…doesn’t reduce the number of abortions.
Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests. The Guttmacher Institute’s survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.
Banning abortion only makes abortions more dangerous and kills women—which is what many opponents of abortion are after, really. They want people who have sex to be punished. Seventy-thousand woman die every year as a result of unsafe abortions in countries where abortion is illegal. So let’s just say it, shall we? American opponents of reproductive freedom—people who seek to ban abortion—are trying to kill American women. The end.
Guess what does reduce the number of abortions? Improved access to contraception.
151
There is a huge difference between he typical eight-week fetus at one gram and less than an inch long and a 16 week old’s 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
You sure want to catch the as early as possible-
they put up much less of a fight that way…
146
is it possible to kill a tree?
a dog?
a baby seal?
do any of these posses ‘personhood’?
don’t be a moron.
@148
You’re not really a Reverend, are you.
As a person who was ‘unplanned’ I have always been comforted and reassured by the knowledge that, because my then-teenage mother lived in a time and place where abortion was legal and safe and available, I was also a wanted and a chosen child. If I had been born in a time and place where abortion was illegal I would have wondered whether I was really wanted. My mother was and is pro-choice. So am I. If and when I have a child he or she will always know that I wanted and chose him or her from the very beginning.
I believe Loveschild is a Christian straight African-American woman like she says… She reminds me of a crazy-ass libertarian lady of that description my dad hangs out with every so often. Not a person worth paying attention to. Kinda wish she hadn’t registered so I could whisk her under the rug with the other riffraff.
Argentina has the most abortions in the world. Abortion is illegal there.
Also: @11 reproductive freedom doesn’t mean we’re allowed to have pregnancies, it means we are allowed to have control of our pregnancies.
@147
http://ramahinternational.org/index.html
http://www.thereishope.org/content/tih_i…
These are links to two specific organizations I have donated to. The second (you will notice) does include reasonable information about abortion as an option, rather than scare tactics to try and manipulate a woman into keeping her baby alive.
http://local.botw.org/Georgia/Tifton/Pre…
This is one that I donated times to as a teenager. Items donated were diapers, formula, baby clothes, etc. They were different sizes which would speak to those who think that the women would be forcibly ejected once the child is born. If this was true, logic would follow that they would only need to stock newborn diapers and clothing.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.ht…
This link is a table of abortions performed worldwide. The years included are 1995 and 2003. Could not find a link with statistics for a more recent year.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/…
Here is another table showing the number of abortions that are performed for convenience vs those for the health of the mother, or post rape/incest. Unfortunately, some will not accept this information as true simply because it is from a pro-life website. Tried to find a less biased source, but didn’t have time to get more in-depth.
I will stand corrected on my made up “tens of billions” (I was referring to a more general number over several years). Regardless I would still hold that 70,000 is significantly less than the 41 million babies who are now dead. Again, I am not saying that the mother’s death was not unfortunate.
As per the idea that 10 billion is implausible. Look up Irene Vilar:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05…
All you’d need is a few more of these women and those who have only killed one of their babies would seem like mother Theresa.
Oh, and I’m sorry I didn’t read everything that was posted before me, but some of the comments were so repulsive that I started skimming. If only people could use logic when they debate, rather than simply reverting to the juvenile practice of ridiculing a debater. It’s so much more intelligent to offer actual information than simply say “you’re wrong because you’re stupid.” It’s like reading printed dialog of 6 year olds arguing.
“This is one that I donated times to as a teenager.”
Should read “This one I donated items to”
@150
>>You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). <<
So, because I am human and at this point in my life I am unable to help every single woman on the planet, my validity is questioned? Really? Not to beat a dead horse, but Mother Theresa couldn’t help every orphan in the world, yet she won the Nobel. I am not a silent activist who talks the talk but won’t walk the walk. If you’re such an advocate for women’s health, why don’t you go to Afghanistan and make sure that these women are getting the proper care?
>>You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is “professional counseling and loving support?” <<
I’m not trying to tell women around the world anything. I’m only trying to help women in my own backyard, because that is all I can do as a human being. Oh, and by the way, I wasn’t saying that someone needs to go tell these victims anything, but rather that those in a position to offer counsel and support should be available to do so. Rather than seeing my desire to help my fellow sister, you would assume that I, like you, are more inclined to batter another human with cold cynicism and offer a quick fix to a complex situation.
@145
>>”Caring” for those babies by offering adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called “care” there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
First, I am offended that you would assume that I would only be willing to offer help to a white or healthy baby. The agencies I am looking into are specifically interested in placing mixed race, sibling group, and other “difficult to place” children. I’m not even looking into international adoption right now because there are so many children who need care here in my own country. It would be rather hypocritical of me to ignore those right outside my door in favor of one from an exotic location.
Oh, and… Just because you don’t believe me, doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said. Just because you decided to change the parameters of a debate to suit your own agenda doesn’t make you right. How can you say that trying to get an unwanted child placed in a loving home is not real caring? Are you saying that proponents of a baby’s right to live have to assume responsibility for every single child who is not aborted to prove that they really care?
>>Even without your so called “care” there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
This just confuses me. Are you saying that there are so many people out there trying to help these babies that abortion shouldn’t even be a consideration? What is sounded like to me is that you were saying that all the babies that are born will be adopted.
Oh for pity’s sake, little-b beth @161 !!! This is a conversation about WORLD HEALTH!!
If you are not going to read the initial post by Dan Savage (which basically says that banning abortion doesn’t prevent abortion but access to birth control does prevent abortion, and that women die from illegal abortion) then what are you doing in the discussion?
I suggested you examine worldwide statistics on maternal death because you said that it can’t be proved that women die in childbirth. They do. Every day. Even in the USA. I compared those stats to world deaths from illegal abortions to show that more women die from pregnancy than from abortion.
Look, what you’re doing, jumping into a conversation without even taking the time to understand what it’s ABOUT is simply rude (not to mention foolish, what with the bunch of piranhas on THIS site).
@ 159 Thank you for the informative links that you provided us with.
Ditto. Thanks, Attitude devant @163. Looks like he or she isn’t a serious opponent, and doesn’t even try to become one.
@161, just forget it, you are not making any sense. Listen to what you are being advised. Let’s rewind. Read the initial post, digest it, try to comment on it. Dont introduce any red herrings or deliberately play dumb, please.
Thanks for getting back to me with links, Bethimus @147. It does help, by knowing from whence you come, to locate common ground.
Some thoughts:
Neither the Ramah International bookstore nor the Hope Women’s Centers website suggest they offer any of the services about which I asked, saying only (in the latter case) We CARE. We want to HELP. All of our services are FREE. the sentiments of which are typical of any corporate or activist customer service center, and are commonly insincere. The Pregnancy Care Website (which may not have anything to do with the center to which you donate) offers One-On-One Mentoring, a number of internal education programs and Referral Programs which doesn’t sound comparable to the kinds of professional, degreed counseling an expecting mother requires.
Low income women enduring an unintended pregnancy often require long term psychotherapy, benefits advocacy to secure food, shelter, parenting guidance and medicine for themselves and their child, and enough benefits for a sustained period of time no less than five years that will not only cover the cost of rearing the child but will offset some of the mother’s cost of living.
Why such a toll? As a society, we cannot assume that any features of a loving, supporting family, or a paternal figure (a boyfriend or husband) will be available. Young expecting mothers are still often estranged from their parental homes, if that home was safe to them in the first place. Fathers of the pregnancy are often abusive, immature or otherwise unprepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, if he can be located and paternally established at all; the cases in which the father wishes to do his part are lucky ones.
If the Mom is single and (as is typical) no community manifests around her, that means the child will be a latchkey kid, and is likely going to grow up socially impaired. Children establish much of their sense of self by having their expressions reflected by parents, family and other community members. You can expect the child himself or herself will endure more difficulties than usual adapting to social interaction, finding work, establishing personal independence and functioning as an adult. Chances are increased, the child will repeat the process and get pregnant (get someone else pregnant) before she or he is ready for parenthood.
All this is exacerbated when the pregnant woman is a victim of rape or incest, in which case she has been no less than attacked and infected with a hostile parasite, one that will (should she choose to carry) assign her with nine months of misery (only in rare cases is pregnancy fun), and leave an permanent, living legacy. (From an evolutionary standpoint, it also encourages the continuation more aggressive, less cooperative genetic traits.)
More to follow…
Rewind. I was responding to Bethimus @159
Bethimus @147, referring to the motivation of abortions as performed for convenience [of the mother] seems rather harsh and reflects a lack of empathy for women enduring an unintended pregnancy. It also minimizes the life and health impacts on a woman of carrying a pregnancy to full term, and the immense time and commitment required to raise a child. I’m surprised that the obstructionist community, which does have a number of women who have endured pregnancy and raised children would be so cold to their fellow sisters.
It does make me wonder what, according to Dr. Michael Brown and his ministry, constitutes unwanted or inconvenience. Are non-life-threatening health issues (i.e. paralyzation) considered inconvenience? Are antepartum mental health issues considered inconvenience?, are threats to ones personal livelihood (i.e. work) considered, inconvenience even in the current economic situation, where the average length of unemployment is over a year (according to What Color Is Your Parachute) and when unemployment can easily result in homelessness? Is hardship inconvenience? How about preexisting mental disorders? Are they inconvenience? Drug addictions? Social stigma? If a teen is certain she’ll be evicted and disowned by her family if she gets pregnant, and she chooses abortion, is that inconvenience?
Terminology is a common problem, and has become, by my observation a device of oversimplification of by the obstructionist community.
Further examples to follow…
Crap, Bethimus I was responding to you @159
As I was saying, oversimplification of terminology, something that the obstructionists seem to intend to do, is one of the divisive elements in the abortion controversy.
Another example, in fact a favorite of Allegedly‘s is confusion of terms like life, organism, etc. with personhood. Allegedly and I have dialogued about this issue ad nauseam in which I provided links to in-depth examinations of each word (here’s a fix to the misdirected link, btw).
Case in point, Allegedly seems to believe waxing poetic and inappropriate or rough general comparisons can serve in place of a reason-based examination of the real world circumstances behind abortion cases. (This might, indeed, be quite convincing in much of the obstructionist sector). To respond to his most recent entry, a living dog has certain rights and protections that don’t apply to them until they’re born, so yes dogs has their own form of personhood. Trees are seldom so protected, but some old growth and reserved areas are. Usually a tree has to be a minimum height before transgressing on it is regarded as a violation, so again there’s a point when a tree attains its rights and protections. Similar codes exist to protect seals as well, as a number of other flora and fauna. While human personhood is particular to humankind, the concept of a minimum degree of existence before protection is attained is not uniquely applied to human beings. (Not so moronic an answer after all.)
But considering an example from your own text, Bethimus, equating a zygote or fetus with a baby or child is just as fallacious. Indeed the natural chances of each transitioning to the next are far from absolute, and so presuming that one equates to the next in language such as 41 million babies who are now dead is regarded around here as sloppy hyperbole. Technically, they’re 41 million babies who were never babies, assuredly some of whom would never have become babies.
Since I don’t regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I’ve explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases.
Also, I doubt severely that Irene Vilar’s condition will become epidemic. We have made fools of the state often enough legislating based on what someone speculated might happen, rather than what is happening.
Speaking of epidemics, though, I agree with you that the insults and hyperbole are pandemic conditions on internet debates. I’ve become desensitized, myself, but can understand how it can dispossess someone to actually read what has been said. In my own case, I tolerate the cross-talk since I seek to understand both sides of the issue, since I have difficulty believing so many folk who are adamantly, sometimes violently opposed to abortion access are that way without a valid reason, or a sense of reason. Still, the excuses typically given for abortion obstructionism often do not gel with the methods used.
I still don’t see why a better tact would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making contraception easier, more reliable and available to everyone, including low-income families. Indeed, instead, the same activists who push to abolish abortion push to abolish birth control as well.
So far, from what I’ve seen, obstructionists can’t be bothered to do anything but make a nuisance of themselves.
aside to @155
Sorry to disappoint, but I’m a real live ordained minister (and by a real live person of the cloth, no less; not a website). I’ve ministered to the flock, dutifully married folks, had the honor of giving last rites, the whole schmear. Since 1996 or so. However, it’s not my day job.
Happy to skew the occasional notion that all ‘Reverends’ are anti-choice, though.
@169
“Since I don’t regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I’ve explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases.”
Please document all abortions past 20 weeks to verify your assertion that NONE of those were elective.
170
Not to worry, no disappointment at all-
‘Reverends’ lie somewhere below used car salesmen in my personal ranking of trades and scam artists.
Nor is the ‘man of the cloth as abortion apologist’ a surprise- our society is full of Liberals who find justification for every hue and shade of immoral behavior in their Personal religion.
We were more bemused by the whole wacky tinfoil-hat teabaggeresque take on life you espoused.
168
No need to wonder-
here is a handy formula so you too can ascertain what constitutes Inconvenience.
Mom comes to you and says:
“Bub, I’m so sorry but I have to make a choice, either I Kill you or I have to…”
Then fill in the blank with the hypothetical Inconvenience and ask yourself:
“Would I feel good about Mom making this choice?”
Let’s try it out!
Mom: “Bub, I’m so sorry but I have to make a choice. Summer is just around the corner and I hate to think how I’ll look in a bikini with a glob of fetal tissue on board so I’m afraid you’ll have to ‘go’…”
You: “No problem, Mom!- Besides, I’d hate an unsightly belly bulge to jeopardize your chances of getting knocked up again by some loser…”
See how easy it is?
Let’s try another-
Mom: “Bub, I’m so sorry but I have to make a choice. The Dreamy Guy who I just knew was Mr Right and I was sure having a baby with would cement Our True SoulMate Love turns out to have a wife and three kids….”
You: “No problem, Mom!- But hey- keep your chin up. You keep putting out for all the guys at work and I’m sure you’ll find True Love & Happiness eventually…”
OK. I know you’re thinking;
“wait- these are trivial excuses and in the whole history of the human race no one has EVER had an abortion for anything less severe that the guarantee of
Total Full-Body Paralysis or
Unemployment leading to Being Thrown Out on the Street or
Criminal Insanity or
Not Making the CheerLeading Squad (gasp!).
Let’s try the formulae one last time with a more
Typical and Serious
Inconvience as a Real Excuse for Abortion-
Mom: “Bub, I’m so sorry but I have to make a choice. I had a vision last night and if I carry you to term the Universe will be Destroyed.”
You: “Wow, Mom- don’t waste a second! Here, let me call the clinic and a taxi…”
171, 172, 173
You amuse me. You act as though the medical changes and dangers of pregnancy are trivial. Let’s say you drive your car.
You are hit by a drunk driver.
Due to the accident, he will die without a new liver.
We shall take 50% of yours. Don’t worry, it will grow back. It’s just a little “inconvenient”. Just like how you claim women get abortions because pregnancy is “inconvenient”.
174
nothing about pregnancy is trivial,
least of all the act of ending one.
which is why men and women should be responsible in their behavior and choices and not create unwanted pregnancies.
choices carry consequences.
when people choose to engage in unethical behavior to avoid consequences of earlier freely made choices they always compound the problem.
America sacrifices the lives of millions of it’s most helpless to in an unsuccessful attempt to sweep the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior under the carpet.
taking life on that scale creates a huge due bill, that eventually will be paid.
centuries of slavery eventually exacted it’s toll in blood and treasure.
the German attempt to enslave Europe and all the moral atrocities that accompanied it exacted a high toll as well.
justice may be delayed but not denied.
@169
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE wholesale killings or extermination.
The racial policy of Nazi Germany asserting the superiority of the “Aryan race” (based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy) was based on the concept of Untermensch .
Untermensch (German for sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe “inferior people”, especially the Jews. The German word Mensch literally means human.
The term “Untermensch” was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews,
The concept of people being “Untermensch” in particular served the Nazis as justification for their genocidal policies .
“Untermenschen” included the Gypsies, also subject to extermination. Includes non-whites from colonial African. Homosexuals and disabled people (based on physical and mental illnesses) were also considered to be part of this category.
@169
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE slavery, wholesale killings or genocide.
Slave holders looked to science to justify their ‘peculiar institution’.
Denying that Negroes were human was a favorite approach…
“What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that “the Negro” was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that “negroes” were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether.”
from- ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997
Abortionist in their zeal to kill resemble Nazi race “experts” or defenders of slavery in their pseudo-science babble and nitpicking to justify their actions-
parsing genealogy and eye color and facial features to decide if one was Jewish
or declaring that even one drop of Negro blood contaminated it’s owner in the eyes of the law or
or counting cells and weeks and ounces and neural pathways to declare “it is not a Person and it’s DEATH need not concern us…”.
Allegedly @169, I don’t need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Clutch any straws yet?
Regarding Allegedly @168, This defense rests, your honor.
Allegedly @174, your Freudian slip is showing. So you agree that abortion access obstruction is about punishing the irresponsibly promiscuous by inflicting them with child, not about the preservation of life. That makes sense giving the obstructionist interest in also denying contraceptives: You think non-procreative sex is icky and thus don’t want anyone having any.
Way to go trying to legislate your own sexual repression.
Allegedly @176 There you go again, crossing the Godwin threshold. That never speaks well of your situation, and insults the victims of the Holocaust, simultaneously.
179
We have never said a word about contraceptives- you are confusing your straw men with the Real World.
179
We guess citing Godwin has to make do for you for an answer when you have no other answer-
using Nazi terminology and arguments to justify your position speaks well of it.
179
No slip (although I don’t know which post you are actually referring to- your numbering system seems different from the one I see)
Behavior that results in an unintended pregnancy is by definition irresponsible and careless.
And in this day and age, inexcusable.
It is not proponents of life who are “inflicting” anyone “with child”- if there is any punishment involved it is that natural punishment that inevitably follows irresponsible careless behavior.
It is typical however that those who have willfully engaged in behavior that made themselves pregnant would accuse opponents of killing with “inflicting them with child”.
Denying responsibility right up to the bitter end…
169
Does your face twitch when you assert that No abortions performed after 20 weeks have EVER been elective?
Even your friend attitude deviant would tell you how ludicrous you sound…
Being of Jewish descent, I am insulted that you think I am equal to a fetus. I have this wonderful thing called “self awareness”, a “mind”, and “free will”, concepts you obviously cannot wrap your head around.
A fetus has none of these things. We are not “de-humanizing them” to justify this. They already lack EVERYTHING that makes a human being special and deserving of rights. Abortion is no worse than putting down a sick dog.
YOU claim they have personhood? PROVE IT.
I have the POTENTIAL to become president, but I do not have the right to secret-service protection NOW.
Likewise, a lump of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to develop into an infant does not trump the rights of the woman.
As I have said before, getting the abortion IS a form of taking responsibility. You would drag us all back into the dark ages and slap us all in chastity belts, make women into nothing more than breeding chattel. Perhaps you wish to start practicing female genital mutilation, it would certainly discourage woman from “irresponsibly seeking pleasure”.
I would rather see my sister, my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter choose to responsibly terminate a pregnancy rather than suffer through it before they are ready.
You know, 171-173, and 175-178, and 180-183, if you believe so passionately in this issue, you should register, or at least stick to the same handle, the self-congratulatory wit in your choice of monikers notwithstanding. Alinka, Uriel, Rev.Smith and other registered commenters are held to higher standards than you are in this discourse, e.g., they can’t claim they “have never said” as you do in 180. You cheapen your stance by refusing to engage in this discussion honestly.
As for this continuing search for the “inconvenient pregnancy” which you seem to confuse with the term “elective abortion,” what IS that all about? It’s like the “baby-killing Hun” of WWI, or the witches of Salem, Massachusetts. You’re convinced she’s there and that presence justifies your persecution of the larger group. Nothing personal against the larger group, you see, just the bad one. And you get to decide.
When I offered my experience (which is not small) to say that women agonize over this decision, you said that was anecdotal evidence. If I directed you to one of the many websites where women left tributes to Dr. Tiller after his murder (a more heart-breaking bunch of stories you will never see) you would claim that those were self-reports and thus not credible.
The interesting thing to me is that even the most virulent anti-choicer has some place where he draws the line, and says, OK, that one gets by me. Rape, incest, life of the mother, are common ones, but other people would add chromosomal abnormalities, health of the mother, spousal abuse, mental illness….
Here’s where it gets sticky: once you concede that there are acceptable reasons for abortion, who gets to decide who gets one? You want a committee? Or a judge? The worst night I ever spent on call I took care of a mom with twins at 21 weeks who had developed a terrible uterine infection. Those were wanted babies. We had only hours to terminate her pregnancy or she would die. It was 2 a.m. when she got sick. Can you imagine having to appeal to a judge in the middle of the night to save this lady’s life? Can you imagine having to tell her frantic husband that you were waiting for the judge to get back to you? One of Dr. Tiller’s cases was a 15 year old girl impregnated by her stepfather. Would you put your teen in front of a committee to be cross-examined? And if a judge in Louisiana can refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple as reported on Slog THIS week, can you trust a judge to make the right decision for your sister, or your daughter, or your mom? Would they know all the particulars about the one you love?
If you work with these women and you care about them and you listen to them you’ll know that THEY must decide. Who else has that right? I am not their judge and jury; neither are you. I’ve had patients carry babies with horrible birth defects, incompatible with life (and yes, we can tell them that) to term, knowing that their babies would die in their arms within days, but to them that was the RIGHT thing to do. I’ve had others faced with the same situation who felt that allowing the pregnancy to continue beyond 20 weeks was an immoral choice since it condemned their baby to pain and suffering. These were loving parents with miserable choices trying to do their best by their children. There was no one right answer to their situation. Just the answer that fit best with their beliefs — not with yours or mine.
I think most of us really do try and do our best. Some of us, our best is not so good. We are frail, our birth control methods fail us (even vasectomy Bethimus!), we screw up. We are lucky to live in a country where most women have access to choice. In other parts of the world, screwing up can be fatal.
Oh and bethimus, I’m sorry I lost my (red-headed, Irish) temper with you. I looked at your links and realized you are some sweet, sincere, young, not-terribly-experienced Baptist from Georgia who didn’t really understand she was in the Emerald City, if only virtually.
I grew up in the South too. It’s a place to start.
Hey Woodbun, welcome, and thanks for registering. I enjoy your insight and your passion.
184
Those who would deny Liberty and Life to others scarcely deserve it themselves.
185
Has there ever been an elective abortion past 20 weeks?
188,
So… you deny women the liberty to decide what is medically best for themselves? You deny life to the thousands that die in childbirth each year?
A woman is a person. You have not proven that a fetus is.
189,
Probably. But that does not mean were going to deny a right to all women because of 1 or 2 very rare poor decision maker. The vast majority of women are not going to go through all the morning sickness, the weight gain, the swelling, the nausea, the hormones, for 20 weeks just to change her mind at the drop of a hat.
I doubt you’re willing to pull your head out of the hole in the ground you’ve dug for yourself long enough to look up the medical conditions that make late term abortion necessary in some cases. Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of mine.
Even when it will live no more than a few hours in agony, a late term abortion is an agonizing decision, and your claim that some women will take it lightly is an insult to every woman on the planet.
Allegedly @182 you’re right, It’s not easy to trace to whom I was talking by context, and in my haste this morning (I was running out the door to help the local emergency response organizations drill on this, the anniversary of Loma Prieta, you see.) I mistook your reference numbers for actual index numbers. Not all of us are too perfect for this cruel Earth as you are, Allegedly.
I’ll repeat, or expound upon my answers with corrected and linked indexes as to make avoid further confusion.
Allegedly @171, as I said before I don’t need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Back to @182, Allegedly, I take your use of the word irresponsible (irresponsibly, take responsibility for, etc.) is code for having non-procreative sex of which you personally do not approve?
I take, therefore, you believe those that do not want children should simply not have sex. Yes?
Allegedly @183 Show me I’m wrong. Links, please. Feel free to cite me stats and cases. Make me eat crow.
When Dr. George Tiller was gunned down by your man Roeder, I looked, myself, through Tiller’s cases (those that were publicized) to see if the prevalent belief amongst obstructionists, that Tiller deserved to be murdered had even a modicum of legitimacy. It didn’t. As I mentioned before Operation Rescue did such a search and took him to court on what little they found might not be in order. It was. Tiller was acquitted.
Roe v. Wade protects abortion access on demand up to the point of viability (neonate survivability on life support) after which only non-elective abortions are legal. However, the interaction between federal law and state law is complicated. Most agencies and states consider late term abortion anything after either 16 or 20 weeks, after which the restrictions on reasons one can abort become quite prohibitive.
So, yeah, Allegedly, I’m probably wrong making the general statement that none have ever occurred, it being a big world with lots of people and all. More likely so outside the US or regarding non-current cases. But within the US today, I’d wager the one-thousand-or-so late term abortions we do carry out each year are due to a fetal anomaly incompatible with life.
So it’s not so much ludicrous as a modest stretch. But, Allegedly, it would be good exercise for you to find a link to a case of an elective abortion after 20 weeks, or a statistic indicative that they happen.
Oh, the link to @171 in my previous post should have gone here. I’m still getting used to this.
PS: Getting back to my evangelism regarding ectogenesis, another effective way to roll back the period regarded late term is to develop life support devices that will sustain a younger fetus (and, of course, a safe transfer system). But, Allegedly, I get the feeling you and your ilk woudn’t want to spare a single woman the pain of childbirth, if you could possibly help it.
attitude devant @185 speaking of theses worth writing, thank you for this, and much that you’ve said on this thread. I’ve actually been filling many of the gaps in my own gamut of awareness regarding the abortion access controversy in the US, much to your credit.
192
uh huh.
couldn’t take the twitching anymore, could you…
Ah, Allegedly, @180, it seems you’ve figured out the proper use of the term straw man. At least chose to use it correctly this time. Earlier you were having trouble with it.
As attitude devant noted, when you say in defense [I] have never said without an identity, you not only have to assure you personally have never crossed that line, but those people who wear the same hood as you haven’t either.
In fact, since you’re not openly representing the Queen, your pronoun We not only refers to you, but to the obstructionist community at large, in which there are plenty of contingents who oppose birth control access as well as abortion access, including The Roman Catholic Church, President George W. Bush, Pharmacists for Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Women Influencing the Nation, Human Life International, One More Soul, The Pill Kills, et. al.
Until you exclude them from your We, they’re included, despite the fact that some of them are the proverbial furry geeks of the obstructionist community.
A more useful thing to say would be I, personally, want everyone to have access to contraceptives, and think effective birth control is a great way to reduce abortion. But when I mentioned it long before you made it clear how you couldn’t care less if you tried.
Allegedly @194, What is it with you and nervous ticks? There are new psychiatric medications and regimens of therapy that have worked wonders with anxiety disorders in recent years. Perhaps you should look into your options.
I’m still waiting on that example to the contrary, though. C.mon Allegedly, show me you know how to research on the web.
192
Relax.
Roeder wasn’t our man.
Tiller’s murder says no more about the pro-Life movement than Lennon’s murder said about readers of ‘The Catcher in the Rye’.
In a functioning democracy the laws can be changed within the system by convincing a majority of the people to your point of view.
People who believe abortion is wrong can and should and do work within the system to change the laws.
America kills a million babies a year because a sufficient number of Americans with enough political power want it to happen.
We have the greatest system of government the world has ever known.
But it doesn’t guarantee us good or fair or wise or moral government.
It guarantees us the government we deserve.
We may, if we inform ourselves and participate and choose well, have fair, wise, moral, enlightened government.
Or we may choose selfish, shortsighted, immoral government.
Or through our inaction and apathy allow someone else to choose it for us.
But we always get what we deserve.
Good or bad.
We may choose to enslave our brothers.
For hundreds of years.
Eventually, however the bill comes due.
We may choose to kill a million babies a year.
The bill tab grows.
It will be paid at some point.
Pro-Life seeks to convince America that abortion of convenience is morally wrong and to change the laws to reflect that.
By working through the system.
The Left cheats-
Roe, for example.
Courts don’t make law or policy, the elected legislature does that. Roe was a monstrous abuse of the courts power and very unwise (it would have been better for everyone to let the states pass their own laws and reach a national consensus)
And laws that single out and restrict Pro-Life ability to protest or demonstrate also break the rules.
But we are not petty.
And we are patient.
We still will work within the system.
As long as there is half a chance to change the nations laws by working through the system that is what we will do.
Don’t fret, U-boy.
Roeder wasn’t one of ours.
He broke the law and should be punished.
The Left should not cheat too much, however.
The Left is fond of using judges to circumvent the will of the people.
The people’s will is often imperfect, but it is the will of the people.
Change it.
Don’t go around it.
That is a dangerous game.
When judges become tyrants the people will exercise their right and responsibility to end the tyranny.
Remember, “…, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,…”
not from the philosophy of unelected judges.
Remember, “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…”
We are patient- “experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…”
But not inexhaustibly so: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It Is Their DUTY.
Patrick Henry and Jefferson got it.
That’s what the 2nd Amendment is for.
It isn’t about hunting.
Or burglars.
The NRA won’t tell you that out loud.
But everyone on this side gets it.
The Left doesn’t get it.
Dan and his whiny bitch fanboys squeal for judges to ignore the will of the people.
SCREW THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!
It is a dangerous game.
Dan is a two-year old.
You ignore the tantrums of a two-year old.
But the adults on the Left should be cautious about using judges to IGNORE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
It is a dangerous game.
Roeder wasn’t one of ours.
We are playing by the rules.
If we decide not to anymore Slog won’t have to speculate, U-boy.
You’ll know.
196
You already admitted you were wrong.
Why would I rub it in?
You’ll have to Bing it yourself if you want to wallow in the magnitude of your error.
197,
Good luck with that rock, Sisyphus.
Courts are there to prevent Tyranny of the Majority.
That means you cannot use a majority vote to get between a woman and her doctor.
An embryo is not yet a baby. You are a fool to think otherwise.
199
is the embryo alive?
is the embryo human?
Actually, Allegedly @198, I didn’t. Rather I qualified my answer. I still hold I’m right until proven otherwise.
But your presumption that I did may belie your problem, that you believe everything is absolute. Or it could be, as I’ve indicated recently, you just couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger.
Y’know, you denying Roeder is confusing, Allegedly @197, since he thinks he’s your man. Operation Rescue, including their peerless leader Hot Wings and Beer Randall Terry thinks Roeder is your man. Oh sure, when such activism fronts have to go public, they condemn the actions and give insincere speeches such as yours about how violence is wrong, even when it’s to their end.
But it wasn’t Roeder’s actions that I find most intriguing, but the ticker tape parades throughout the web. The hot-wings and beer celebrations you couldn’t bother to wait until behind closed doors to begin. On the obstructionist chatboards, not a single Hey! Not cool! The absolute conviction with which I saw they all believed that Tiller really did nothing but cacklingly rip perfectly healthy babies from the wombs of unsuspecting mothers. They really couldn’t imagine that even one of the abortions Tiller performed was justified, was done because the fetus was doomed, or the mother was doomed if the pregnancy was left on its own.
These are your people Allegedly. Your allies. The ones you call brothers and sisters and friends. The ones you include when you say we. So call them as they are. Call Roeder your man, your hero. He forfeited his life, after all, to close down an abortion facility. Aren’t you proud of him for that? Roeder did good, yes?
How many of Dr. Tiller’s procedures do you believe were elective, eh, Allegedly?
Could you help but let out a hoot when you heard Dr. Tiller was murdered at his church, Allegedly?