see when you try to legislate morality and enforce principles they become hollow and worthless! You will not prevent sex with your abortion ban just increase the number of unwanted children. We will bring them to you so that YOU can provide their care!!!!
Meg and David, I didn't need the confirmation. I was confident that is what you think.
ProC, it is only oxymoronic if you do not believe the unborn child is a person. If you do believe the unborn child is a person, it makes perfect sense to think the government should protect that life just as much as it would try to protect the life of the mother.
If you don't want my opinion then don't ask for it.
I didn't ask for yours.
There is a crowd that refers to themselves as "pro-abortion"? Wow, I wasn't aware.
A woman at the gym put it bluntly: "But if you're a thinking woman, you can't go along with this...." So I'd have to agree, there is an aspect of the brain involved in rejecting such a proposal, which can be severely threatening to certain mindsets.
Yeah, RobDon, that's it. Maybe more people wouldn't have this stereotype about MS and other ultra conservative states who propose such Philistine laws. And it's Pro-Choice NOT Pro-Abortion. To have a law that could outlaw certain forms of birth control is ridiculous. Talk about the state dictating what a person can do! So inconsistent with the larger GOP notion of limited government.
David, here is my original comment:
Would you please point out the question mark and the question where I asked for your opinion? Pretty presumptuous (oh, and by the way, that means overstepping a boundary) of you to assume I was requesting your opinion.
I swear to God, there are some serious perversions going on in this country. They've initiated shock doctrine in other countries for American corporate control of assets ... and now the corporate takeover of America. What do you think our govt. is ultimately trying to get the American people to agree to, what with reextension of the Patriot Act, the humiliations at airport screening, the dog whistle to the radical fringe? I mean, what happened to me when I left my religion over a decade ago I would expect in a fascist, totalitarian country, and now it's coming out of the wood work and onto the Congressional stage. WTF? Anyone have a favorite second country they would live in if they had to? Just curious ... after all, for the record, I am über nationalistic. Just for vacation purposes, naturally.
am11, come visit me in Canada. It'll be a great place until the Americans turn their eyes northward. Once that happens, I'm moving to Sweden.
RobDon.... You are in no position to ask specific gramatical questions about your comment. Would you like me to point on the multitude of errors in your inane train of thought, or shall we await a response from David?
Would you please point out the question mark and the question where I asked for your opinion? Pretty presumptuous (oh, and by the way, that means overstepping a boundary) of you to assume I was requesting your opinion.
If you're going to attempt to verbally bitch slap someone, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about to begin with, you dolt.
RobDon, so, anti-abortionists value the unborn and the "pro-abortionists" don't?
Making abortion illegal is not the only way to protect the unborn. All inclusive sex education, access to contraceptives, welfare, food stamps and universal health care would protect the unborn and the newborn. Those who advocate for reproductive choice also fight to reduce unintended pregnancy and increase access to health care and social services.
I support keeping abortion legal and safe not because I believe abortion to be moral, but because the alternative is so much worse.
Anti-abortionists are ignorant in that they do not consider, acknowledge or even address the consequences of outlawing abortion. They don't have the moral high ground they think they do. They don't value human life more than someone who advocates for keeping abortion legal and accessible.
Emperor ... perpetual migration, haha. This could be a betting game.
Close. The government should not interfere with what people do with their money and property. The proper role of government is dictating what people do with their bodies, and in particular their reproductive organs.
GrrrlRomeo, as usual, I agree with a lot of what you say. No, I do not think "pro-lifers" have the moral ground nor do I think "pro-choicers" value life any less than the other side. (My original point was that those who disagree are not ignorant, for the most part, on either side.)
Thinking through or acknowledging all the consequences is a very valid point.
You may recall that on one of the earlier abortion threads I said both sides should come together and work to reduce (not limit or outlaw) abortions since that is one area reasonable people on both sides agree. They can still maintain the extreme of their positions (all legal vs. all illegal) and find common ground in the mean time.
I would challenge this statement:
I understand that it is legal but I do think there are some cases where the morality of it could be challenged...i.e. someone who repeatedly chooses (not forced or unable) to use no protection and solely relies on abortion as birth control.
And, Ludwigtr, please feel free to give your analysis. I made 3 statements of my understanding and invited no one to give their opinion. Please point out where I am wrong.
RobDon, I believe that the most impartial of authorities--the Internal Revenue Service--has already ruled on this debate. If embryos are "people," why doesn't the IRS allow the parents an exemption deduction as of the date of conception? Instead, according to the IRS, "personhood" occurs as of the date of birth. If the baby isn't born as of 11:59 p.m. on December 31, there's no exemption deduction for that tax year.
mpguy, then there seems to be competing federal rulings then because federal criminal law recognizes and unborn child as a legal victim of a crime if killed or injured during a violent crime.
This could be an interesting study. A quick search shows that the federal WIC program counts an unborn child as a family member. I wonder if other federal agencies have law or policy recognizing or denying the right of an unborn child.
Just saying, there is not consistency or total agreement.
(I'm still looking foward to Ludwigtr's response from above.)
RobDon, you quoted me out of context. I thought you were better than that.
Not because I believe abortion to be moral. Abortion isn't in itself moral or immoral. It's a medical procedure.
The hypothetical situation in which a woman would repeatedly have an invasive medical procedure that involves a doctor sticking metal instruments up her vagina instead of using contraceptives is bizarre and rare. A woman who would do that would have to be a masochist. Yes, I can see how that might be immoral, but it's an exceptional case that doesn't warrant making abortion illegal for every woman.
This exceptional case doesn't outweigh all the other reasons a woman might choose an abortion.
We don't restrict freedom of speech because some speech is immoral. We tolerate all sorts of hate speech because the alternative is worse. This is about freedom vs oppression. When people have freedom, they are sometimes going to do things that others don't like. And when it involves something so personal as a health care decision, it's really not the government's business.
GrrrlRomeo, I apologize if I took you out of context and I wasn't trying to say that the exception should make the rule. My response was sole on the morality of abortion. I gave one example in which it was easy to see. And I do agree we often "allow" things we don't like because the alternative would be worse.
@RobDon,
No, I don't believe that all "pro-lifers" are ignorant, but I've seen enough of you people to realize that once that "life" is born, that's when you people disappear! The correct word is "pro-choice", I believe that true "sexual education" will arm women and men with information to prevent pregnancy & disease! I believe that when a woman has chosen to terminate her pregnancy she has given it great thought and deliberation and it's not an easy choice nor is it anyone else's business!!
And for all of you "pro-life" people, when you're standing on the lines to adopt and foster all of the children that have already been "born" into families "that chose LIFE", then we can discuss my womb!!
Says alot.
Not interested.
And I believe a human life begins at conception which then leads to a lot of difficult and challenging questions.
Watch out Texas Mississippi is past you by for the IGNORANCE state.
you can see the teapubliecants play out in MS. you keep them low educated and you can just about do what you want!
So, anyone with whom you disagree is ignorant? I think they call that something else.
good at just generalizing huh. but then again i knew some one couldn`t think past what its been told to think.
no i do not but if the ignorance's fits you (pretty well it seems) you just run with it.
and you 7th grade physiology is just as bad as cwt2012.
@RobDon: You clearly don't understand the position at all.
First of all, calling people who are pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood "pro-abortion" is as offensive as it is wrong - that is to say, entirely. Second of all, the right wing's misunderstanding of what Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood stands for (intentional or otherwise) and their refusal to believe the truth about it is the height of ignorance. Abortions are sometimes necessary for the health of the mother. Planned Parenthood doesn't hand out abortions - most of their work is done in education and trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease through better understanding. Indeed, if you read the article, you'd see that passing this law would make it almost impossible for some women to get access to in vitro fertilization - it could HINDER their ability to have a child.
I'm not pro-abortion. But I'm a person, just like you, and I have rights, just like you. I don't have to like that half this country prefers to live in the Dark Ages, but you have your right to. And you don't have to like that I believe in equality and science and everything else that runs contrary to your Bible-based dogma, but it's MY right to believe it, and fight for it.
What the Republican party tends to miss is that while you're trying to take away rights and freedoms from the public at large, while you're trying to set our destinies as cogs in the corporate machine, while you're trying to destroy the middle class and lie to America at large, we, on the left, the liberals, the Democrats, the progressives, we're working as hard as we can to ensure that you get to go on being a fear-mongering farce of a political alignment.
And we don't expect any thanks, so don't worry about it. :)
Kate and Pilotshark, I'm a lot of things but uneducated is not one of them. Kate, you said a lot so let me ask two questions, and I dare you to answer them with a simple yes or no.
1. Does science state that DNA is unique to the individual?
2. Does an unborn child have different DNA from his/her mother?
You have to, if you base your answer in science, answer both of these questions "yes." If that is the case, how can an unborn child not be a unique individual?
RobDon: I'm not arguing about the personhood of an unborn child (though it's good to know you feel all life is sacred, and are therefore anti-death penalty and pro-equal rights for all, including the gays). I'm arguing about the Republican motto of "Get government out of my life! (Except where the rights and health of women are concerned, because they're a sub-species anyway.)"
Also, I'm glad you've never been in a situation where an abortion has been necessary to save the life of the mother, or to prevent undue suffering to the foetus/child. I hope you thank whatever deity you worship, every day.
(Also, thanks for not -actually- responding to anything I wrote. :) )
Kate, I went to the heart of what you wrote. I was demonstrating that science is not (only) on the side of "pro-choice." You implied strongly that it was.
If you have a specific question or comment you would like for me to respond to, I will be happy to do so. I see that was not the case for you. I was very specific about inviting your input but you chose not to do so.
Genetic make-up aside, the point is that should a fetus have the same legal standing as baby capable of surviving on its own? Granted, "survive on its own" may be slightly disigenuous, but you get what I mean. What role should development play in what rights we have?
There's plenty of legal evidence to suggest that development is quite important and does make a difference. Infants aren't adults. They're certainly not treated as adults by our legal system, and there are reasons for that. People have posited valid reasons as to why the differences between undeveloped fetus and a developed baby should consistute a difference in legal standing (i.e. it's the mother's body and she actually is a developed person).
Scientific questions of genetics are a poor rhetorical move.
Far's my limited understandinill go, that piss on a stick don't pay my bills, feeds the dog nor drives my car to work. So far's I cun tell, I got more responsbiltys and thus more rights than that there piece a mold. Btw, heh, heh .... when they's able to merge, say a lizard with a human, that there human gots a right to life? Cuz I bet they's already been done sumtin' like that.
Shor wood be you-neek, tho, wudn't it? snort, snort....
RobDon: Please answer this for me...
1. Does science state that DNA is unique to the individual?
2. Does a sperm have different DNA from his/her father?
You have to, if you base your answer in science, answer both of these questions "yes." If that is the case, how can each sperm not be a unique individual?
Wul, wate, now .... they's alredy gots summa tem lizard-men in Congress! Sumthin' stranges goin' on, I tell you.
Cum ta tink of it, my Bishup wuz one. Splains sooo much!!
And now, class, those who promote IGO formation are split into two schools of thought: functionalism—a "bottom-up" approach (roar! hahaha)—and neofunctionalism—a "top-down" approach (for those wishing to celebrate with conception cake)....
**Yup, time to move to Canada, she says with a stir stick clamped between her teeth ....
Justanotherbear, it is not rhetorical. The law does treat the unborn as an individual with rights. There have been many criminal and civil prosecution to back it up.
TJNY,
1. yes
2. no
The sperm has the "father's" DNA, it is often used in criminal prosecution for this very reason. It doesn't not contain the DNA of another unique person.
Your conclusion based on case law is debatable at best.
Thanks for article. FYI "state supreme court ruling" link has extra code "<br ></a>" at end.
Thanks. I'll take a look.
I don't know how MS will vote, but this very same measure has been put on several ballots across the country numerous times. Virtually every year for the past decade or so Coloradans have had to vote this measure down and they do so by overwhelming margins every single time. It's more of a nuisance than anything else. Now maybe MS is different, but just because it's put on the ballot does not automatically mean it will be voted into law.
Based on it's rep, Mississippi is different. And not in a good way.
So, in Mississippi Democracy is alive and well.
Thankfully we don't live in a pure democracy.
We don't live in a democracy period
Mississippi: Where you're only a person if you're white, straight, Christian, and male.
Or unborn, apparently.
(Oh, or a corporation.)
@thelittlepecan: Hey, unborn who meet the straight white male Christian requirements are totally people.
... and own property. like your wife.
Tell you what: let's make EVERYTHING a person.
Corporations? DONE.
Birds, dogs, cats, fish, snakes, the garden hoe, the lint from my navel: PENDING.
watch out you could be santorum talking like that
LOL.
I guess the important thing is not to be "a Santorum"...
xD
bet if you nurture that Santorum, you could come up with something pretty exciting, you science lovers.
By the looks of it ignorance is certainly alive and well.
@RobDon #2.1
Probably not. But I am sure you wouldn't want a head count on that...
Now, Simone, that was genuinely a humorous response. I like it.
Relax, it's Mississippi. Who cares what they do? If they want to make sure they stay in the bottom 5 of all measures of health, education, and prosperity, let them. It'll be fun listening to them wonder why the rest of the country makes fun of them and why nobody who wasn't born there wants to live there. Let Mississippi live on as an example of ignorance and how NOT to run a state.
We should care because women will die from this amendment.
Ding ding ding. Jay El gets a point for smartest comment on this thread ;-)
as long as the fetus doesn't (die)....
Give Texas back to Mexico and let the South secede already. I'm tired of this intolerant heehaw, redneck B.S. If they want to compound their illiteracy rate with an even higher teenage pregnancy rate, let them knock themselves out. And Rob Don, before you jump down my throat, I'm not in favor of abortion - I'm in favor of education and safe sex until the point you're mature enough to have a baby and will take care of it like the gift it is.
I've been saying this for years. We couldn't allow the South to secede before because of the slavery implications. That's no longer an issue now (at least I HOPE it isn't; even those in the South aren't that backward and masochistic).
Once they're out of here, they can have their DOMA, their "(anti) personhood" amendments, and whatever other social contrivances they want--including only allowing rich white males to vote. They'll have to deal with the consequences of seeing everybody who is well-educated, politically moderate, and has even an occasional progressive, creative thought move away from their little conservative haven.
This would be a great experiment to see just how long they'd last.
Especially with the women leaving in droves.
Wow, wouldn't it be a concept to actually give teenagers accurate information about sex and reproduction so that they could make wise, informed choices, which the religious anti-science, anti-common sense, inhumane, paranoid, controlling, anti-everything right can't seem handle. In Denmark, free and compulsory sex education in the primary school—get this—is a RIGHT.
Check the following abstract from
"United States and Denmark: different approaches to health care and family planning" by HP David, et. al. [My favorite part: The Danish accept sexuality as a normal part of life. OMG, mindblowing, ain't it??! Wow, deal with life on life's terms. Amazing approach. Too bad the U.S. isn't smart enough for that.]:
... is a right. Talk about RIGHTS for God's sake!!!!! WTF about a child's right to accurate, bias-free information about their bodies? HUH?!!!!!!
AND: "Denmark's conception rates are less than 1/2 of those in the US. HMMMMMM.
Ooh, I know. Because here in America, the religious zealots don't want you to have free will, and as accurate information and knowledge empowers choice, we just can't have that here. It may just lead to less teenage pregnancy and abortions in general. And if that happens, the minority populations might just have a shot at a decent life like white, Caucasian Christian men (b/c God knows, they get a substandard sex ed). And OMG, we just can't have that here in America, either!!
..the minorities get substandard sex ed, that is. And b/c of the Christian selfish judgmental whacks, if any at all.
This has been stated in many shapes and to various degrees on MBlog already, but I'll put this out again as evidence of the control mechanism within the RR, not to be underestimated. Depending on your connections, they will HAPPILY destroy your life and think that they're doing you an enormous favor. [both excerpts center around a threat to control. catch the end of the 2nd para., specifically]:
For those so intent on "pro-life," they sure are afraid of it! And predictably, they (e.g. Righty, here, on the blog re: "paranoid") will boisterously and unabashedly accuse their opponents of the very things for they are the absolute epitome to deflect attention from their hidden agenda. I've seen it so much, it's a joke.
If this country is handed off to the RR, some serious contingency plans should be in place for the rest of us. They're already experimenting with covert control mechanisms, they're so G-D paranoid of losing it. Trust me, I know.
I must add, it appears the Danish also accept their brain as a normal part of life.
Hell yes, this is exactly what this country needs, more people. Don't these folks realize our population is exploding, land for housing that was once farmland, water shortage in some areas, bumper to bumper roads and highways, limited amount of jobs and the list goes on. This pro life thinking will eventually kill this planet. If you don't believe in abortion that is ones right but forcing that view on others is not, same applies to birth control. We will eventually have families with eighteen kids with food and housing at a premium, not job in sight
Tamlea, dear, we live on and use only about 5% of the land in the United States. You may have a point on jobs and actual housing (not the land), but we are far from being overcrowded.
It's a race to outnumber the majority-minority Hispanics.
(Replying to RobDon) If you knew your farming, you'd know that the land that isn't occupied is in majority farming, and we feed not just ourselves, but a good portion of the rest of the planet as well. Our dependence on red meat (cattle) requires space not just for ranching them, but for all the grain required to feed them. Add to that the fact that the majority of fruits and vegetables are grown on the coasts, where the population is most dense, and you may discover we're more crowded than you choose to believe. (BTW, hit the +1 on you accidentally trying to respond to just your comment.)
That's okay...I won't tell anyone. (just being funny)
I'd have to search to find the exact statistic but I believe that we use only about 6 percent of the land in US including forestland, pastures, crops, etc. I do understand your point and it doesn't mean we should be aware of things you mention, but we are not on the verge of being overcrowded which is what Tamlea was trying to say.
RobDon, I have been traveling the US for the past 9 years, every year you see farm land and what once was orchards that produce our fruits and veg. being converted to housing projects especially in the warmer climates. Parts of Fla. along hwy.27 that 9 years ago was orange orchards are now complete communities, acessorized with traffic jams, same applies to parts of Ariz.. Washington St. growing crops on hillside and the colorado river is down to a trickle from the pumping of water up the hill to water the crops. Mid western states grow a lot of crops, mostly for bio-fuel or feed. So yes we have a begining problem.
Interesting ... the basic rule of "Contrarian" traders when analyzing a financial market ... any market ... is this: "When 80% or more of all positions are either long or short, trade the other way".
This rule is amazingly reliable, and it's based on market psychology. The concept itself ... restated in "normal" English says: "When more than 80% of all people agree ... they are invariably wrong."
Hey Mississippi ... can you crunch some numbers? Oh ... never mind. That takes an education.
Unfortunately those of us who are stuck her care. We moved here 4 years ago for my husband's job and the economy is making it impossible to get out.
I might believe you cared about the unborn if you also cared enough to make sure that there was wide enough availability to contraception that every unborn was on purpose and wanted.
As it is, you and your entire movement is full of it.
PLEASE LET THIS PASS!
I SO hope this passes and is strictly enforced. Preferably jail time to those that break this law.
Think about it - eliminating the defective from the gene pool. And they're doing it to themselves. Yeehaw!
Maybe that is why they are ranked 52nd out of the 50 states in intelligence!
smiling i hear what you are saying and laugh at it.
but willing to bet you, that with in the next 15 min. you will have the cult troll sock draw gang coming down on you. about 52 states, bet they will have something about 57 states and Obama.
LOL
Ignorant is when you have not researched any given thing in order to have an educated opinion, but give your opinion, anyway.
Since "ignorant" is not a measurement of time, your entire statement falls flat on it's ass.
Well, this exchange was amusing in a way up to this point. Docwobbles, I think you deliberately missed Katy's point in order to say something insulting (as well as inaccurate). Somebody who takes the time to learn about something before forming an opinion is spending time becoming less ignorant and more knowledgable about things. Ignorant is not a state of being; it is a state of not knowing. That can change, with some effort and time and openmindedness. You miss.
Actually, it was never a requirement that a given opinion be educated. If it were, then many of the comments at Yahoo would NOT be allowed.
The idea that a bunch of cells that cannot exist outside of a host's body should be given status of 'personhood' and thus making it illegal for the host to excise it is ridiculous. But then again, I have to look at what state this is and voila! Now I get it.
so has anyone figured out what the increased price-tag will be from social services (welfare, medicaid, social workers, running orphanages, etc); law enforcement officials trying to enforce the borders with Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana against potential importation of possibly banned materials or possibly going over the state line to get services soon to be unavailable in the state (because you can't have residents skirting around the law like corporations can, even if it hurts local small businesses); funding the inevitable court challenge that this will bring, all the way to the supreme court; etc? would be interesting for someone to compile, especially since Mississippi is one of the states that gets a lot more money from the federal government than it contributes, so i'd like to know how much more of my Minnesota tax dollars will go down there to fund this.
Exactly. Eliminate effective birth control, increase the number of low income families relying on the very socialist services that the GOP deplores and wants to get rid of.
Makes perfect awesome sense. Totally.
Once they are born then the GOP and the pro-life crowd loses interest.
As having lived in Mississippi for almost 10 years, this does not surprise me at all. I remember a very-Baptist girlfriend I had in high school, who, while she was a very nice, kind person, believed that the billions of people in the world who were NOT Christians deserved to go to hell, and they would in fact go to hell, according to her. THIS is the Mississippi I knew. So....not surprised at all by this.
Mississippi looks as if its Burning Again!
So there goes the prison population and orphanage populations! Why do "Christians" love being Idolators so much. They think they know more than God who gave us choices as far as morality! Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time but why doesn't the Bible ever mention it in a negative light? We that's an easy one. Only the males were counted and without a sonogram they couldn't tell and therefore would not have prevented it! Besides they didn't count the chicken before it was hatched. Hmmmm!
At times, America seems to take 2 steps forward, only to take 3 steps back. Abortion is unpleasant, as any woman whose ever had one would testify, but it is a necessary evil to ensure the health and emancipation of women. In the UK last week, a Conservative MP tried to introduce a motion to prohibit abortion providers from providing counselling services, and was promptly defeated. The Conservatives are currently the lead party in government. The US seems unique in the West for having this Christian fundamentalist drive to undo all the social progress of the last 40 years. Good luck with the fight back.
It isn't just for health reasons. Many people, especially teen-aged girls, just aren't ready to have and care for children. If they're forced to have them, they'll neglect and mistreat them. Or, they simply won't have the resouces to care for them. Especially since the "pro-life" crowd doesn't care a whit about what happens to the kids after they're born.
It would be wonderful if people were always careful about birth control. And if they would only have kids when they're mature enough to attend to their needs. And if they had the economic resources to provide a stable, adequate home.
But, unfortunately, people aren't perfect.
You can outlaw but not stop abortions. You will move it from clean and sanitary conditions back to dirty illegal shops where women will die. This is regression, going backward years!