[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Another abortion thread. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/10/2004 7:08:20 PM EDT
I hope this isn't seen as trolling for an argument. In fact, it is not my intention to comment at all, other than posting this rather interesting idea. Apologies for the assured flamefest to follow, but I thought it was interesting enough and that some people here would find it so also:
|
|
if you could end the suffering of the entire world by torturing an innocent child to death, would you do it? for myself, no.... and i would beat the ever-loving shit out of anyone i saw trying. do those crime statistics reflect the mass killing of innocents (abortion)? i consider that a crime. but for the sake of argument... sure, crime has dropped... out of curiosity, though, how many kepplar's, Frost's, Newton's, Einstein's, Wright's, Von Braun's, etc. have we slain in our misguided attempt to play God? just as gun crime may go down with the enaction of gun control laws, so to does crime go down by killing those who MIGHT commit a crime. on one hand, we deprive law-abiding citizens of the ability to adequately defend themselves and their rights. on the other hand, we are killing our greatest gift - Children - in the search for some vaguely defined utopia. some of those children, had they been given the chance to live, may very well have already brought us to that utopia through their contribution to the world. those who promote abortion as an acceptable crime-fighting method have a pathetically narrow and short-sighted view of the world. or they are liberal socialists who seek to perpetuate their power-base in America - victims. the liberal/socialists have built their power base on the blood of innocents. gun control aside, it amazes me how anyone could even CONSIDER voting for someone who supports the wholesale slaughter of innocents for the purposes of convenience. Matt |
|
Research sought into side-effects of abortion Catholic World News Washington, DC, Mar. 10 (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A medical researcher from the University of Michigan Medical School told the US Senate last week that "abortion increases rates of breast cancer, placenta previa, pre-term births, and maternal suicide." Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian, testifying before the Senate Sub-Committee on Science, Technology, and Space, said that "statistically, all types of deaths are higher with women who have had induced abortions." According to sub-committee chairman Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, the hearing was the first of its kind to look into the physical and psychological effects of abortion on women. As expected, the hearing was not without controversy. In his opening statement, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, belittled the idea that the Senate would spend its time looking at the effects of abortion on women. Lautenberg tried to convince his fellow Senators that looking at such effects are not within the scope of the subcommittee, and that there was no research to substantiate the claim that abortion is harmful to women. Lautenberg made it clear he was not interested in finding any. Shadigian, one of three witnesses calling for such further study, told the committee that because "25 percent of all recognized pregnancies are terminated... the high prevalence of a history of induced abortion means that even small... negative effects on long-term health could influence the lives of many women." Shadigian said, "Obstetrics and gynecology is relying on old data... I'm surprised that people aren't talking about this more." Shadigian referred to her study in which she reviewed the global research on the harmful effects of abortion. She said that two European studies showed "a strong association between induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy." Five combined studies "found that women with prior induced abortion had a relative risk of placenta previa," which results "in high rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, and perinatal death." Shadigian said one study "concluded that induced abortion is an independent risk factor for breast carcinoma," and emphasized this "clearly demonstrated the need for additional studies... [since] the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion would ensure a substantial impact on women's health if their conclusions are correct." For psychological risks, Shadigian said, "Of particular note is the association between induced abortion and either suicide or suicide attempt... this is an objective rather than a subjective outcome, and the fact that the effects are seen after induced abortion rather than before indicates either common risk factors for both choosing abortion and attempting suicide, such as depression, or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health." Shadigian argued that "current literature is insufficient to be informative for counseling," and that more studies were still needed, "so that women can get better answers for their health care choices." Shadigian said, "Women deserve to be fully and accurately informed about potential health effects of elective abortion, preferably in a health education context separate and distinct from the timeframe of actually being faced with making difficult decisions about whether to continue or end a pregnancy." Shadigian pointed out that "not only do women need to know, doctors need to know." Two pro-abortion witnesses testified that no research is needed into the health risks associated with abortion. In fact, the Rev. Roselyn Smith-Withers of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said she had never met a woman who regretted her abortion but had met many women who "regretted having children." |
|
We should encourage abortions. Why? Because the ones that have them are mostly democraps creating more democraps. Conservative don't have them anyway. Less democrap voters in the future plus less welfare queens and criminals. This is said in jest but it does have some truth. |
|
I don't bitch about abortions, because I haven't adopted a child from a crack ho, a welfare queen or a scared shitless teenager. If I had done this simple, altruistic act, I would have every right to condemn people who have abortions as being weak, or stupid or irresponsible. But, I'm not quite ready to shoulder the responsibility of someone else's kid forever....I'm weak, what can I say? Anyway, let's hear some positive stories from all the anti-abortion soap-boxers about the kids they've adopted. You guys all did adopt a few kids, didn't you?? Don't tell me you're not ready to accept a little sickly crack baby into your loving folds...that would make your blathering nauseatingly hypocritical. So, let's have those adoption stories fellas! |
| Generally speaking I don't like the idea of abortion. It is in most cases birth control for those to stupid to use it in the first place. In rape cases, incest, very deformed babies and cases where the mother is in danger of course it should be allowed. I also believe that it is the individual womens choice. The last place that the goverment should involve themselves is to get that much into someones life to tell them what to do. They have no place making those decisions. I don't think abortion is a good idea just to cut down on crime but there are an unbelievable amout of children out there that are born to mothers that have no business having children. There to young to even care for themselves let alone a baby. They also in many cases can't afford to take care of them. I would like to see all of the people who are against abortion foot the bill for all of the welfare mothers and there children. If they were paying for it there tune would change. |
|
whywork40, Thats great! Glad to see that you are willing to let the Government dictate to you that a woman can kill your child without you being given a choice in the matter. If poeople are to poor to have kids then they shouldn't have sex. Butno....instead we tell them to have sex and then we don't hold them accountable for the resulting pregnancy and we let them have an abortion. SO the lesson we teach is that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions and that their is a easy way out. That's nice Sgtar15 |
|
Just so we all know what we are really talking about here, I suggest this site: [url]http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/abortion_photos.htm[/url] Just a small example of abortion. [img]http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/images/venouspooling.jpg[/img] Tell me that's not a human being in that pic!!! And if that pic is to graphic then you will hate to see the other pics and the evil shit these Doctors do. Abortion is murder...in all cases. Sgtar15 |
|
Quoted: if you could end the suffering of the entire world by [red]torturing an innocent child to death[/red], would you do it? for myself, no.... and i would beat the ever-loving shit out of anyone i saw trying. I guess I'll add some gasoline and say that "torturing an innocent child to death" to "end the suffering of the entire world" has been done already. |
|
Geez, that article sucks.............. It's the most stupid conclusions based on minimal statistics I've have ever read. The article reads like the root of all crime is poor people period. It doesn't take into consideration economics, laws, anti-crime programs, law enforcement, aids, education, or social change. Nor does it take into consideration that those who can afford legal representation can best afford avoiding conviction of a crime. They don't even define their definition of crime. Their conclusions are totally bogus. I could just as easily draw the conclusion that teenage pregnancy and crime reduced during the 90s do to the conservative trend led by Ronald Regan. It reads like the people who endorse this thinking would have it so only the rich can have children. It's a bullshit conclusion! Tj |
|
Quoted: Just so we all know what we are really talking about here, I suggest this site: [url]http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/abortion_photos.htm[/url] Just a small example of abortion. [url]http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/images/venouspooling.jpg[/url] Tell me that's not a human being in that pic!!! And if that pic is to graphic then you will hate to see the other pics and the evil shit these Doctors do. Abortion is murder...in all cases. Sgtar15 Sarge - Thanks for posting this pic. I honestly don't think that a lot of people who are pro-abortion really explore their position to its logical conclusion. Many who consider themselves "real men", who would never stand by and let someone harm a little kid, have somehow managed to distance themselves from what the actual abortion procedure is doing. No matter what the rationale, no matter what the reason, no matter what the law, the theory, the definition of life, the debate, the religion.... [b]Abortion is the legalized way that babies are tortured to death.[/b] |
|
OH NO NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN! Summon the Ayatollas. Fundamentalists who burn books should be permitted to own MG-42s.....and we saw this once before in the 30s and the 40s, and historicly know where it leads.But....women should not be permitted soveirgnty over their own wombs and that is killing innocent Einsteins?WTF? Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! |
|
Quoted: OH NO NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN! Summon the Ayatollas. Fundamentalists who burn books should be permitted to own MG-42s.....and we saw this once before in the 30s and the 40s, and historicly know where it leads.But....women should not be permitted soveirgnty over their own wombs and that is killing innocent Einsteins?WTF? Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! What more needs to be said? If you cannot be the guardian and god of your own body, then why should you be able to have guns? What is a more fundamental right???? It isn't your right, you have no say in the privacy of other women. Do not impose your "morals" on others. If you are right, they'll burn in hell. If you are wrong, you'll be dead and bitter. Either way there will be more food on my plate and less taxes taken out of my paychecks for welfare. Plus, there's always the Darwin approach to this whole thing.... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: OH NO NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN! Summon the Ayatollas. Fundamentalists who burn books should be permitted to own MG-42s.....and we saw this once before in the 30s and the 40s, and historicly know where it leads.But....women should not be permitted soveirgnty over their own wombs and that is killing innocent Einsteins?WTF? Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! What more needs to be said? If you cannot be the guardian and god of your own body, then why should you be able to have guns? What is a more fundamental right???? It isn't your right, you have no say in the privacy of other women. Do not impose your "morals" on others. If you are right, they'll burn in hell. If you are wrong, you'll be dead and bitter. Either way there will be more food on my plate and less taxes taken out of my paychecks for welfare. Plus, there's always the Darwin approach to this whole thing.... all fine unless you believe a child is involved and has rights too |
|
Quoted: Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! Men without balls should STFU. I am appalled at any so-called man that supports letting their girlfriend/wife kill their own child without the man ever knowing or having a choice in the matter. I am appallled at any so-called man that supports his 13 y.o. daughter to be able to get an abortion thru the schools without him knowing about it. I am appalled at any so-called man that so easily gives up his rights to any matters involving his children. How sad. Sgtar15 |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OH NO NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN! Summon the Ayatollas. Fundamentalists who burn books should be permitted to own MG-42s.....and we saw this once before in the 30s and the 40s, and historicly know where it leads.But....women should not be permitted soveirgnty over their own wombs and that is killing innocent Einsteins?WTF? Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! What more needs to be said? If you cannot be the guardian and god of your own body, then why should you be able to have guns? What is a more fundamental right???? It isn't your right, you have no say in the privacy of other women. Do not impose your "morals" on others. If you are right, they'll burn in hell. If you are wrong, you'll be dead and bitter. Either way there will be more food on my plate and less taxes taken out of my paychecks for welfare. Plus, there's always the Darwin approach to this whole thing.... all fine unless you believe a child is involved and has rights too Ready? I hope so.... Here we goooooooooooooooooooooooooo........ A child is not a child until it is viable and outside of the womb. I believe that at the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and can survive, that's the point where abortion becomes murder. Who's life is more important in late term abortions? Mother or child? Its mother for me every time. Second trimester? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! Men without balls should STFU. I am appalled at any so-called man that supports letting their girlfriend/wife kill their own child without the man ever knowing or having a choice in the matter. I am appallled at any so-called man that supports his 13 y.o. daughter to be able to get an abortion thru the schools without him knowing about it. I am appalled at any so-called man that so easily gives up his rights to any matters involving his children. How sad. Sgtar15 You are reading WAY too much into what he said. Children who get pregnant should have their parents notified. That includes if a doctor finds out or whatnot. I have a hard time with a parent FORCING their child to have a baby though. That just seems very very wrong. There's no reason why a 13 year old should have to have a baby if they don't want to. There is no lesson learned in that. Then again, abortions should also NOT be used as contraceptives. So how about a cap on abortions per woman per lifetime? Extend it if there's rape/abuse or other extenuating circumstances? How about also extending the father's rights when the child was conceived in marriage? I'd like to see that. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Men who do not have vaginas should STFU! Men without balls should STFU. I am appalled at any so-called man that supports letting their girlfriend/wife kill their own child without the man ever knowing or having a choice in the matter. I am appallled at any so-called man that supports his 13 y.o. daughter to be able to get an abortion thru the schools without him knowing about it. I am appalled at any so-called man that so easily gives up his rights to any matters involving his children. How sad. Sgtar15 Do you ask your wifes permission to masturbate? Isn't there some holy proclamation against "abusing" oneself? Do tell. |
|
Quoted: Look at that picture again Balzac....come on man...Have you no heart?? Sgtar15 No, I'm an attorney. Do pictures of Columbine sway you? The picture above is sad, but tell me what term it was in. What you're showing me is no different than the bleeding heard "baby killing" gun propaganda. I don't buy it until I learn more details. The fetus seems VERY large for an abortion, my guess is a 6th/7th month pregnancy, right? Then in that case, the mother's life was endangered and I fully support the abortion. Maybe the child had a developmental problem? No brain, retarded, etc. Details sway my opinion, emotions dont. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Look at that picture again Balzac....come on man...Have you no heart?? Sgtar15 No, I'm an attorney. Do pictures of Columbine sway you? The picture above is sad, but tell me what term it was in. What you're showing me is no different than the bleeding heard "baby killing" gun propaganda. I don't buy it until I learn more details. The fetus seems VERY large for an abortion, [red]my guess is a 6th/7th month pregnancy, right? Then in that case, the mother's life was endangered and I fully support the abortion.[/red] Maybe the child had a developmental problem? No brain, retarded, etc. Details sway my opinion, emotions dont. You're an attorney yet you make a statement like that. Interesting leap to a conclusion. Must work well in court. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Look at that picture again Balzac....come on man...Have you no heart?? Sgtar15 No, I'm an attorney. Well, I am sorry. The picture above is sad, but tell me what term it was in In a few months it would be full term regardless. What you're showing me is no different than the bleeding heard "baby killing" gun propaganda. How sad. You have no feelings what so ever towards any innocent victims? You must be a defense attorney. Then in that case, the mother's life was endangered and I fully support the abortion. Do know. DO I do know the definition of a woman's life being "in danger" sure has been expanded a lot since the 70's. Maybe the child had a developmental problem? No brain, retarded, etc. Details sway my opinion, emotions don't. So what? I have a sister that is retarded. Should my mother have killed her? She feels, thinks, creates, and develops relationships. Who gets to decide what is a "developmental problem"? Is homosexuality a "developmental problem"? What about criminal history in the family as the article attest to? Is that a "developmental problem"? What is a "developmental problem"? Sgtar15 |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Look at that picture again Balzac....come on man...Have you no heart?? Sgtar15 No, I'm an attorney. Well, I am sorry. Don't be, its working out quite well, thank you. The picture above is sad, but tell me what term it was in In a few months it would be full term regardless. What you're showing me is no different than the bleeding heard "baby killing" gun propaganda. How sad. You have no feelings what so ever towards any [red]innocent victims?[/red] You must be a defense attorney. There you go with the inflamatory terminology. Do you also refer to your AR15 as an "assault weapon?" Then in that case, the mother's life was endangered and I fully support the abortion. Do know. DO I do know the definition of a woman's life being "in danger" sure has been expanded a lot since the 70's. Do you know when they can perform late term abortions? Do you know under what circumstances? My leap of logic isn't as great as you would make it to be. The fetus is very well formed, which means IMO it was a late term. Legally, for a late term abortion, you must have cause to terminate. Its not easy to get one and there must be a medical reason. Maybe the child had a developmental problem? No brain, retarded, etc. Details sway my opinion, emotions don't. So what? I have a sister that is retarded. Should my mother have killed her? She feels, thinks, creates, and develops relationships. Who gets to decide what is a "developmental problem"? Is homosexuality a "developmental problem"? What about criminal history in the family as the article attest to? Is that a "developmental problem"? What is a "developmental problem"? Sgtar15 No brain. Under that circumstance with your logic, maybe your parents should have thought twice about you. [;)] Hit me with a logical, legal and informative conversation and lets see if we can get somewhere. You sound like a DUer right now with the inflamatory diatribe and emotion. EDIT for that last part: I'm not sure what sort of developmental problems allow for a late term abortion, its not my forte. That's why I put "DP's" without putting down factually incorrect information. |
|
Balzac, At any time thru out a pregnancy diferant stages of the baby can be measured. That does no change the fcat that it will become a baby that can live on it's own. If baby can instantly be considered as fully self supporting humans then there would be no reason for a 9 month pregnancy. But a process is set in motion when there is a pregnancy that always results in a child when carried to full term. By ending this you are ending a life. Period. From the time that 1 cell slits into two cells a life is in progress. Period. Weather it be by a car crash when that life is 18, a bar fight when the life is 30, a heart attack at 55 or a doctors knife in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester it is still the ending of a life. Obviously you have a lower opinion of life then I do. Yes feelings are involved. How can they not? You would be surprised at the evils people do by trying to take the feelings out of issues. SSgtar15 |
|
Quoted: Nice try Hielo. Sperm alone does not create life. Sgtar15 Hmmm, and a blstocyt alone does not make human life, potnetial, I grant you, but not the whole enchilada. But i am interested, and you are more of an authority than myself, what does the bible say about whacking off? |
|
Quoted: Balzac, At any time thru out a pregnancy diferant stages of the baby can be measured. That does no change the fcat that it will become a baby that can live on it's own. If baby can instantly be considered as fully self supporting humans then there would be no reason for a 9 month pregnancy. But a process is set in motion when there is a pregnancy that always results in a child when carried to full term. By ending this you are ending a life. Period. From the time that 1 cell slits into two cells a life is in progress. Period. Weather it be by a car crash when that life is 18, a bar fight when the life is 30, a heart attack at 55 or a doctors knife in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester it is still the ending of a life. Obviously you have a lower opinion of life then I do. Yes feelings are involved. How can they not? You would be surprised at the evils people do by trying to take the feelings out of issues. SSgtar15 Checking in here, and agreeing with the good Sarge. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Look at that picture again Balzac....come on man...Have you no heart?? Sgtar15 No, I'm an attorney. Do pictures of Columbine sway you? The picture above is sad, but tell me what term it was in. What you're showing me is no different than the bleeding heard "baby killing" gun propaganda. I don't buy it until I learn more details. The fetus seems VERY large for an abortion, my guess is a 6th/7th month pregnancy, right? Then in that case, the mother's life was endangered and I fully support the abortion. Maybe the child had a developmental problem? No brain, retarded, etc. Details sway my opinion, emotions dont. No fair! Al they have is emotions and their feelings. Common sense and logic don't come into play. Try again, look at the picture and imagine your baby, a little girl, she is going to invent the cure for cancer and faster than light travel, how do you feel now? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: , what does the bible say about whacking off? I don't know...those couple of pages are stuck together. Shtar15 [white]That's an extra year of purgatory[/white] But from me to you, it was worth it, brought a smile to my lips, thanks! My god forgives you! |
|
Quoted: What is amazing is that people care more about animals than unborn humans. The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day and brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days. When is it viable outside of the body? If a mother on THAT DAY decides to have an abortion, why not surgically remove it, then allow it to develope on life support? IF it is viable, that wouldn't be problem, would it? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: What is amazing is that people care more about animals than unborn humans. The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day and brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days. When is it viable outside of the body? If a mother on THAT DAY decides to have an abortion, why not surgically remove it, then allow it to develope on life support? IF it is viable, that wouldn't be problem, would it? You meant to say if the women agreed to that surgical procedure, right? Or are we now at the point were we are willing to perform surgical procedures on women against thteir will? |
|
Quoted: A child is not a child until it is viable and outside of the womb. I believe that at the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and can survive, that's the point where abortion becomes murder. Do you realize that the age at which a child can survive outside the womb gets smaller and smaller every decade? Who's life is more important in late term abortions? Mother or child? Its mother for me every time. Second trimester? Ok. How many women have late term abortions that threaten their health, not counting pregnancies that could not be viable like ectopic or tubal pregnancies? It amazes me how ignorant so many are of biology to state that an unborn child is no more than a tumor or parasite to the mother's body. Without conception there is no life. I've always thought the point of viability was absurd. Can a baby survive on its own for the first year of life? Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: A child is not a child until it is viable and outside of the womb. I believe that at the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and can survive, that's the point where abortion becomes murder. Do you realize that the age at which a child can survive outside the womb gets smaller and smaller every decade? Yes. Who's life is more important in late term abortions? Mother or child? Its mother for me every time. Second trimester? Ok. How many women have late term abortions that threaten their health, not counting pregnancies that could not be viable like ectopic or tubal pregnancies? That's my question. It amazes me how ignorant so many are of biology to state that an unborn child is no more than a tumor or parasite to the mother's body. Without conception there is no life. Who said that? Wasn't me. Don't you love that emotional rhetoric? I've always thought the point of viability was absurd. Can a baby survive on its own for the first year of life? How many pregnancies end in miscarriage? How about stillborns? Viability is HARDLY absurd. More than half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. And that last argument is just plain WEAK. |
|
Quoted: A child is not a child until it is viable and outside of the womb. I believe that at the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and can survive, that's the point where abortion becomes murder. The problem with your definition is that the term "viable" ss way too non specific. As soon as someone can accurately define when life begins or what "viable" is, I'll be happy to point out when you can "terminate a fetus." Unfortunately for the prochoice crowd, those definitions do not exist. And any argument that further specifies "when life begins," is completely indefensible. |
|
Quoted: You are reading WAY too much into what he said. Children who get pregnant should have their parents notified. That includes if a doctor finds out or whatnot. I have a hard time with a parent FORCING their child to have a baby though. That just seems very very wrong. There's no reason why a 13 year old should have to have a baby if they don't want to. What legal rights does a 13 year old have? Very, very few outside of their parents control. What other medical procedures involving the removal of tissue can a 13 year old consent to at a hospital or clinic? [B]None.[/B] There is no lesson learned in that. What lesson is learned in killing a child that is inconvenient? [b]That it's ok to run away from the responsibility of your actions.[/b] Then again, abortions should also NOT be used as contraceptives. So how about a cap on abortions per woman per lifetime? Extend it if there's rape/abuse or other extenuating circumstances? Do you know how many abortions are performed strictly as birth control? It's a hell of a lot more than for rapes and potentially deadly medical circumstances. The accepted rate is generally 1-2% of rapes result in pregnancy. According to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Report, there were 93,103 forcible rapes for 1998. That means there were an estimated 93-186 rape pregnancies annually. In 1998, the last year that the CDC has comprehensive figures for all 52 areas they poll (50 states plus D.C. and NYC), there were 1.19 million abortions. Even if you double the amount of forcible rapes in 1998 to 186,203 to account for unreported incidents, you still end up with 186-372 rape pregnancies in 1998. So rape abortions make up for .01% of all abortions. How about also extending the father's rights when the child was conceived in marriage? I'd like to see that. The father cannot have any rights if it's a woman's body and her right to choose. It cannot go both ways. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
| Viability is a medical term that is definable on a case by case basis, by doctors. It is when the child can physically exist outside of the womb on its own. The legal argument comes into it when you ask if you want to define viability as natural or medically administered. Want an incubator to finish what the womb didn't or do you want a life that is sustainable on its own? Obviously, the issue is whether doctors can test whether a baby can be viable in an incubator. If it was viable on its own, it would not be abortable anyway, since it would be pretty late in the pregnancy. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Ok. How many women have late term abortions that threaten their health, not counting pregnancies that could not be viable like ectopic or tubal pregnancies? That's my question. That's everyone's question! No one knows because there are no verifiable statistics. Most pregnancies that end because of a danger to the mother end well before the third trimester when proper prenatal care is administered. You don't find an ectopic or tubal pregnancy in the third trimester. It amazes me how ignorant so many are of biology to state that an unborn child is no more than a tumor or parasite to the mother's body. Without conception there is no life. Who said that? Wasn't me. Don't you love that emotional rhetoric? It was a general statement. I included it here for brevity. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out. I've always thought the point of viability was absurd. Can a baby survive on its own for the first year of life? How many pregnancies end in miscarriage? How about stillborns? Viability is HARDLY absurd. More than half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. According to whom? The CDC reports that in 1996 that 16% of pregnancies ended in fetal death, meaning miscarriage or stillbirth. That rate is down 4% from 1990. I find nothing to indicate your claim of half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, or a sharp rise in the rate since 1996. [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/00facts/trends.htm[/URL] And that last argument is just plain WEAK. So you say. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/00facts/trends.htm[/URL] So you are sure that every stat that comes out of the ATF is a blatant lie, but the CDC is above reproach? It is all about who's ox is to be gored that day. Would you prefer I used numbers from someone less objective than the CDC? Which pro-life/pro-choice organization would you prefer? That's not to say that I believe everything the CDC puts out, but I'm not too terribly suspect with their reporting on the rates of pregnancy in the US. I can ship you some tin foil if you're out. I've been told I must have a lot of it. [}:D] Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
Many many miscarriages do not make the statistics because people do not report them. I've seen stories claiming what I wrote above, so don't shoot the messenger. I have 3 friends who had 4 miscarriages between them and never did they go to a doctor because they didn't know they were prego until they miscarried. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/00facts/trends.htm[/URL] So you are sure that every stat that comes out of the ATF is a blatant lie, but the CDC is above reproach? It is all about who's ox is to be gored that day. Would you prefer I used numbers from someone less objective than the CDC? Which pro-life/pro-choice organization would you prefer? That's not to say that I believe everything the CDC puts out, but I'm not too terribly suspect with their reporting on the rates of pregnancy in the US. Why not give the NEJM a try? Quoted: I can ship you some tin foil if you're out. I've been told I must have a lot of it. [}:D] Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... Save it, I can send you over a recipe for crow... |
|
Quoted: No fair! Al they have is emotions and their feelings. Common sense and logic don't come into play. [rolleyes] "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception" - Ashley Montague, Geneticist and Professor of Hardvard and Rutgers "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." - Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo clinic "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." - Dr. McCarthy de Mere, MD and law professor, University of Tennessee "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being." - Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous." - Dr. Richard V. Jaynes "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion." - Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It's no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a metaphysical condition, it is plain experimental evidence." "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...As soon as the twenty-three chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the twenty-three chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered...When this information carried by the sperm and by the ovum has encountered each other, then a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again...[the zygote, and the cells produced in the succeeding divisions] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a "population" or loose "collection" of cells, but a very specialized individual, i.e., someone who will build himself according to his own rule. " "But each of us has a very precise starting moment, which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilised egg, and this moment is the moment of fertilisation. There is not the slightest doubt about it….we can freeze early human embryos…But the human beings which have been frozen are not dead; if we give them back a normal temperature, they will continue again. They will regain their own autonomy and begin again to be themselves. So we know that we have interrupted the dynamic, the movement; but we have not destroyed the information, life can start again…even in an embryo a week old, with those new techniques, we can say already "It's a man" or "she's a woman". It passes our imagination as a geneticist that lawyers knowing suddenly that this embryo a week old is a guy, a boy, or she is a girl, would not recognise at the same time that she is a human person. We can have a barcode [DNA] which is absolutely specific to each of us…This genetic message is in life, and the expression of this genetic message is life. Then to be even shorter, I would say that beyond any discussion, if the message is a human message, the being is a human being." "Because when people want to discard a baby they say to you it is not yet a baby. It's something which is not that. And they try to build a theory of 'humanization,' saying that in the beginning there is something which is living, something which is maybe a little human, but it is not a human being, and it is with the improvement of it that some day, by a humanization process, it will become a true human fellow. Well, that's curious, because nobody argues about that when we are dealing with mice, for example, or when we are dealing with cattle, or even when we are dealing with a big primate like the chimpanzee. Nobody believes that there is a progressive chimpanzification of a chimpanzee. Why, then, does he believe that there is a progressive humanization of a human being? For a very simple reason. Because it doesn't matter the size of the chimpanzee you kill, you are sure you are killing just a chimpanzee. But when you are dealing with human beings that you want to destroy, it is difficult to accept that they are similar to you. Then you get into moral trouble. And that is just the reason why people try to masquerade the truth by asking questions which have no sense. Because they would not scientifically ask those questions for any other living system than the system they will to destroy." - Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, considered the "Father of Modern Genetics" |