Dem's Killing off their Future Voters

[1sttruck]

Chris B. said "Have you ever seen some of the people who lived through an abortion? They are usually f***** up and a lot of then sue their mothers later in life. That is pretty sad and wrong and I feel for them."

I agree, and although I consider myself 'pro-choice' I also believe that needing an abortion is a sign that something else went wrong, in a serious way. I think that fixing the 'something else that went wrong' will be more productive than ignoring it and focusing on abortion. I also agree with some other comments that it's unfortunate that people in this country are having abortions when it's so hard for some couples to adopt. Friends who have adopted have almost always ended up with kids from overseas.

 

[DJ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris B.:
I should have have said we are the only species that does it out of convienence and use it as a form of birth control. Animals do not predetermen if they will kill their young or not....we do.

---

Not to mention some animals eat their own young or just abandon them.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
I also believe that needing an abortion is a sign that something else went wrong, in a serious way.

---

Well..every birth control method-and I mean every one can and does fail. Even vasectomies. For responsible couples who plan to have say 2 children and plan for the funding for their education etc., etc. Its perfectly understandable (to me) to go the abortion route.

Those who have raised two children to maturity and sent them to college with the origional partner in place will be able to understand this concept more than others. But again..everyone has their own beliefs and personal values.

And don't for one second beliefe that Democrats are more likely to abort. That's just the Rush's spin.

[ June 30, 2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Al ]

 

[Al]

Darn-wanted to edit :mad

 

[STSinNYC]

Abortion is one of the great tragedies in our society. It's not only the unjust termination of the child's life. Many women suffer terrible emotional trauma. Our church supports a counseling program for women who have had abortions. Some come in nearly suicidal with guilt and anger. Many have been angry at themselves and the man involved for years. The liberal humanists have tried to sell society that abortion is just another form of birth control, but it isn't, and the women know it. We've heard Planned Parenthood people say angrily that if a woman has emotional problems after an abortion, she had htme before, it's not the abortion that's the cause. Bull: It's the human conscience, implanted uniquely in us by God.

 

[motorguy222]

quote:

---

Originally posted by STSinNYC:
Abortion is one of the great tragedies in our society. It's not only the unjust termination of the child's life. Many women suffer terrible emotional trauma. Our church supports a counseling program for women who have had abortions. Some come in nearly suicidal with guilt and anger. Many have been angry at themselves and the man involved for years. The liberal humanists have tried to sell society that abortion is just another form of birth control, but it isn't, and the women know it. We've heard Planned Parenthood people say angrily that if a woman has emotional problems after an abortion, she had htme before, it's not the abortion that's the cause. Bull: It's the human conscience, implanted uniquely in us by God.

---

I must agree.Abortion is the taking of a human life just as is killing a person with a gun.God even says that he knew us before we were conceived.What people seem to be forgetting is that an aborted baby had a soul that is given by God.The very spirit of life comes from God.
The human soul is there from conception until death,it doesn't just appear 9 months later at birth.The soul of a human(mankind) is there at conception and stays there until death,whether it lives for 20 days or 100 years.If there was no soul in the so called 'fetus',it would not have a heart beat etc.
The definition of conceive is;1.to become pregnant. 2.to form an idea.(*Webster's New World Dictionary).If I conceive an idea in my mind,is it any less formed if I don't bring it to fruition? No,it is still an idea.It is as much of an idea as it will ever be.
A humans life begins at conception,it is as much a life as it ever will be.
Another point,science says that the division of cells means life.Why is this not applied to a pregnancy?

 

[needtoknow]

Some points to consider at this link,
http://www.wcla.org/articles/procon.html

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Some points to consider at this link,
http://www.wcla.org/articles/procon.html

---

Their Pro-Con table seems to have been written by Patricia Ireland. Didn't really expect more from a "Coalition for Legal Abortion, Inc.".

Keith.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Some points to consider at this link,
http://www.wcla.org/articles/procon.html

---

Good information..but most will ignore it. I guess one of those very, very times when we both agree about something.

 

[1sttruck]

About 1 on 3 conceptions end naturally in EPL (early pregnancy loss). Preventing a fertilized egg from attaching is one the two basic types of birth control. Both result in many, many more 'lives' lost than abortion. The intent to not bring a life into the world results in yet many, many more 'lives' lost by not conceiving, and if religion is going to be brought into the argument what is in one's heart counts as much as one's actions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12620443&dopt=Abstract

The conception rate per cycle was 40% over the first 12 months. Of the 618 detectable conceptions, 49 (7.9%) ended in clinical spontaneous abortion, and 152 (24.6%) in EPL. Early pregnancy loss was detected in 14% of all the cycles without clinically recognized pregnancy, but the frequencies were lower among women with delayed time to clinical pregnancy.

http://www.mumsweb.com/pregnancy/week_3.htm

Warning: It's a long, hazardous journey from conception to birth (full of twists and turns and perils) and not all pregnancies make it. About one in every three pregnancies ends in a miscarriage.

http://www.medicinenet.com/Birth_Control/page1.htm

In simple terms, all methods of birth control are based on either preventing a man's sperm from reaching and entering a woman's egg (fertilization) or preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the woman's uterus (her womb)and starting to grow.

 

[needtoknow]

I think if Christian anti-abortion groups would stop blocking access to family planning, birth control and sex education they could do much more to stopping abortion.
This is a 1996 report but I think still warrants consideration.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html

Unintended Fertility

Since 1965, national fertility surveys have ascertained whether pregnancies were intended or unintended.* A recent study by the U.S. Institute of Medicine found that about 57% of pregnancies in the United States are unintended.45 Several industrialized nations have succeeded in reducing the proportion of pregnancies that are unintended to 30%; if the United States were to achieve this goal, the report notes, there would be about 200,000 fewer unwanted births and about 800,000 fewer abortions each year.

The report stresses that unintended pregnancy is the common thread in teenage pregnancy, nonmarital childbearing and abortion; all of these problems would be less severe if unintended pregnancy were reduced. Another study has shown that preventing unintended pregnancy saves a great deal of money: Since each pregnancy, on average, costs about $3,800 in a managed-care setting,46 the 3.5 million unintended pregnancies that occur each year cost about $13 billion annually in medical costs alone.47

 

[motorguy222]

Originally posted by needtoknow:
[QB] I think if Christian anti-abortion groups would stop blocking access to family planning, birth control and sex education they could do much more to stopping abortion.


Christian anti-abortion groups do support birth control use and have done so for years,they support abstinence.Abstinence is the only birth control that is 100% effective.Yet,people put this down and reject it.Why,because this makes a person control themselves,something that liberals don't want a young person to do.
Liberals say;Do What You Want To,its OK.
Liberals say;Who Cares What Your Parents Think,you are your own person.
If people would control themselves and behave themselves,they would not have to worry about birth control.While there will always be those that don't control themselves,it is not a reason to justify going behind a parents back to get birth control.
There are many parents that teach abstinence,only to be undermined by the liberal,'DO What You Want To Do' bunch that are out to destroy the family unit.They are in schools handing out birth control.They are at local health departments helping KIDS go behind the parents backs to get abortions.This is not right.
It IS NOT up to a school,a health department or ANY one else to help an under age person get an abortion,birth control or anything else.This undermines the authority of an underage individuals family,this is not right.
People keep bringing up that the government should stay out of a gay persons bedroom,that applies here too.The government has no right to step in and give a young person access to abortions,birth control or anything else without parental consent.
Schools have no right to hand out birth control nor do they have the right to allow an out side group to do so.These are issues that are left up to the young persons family and or guardian,not the government or planned parenthood.
We have people like Gloria Stienham(sp)that are out to destroy families at all cost.Some will say that this is not true but how else could a person that has their 'eyes' open take it.When people like her are promoting the idea of young people going against the authority of a parent,it is wrong.
This kind of philosophy tears at the very threads of a family.
When people like her think that they have the right to tell my child or anyone else's that they don't have to listen to a me/us,it is WRONG! If a young person wants birth control or and abortion,they need to go to their parents/guardian.If the parents/guardian says No,then that should settle it.
The liberal groups have NO right whatsoever to go behind the parents/guardians back and get something done.

 

[1sttruck]

RegionRate
Midwest 7.1%
Northeast 7.5%
South 9.3%
West 8.9%
US 8.4%

 

[1sttruck]

Try this again....below are pregnancy rates for 15 to 19 year olds for the year 2000, rolling up the populations and pregnancies by state into regions from the FBI crime reports. It appears that the more conservative 'don't ask don't tell just say no' methods aren't as effective.

Region Rate
Midwest 7.1%
Northeast 7.5%
South 9.3%
West 8.9%
US 8.4%

 

[sbc350gearhead]

Alot of interesting information.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Alot of interesting information.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

---

I hadn't come across this before, but it is from 1983 and timeless:

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by Ronald Reagan

excerpt---------------
since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars. Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.
----------------

Since 1973, no argument has come forward to explain how the US Constitution and an invented "right to privacy" allows abortion on demand up to the moment of natural childbirth.

Keith.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Alot of interesting information.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

---

I hadn't come across this before, but it is from 1983 and timeless:

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by Ronald Reagan

excerpt---------------
since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars. Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.
----------------

Since 1973, no argument has come forward to explain how the US Constitution and an invented "right to privacy" allows abortion on demand up to the moment of natural childbirth.

Keith.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
[qb] Since 1973, no argument has come forward to explain how the US Constitution and an invented "right to privacy" allows abortion on demand up to the moment of natural childbirth.

Keith.

---

O.K. this must be the first to argue it then:

"Individual rights begin at birth, with the creation of a new, separate human being. Rights are a concept applicable only to individual, actual human beings, not a merely potential one. The fetus may become a human being, but until it is born and the umbilical cord is severed, it is part of an actual human being: the mother. By analogy, observe that an acorn is a potential oak tree, not an actual one; you may build a house out of an oak, but not from an acorn.

The actual entity has attributes that the merely potential does not.

It is only the mother who has rights, and her rights necessarily include the right to control her own body; before, during and after pregnancy. The timing of the woman's decision has no impact on when the fetus becomes a rights-bearing entity, i.e., when it is born.

To say that the fetus has rights when it could be born -- the so-called "viability" argument--is to repeat the error of those who say the fetus has rights from conception. Both positions confuse the potential with the actual.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=273

 

[sbc350gearhead]

Well......I have asked this question many times before......and still haven't received a rational answer.

A woman discovering that she is pregnant, informs her boyfriend. She also informs him that she intends to keep the child, in spite of his wishes. He then hits her in the stomach causing her to lose the child.

Is this "$250 fine and a night in the can" assault and battery?.........or is it murder? Under the definitions used by abortionists......there is no in between.

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Well......I have asked this question many times before......and still haven't received a rational answer.

A woman discovering that she is pregnant, informs her boyfriend. She also informs him that she intends to keep the child, in spite of his wishes. He then hits her in the stomach causing her to lose the child.

Is this "$250 fine and a night in the can"
assault and battery?.........or is it murder? Under the definitions used by abortionists......there is no in between.

---

The law and the courts have not been consistant about this. In many cases, causing the death of a fetus has been ruled murder.