FOX News sees nothing wrong seperate lunch counters

[paperview]

i didnt answer because it was a stupid question
what would it really matter if there were
would it bother you if a business in a majority black community refused service to non-blacks?

i'd figure they didnt want my business and go somewhere else more enlightened

so.... you ARE arguing against the CRA... you don't think the government should be able to prevent public businesses from discriminating against blacks.

doesnt exist
business are PRIVATE

A public business is not pure private property.

As was discussed earlier:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

 

[RDD_1210]

Does a black man have more rights than a white man? I think not. It's my opinion that a private business although it caters to the public should be the owners call as how to run it and who it wants to cater to.

It's like Stossel said if a man chooses to be a racist then he should have that right. Should his right to be racist be over-ruled simply because it offends the sensibilities of a black man? Like you said where in the Constitution does it allow one man's right to patron a place supersede the right of a man to run his businsess as he sees fit?

Does a black man have more rights then a white man? Of course not, and I never said they do or should. It's about being equal, no more, no less.

Here's the problem, you just stated it yourself. A business that caters to the PUBLIC must allow the PUBLIC to enter and use the facilities. People can certainly be racist if they want as someones thoughts are certainly their own but when you open a PUBLIC business then the public, made up of ALL of the citizens of this country who are ALL equal have a right to be there.

People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here.

This is where you and I disagree, I believe a private business owner should be allowed to run it's business as he sees fit regardless if it caters to the public. I do understand that currently a private business owner cannot do that if it descriminates a person for race, color, gender, etc...

I also disagree with you in part on this statement,

"People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here"

If a business has a sign saying we don't cater to blonde people, although blondes may not like it, they can choose to take their business down the street. The owner is not doing anything harmful to the blonde and isn't affecting the blondes rights. I don't think you have the right to patron any business you choose.

So let me ask you this. Are you for or against abortion?

 

[DiveCon]

so.... you ARE arguing against the CRA... you don't think the government should be able to prevent public businesses from discriminating against blacks.

doesnt exist
business are PRIVATE

A public business is not pure private property.

As was discussed earlier:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

so, if a business has posted store hours, the owner cant change that?
sorry, but i prefer to let them be openly stupid so i dont accidentally support stupid people

 

[paperview]

doesnt exist
business are PRIVATE

A public business is not pure private property.

As was discussed earlier:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

so, if a business has posted store hours, the owner cant change that?

Store hours? What the hell does that have to do with federal regulations regarding discrimination? But if you to get specific with that tangent - yes, the government (local) can decide what time stores can be open - to wit: A bar cannot be after 2AM in many locales. This is government imposition on that "private business."

Some stores cannot sell liquor before noon on Sundays.

For quite some time, we had blue laws (and still do in a few places, IIR) that prohibited stores from opening on Sunday. How "private" is it if they can regulate matters such as this? Again, a store open tot he public is not like a private residence, which some are trying to equate it to.

sorry, but i prefer to let them be openly stupid so i dont accidentally support stupid people

Then you appear to be in favor of repealing a part of the Civil Rights Act of 64, when just a few posts ago you told me "no one is arguing against the CRA."

This is called the back step two step doe-see-doe.

I'm seeing a lot of that here lately.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The Right to Discriminate? | Media Matters for America

FOX feels businesses should be able to disciminate. HHhhmmmm, it sounds a lot like a Rand Paul platform.

The next thing Foxnews will do is start saying the Emancipation Proclamation are illegal because it is the Constitutional right of all Americans to own whatever "property" they want, even if its humans.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Does a black man have more rights then a white man? Of course not, and I never said they do or should. It's about being equal, no more, no less.

Here's the problem, you just stated it yourself. A business that caters to the PUBLIC must allow the PUBLIC to enter and use the facilities. People can certainly be racist if they want as someones thoughts are certainly their own but when you open a PUBLIC business then the public, made up of ALL of the citizens of this country who are ALL equal have a right to be there.

People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here.

This is where you and I disagree, I believe a private business owner should be allowed to run it's business as he sees fit regardless if it caters to the public. I do understand that currently a private business owner cannot do that if it descriminates a person for race, color, gender, etc...

I also disagree with you in part on this statement,

"People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here"

If a business has a sign saying we don't cater to blonde people, although blondes may not like it, they can choose to take their business down the street. The owner is not doing anything harmful to the blonde and isn't affecting the blondes rights. I don't think you have the right to patron any business you choose.

So let me ask you this. Are you for or against abortion?

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

 

[mudwhistle]

Media Matters.....

RLMMFAO!!!

Nothing Media Matters says is the truth.

Hillary Clinton approved....George Soros funded.

Pervayers of dishonest foreign funded Progressive propaganda.

 

[DiveCon]

A public business is not pure private property.

As was discussed earlier:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

so, if a business has posted store hours, the owner cant change that?

Store hours? What the hell does that have to do with federal regulations regarding discrimination? But if you to get specific with that tangent - yes, the government (local) can decide what time stores can be open - to wit: A bar cannot be after 2AM in many locales. This is government imposition on that "private business."

Some stores cannot sell liquor before noon on Sundays.

For quite some time, we had blue laws (and still do in a few places, IIR) that prohibited stores from opening on Sunday. How "private" is it if they can regulate matters such as this? Again, a store open tot he public is not like a private residence, which some are trying to equate it to.

sorry, but i prefer to let them be openly stupid so i dont accidentally support stupid people

Then you appear to be in favor of repealing a part of the Civil Rights Act of 64, when just a few posts ago you told me "no one is arguing against the CRA."

This is called the back step two step doe-see-doe.

I'm seeing a lot of that here lately.

wrong as usual
but do continue

 

[paperview]

Media Matters.....

RLMMFAO!!!

Nothing Media Matters says is the truth.

Hillary Clinton approved....George Soros funded.

Pervayers of dishonest foreign funded Progressive propaganda.

So John Stossel didn't say business owners should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin - and that a very large provision of the Civil Rights Act of 64 shouldn't be repealed?

 

[paperview]

so, if a business has posted store hours, the owner cant change that?

Store hours? What the hell does that have to do with federal regulations regarding discrimination? But if you to get specific with that tangent - yes, the government (local) can decide what time stores can be open - to wit: A bar cannot be after 2AM in many locales. This is government imposition on that "private business."

Some stores cannot sell liquor before noon on Sundays.

For quite some time, we had blue laws (and still do in a few places, IIR) that prohibited stores from opening on Sunday. How "private" is it if they can regulate matters such as this? Again, a store open tot he public is not like a private residence, which some are trying to equate it to.

sorry, but i prefer to let them be openly stupid so i dont accidentally support stupid people

Then you appear to be in favor of repealing a part of the Civil Rights Act of 64, when just a few posts ago you told me "no one is arguing against the CRA."

This is called the back step two step doe-see-doe.

I'm seeing a lot of that here lately.

wrong as usual
but do continue

Such engaging and insightful debate you engage in.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Anything that doesn't allow white (men) to be in charge is illegal and racist, but when it comes to discriminating, running and exploiting others its fair game, shame on you.

 

[RDD_1210]

This is where you and I disagree, I believe a private business owner should be allowed to run it's business as he sees fit regardless if it caters to the public. I do understand that currently a private business owner cannot do that if it descriminates a person for race, color, gender, etc...

I also disagree with you in part on this statement,

"People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here"

If a business has a sign saying we don't cater to blonde people, although blondes may not like it, they can choose to take their business down the street. The owner is not doing anything harmful to the blonde and isn't affecting the blondes rights. I don't think you have the right to patron any business you choose.

So let me ask you this. Are you for or against abortion?

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

So the government has no business telling a business owner what they can do with their property? But the government should be allowed to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body?

You say that it's THEIR business, THEIR property thus THEIR decision. A person's own body is the most private form of ownership yet you don't want to allow people to have a say over that and strip their rights away from them. If a woman wants an abortion, that's not harming you, yet you still want to stop her from doing that. Seems unfair.

 

[maineman]

doesnt exist
business are PRIVATE

A public business is not pure private property.

As was discussed earlier:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

so, if a business has posted store hours, the owner cant change that?
sorry, but i prefer to let them be openly stupid so i dont accidentally support stupid people

you are arguing for the repeal of the CRA. pure and simple. You clearly feel that the owner of a lunch counter in a department store should be able to refuse service to someone because they are black.

 

[paperview]

So let me ask you this. Are you for or against abortion?

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

So the government has no business telling a business owner what they can do with their property? But the government should be allowed to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body?

You say that it's THEIR business, THEIR property thus THEIR decision. A person's own body is the most private form of ownership yet you don't want to allow people to have a say over that and strip their rights away from them. If a woman wants an abortion, that's not harming you, yet you still want to stop her from doing that. Seems unfair.

Excellent point. It's hard to imagine anything more private than a person's own body.

 

[Zona]

Correct, a person who owns a business doesn't lose his individual rights, but show me where in the constitution his/her rights now supersede the individual rights of black people just because he owns a business.



Ummm for valid reasons under the laws of our country. Refusing service because of skin color is not legal so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Does a black man have more rights than a white man? I think not. It's my opinion that a private business although it caters to the public should be the owners call as how to run it and who it wants to cater to.

It's like Stossel said if a man chooses to be a racist then he should have that right. Should his right to be racist be over-ruled simply because it offends the sensibilities of a black man? Like you said where in the Constitution does it allow one man's right to patron a place supersede the right of a man to run his businsess as he sees fit?

Does a black man have more rights then a white man? Of course not, and I never said they do or should. It's about being equal, no more, no less.

Here's the problem, you just stated it yourself. A business that caters to the PUBLIC must allow the PUBLIC to enter and use the facilities. People can certainly be racist if they want as someones thoughts are certainly their own but when you open a PUBLIC business then the public, made up of ALL of the citizens of this country who are ALL equal have a right to be there.

People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here.

Racism is not illegal, discriminatory actions are. This is 2010 ol Rand, not 63. Teabaggers, you can scream "take back american" all you want, but we wont live through that crap again. Ever.

 

[Zona]

yeah, it is funny
that you think you actually had a point here

no one is arguing against the CRA
just that people that own a business should have the RIGHT to be as stupid as they want to be

to argue your second point requires that portions of the CRA must be repealed.

and you never answered me....do you honestly feel that there are not cities and neighborhoods in the deep south where a restaurant would be quite profitable by denying service to blacks?

i didnt answer because it was a stupid question
what would it really matter if there were
would it bother you if a business in a majority black community refused service to non-blacks?

i'd figure they didnt want my business and go somewhere else more enlightened

What about white only hospitals....what about white respnses from police, what about white only fire departments.

You made a few good points, but you have to remember, in towns where there are only tiny percentage of minorities, what are they supposed to do? Go to the next town to get gas? Why is it, they have to move because Rand says so..?

As a man, you tell your children they cant go into that bathroom or eat at that restaurant? Fuck that. THIS IS NOT 63.
Tea baggers, you will not get this repealed in anyway, but I would love to have a sit down with a black republican.

I have mad respect for ol Rand though, up till this point. He stuck to his crazy beliefs. As long as he doesn't change any of his thought process in telling us exactly how he feels, he will have my respect. No back peddling, no changing your mind in public just keep talking. You represent so well.

 

[Zona]

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

So the government has no business telling a business owner what they can do with their property? But the government should be allowed to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body?

You say that it's THEIR business, THEIR property thus THEIR decision. A person's own body is the most private form of ownership yet you don't want to allow people to have a say over that and strip their rights away from them. If a woman wants an abortion, that's not harming you, yet you still want to stop her from doing that. Seems unfair.

Excellent point. It's hard to imagine anything more private than a person's own body.

Lonestar, Ol Rand disagree's with you. He is against abortion no matter what the circumstances. NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS NO ABORTIONS. Period.

This man is amazing. He is against taking away rights, yet he says he should have the right to tell a woman she HAS to have a baby.

Wow.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so the Right argues that one's right to be a bigot is superseded by one's right NOT to be discriminated against.

And then, that same Right Wing will argue all day long that THEY were the real champions of Civil Rights.

Republicans may have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Conservatives opposed it.

Funny how some find solace in the wrong ideological label at the wrong point in history.

And we can all see through the wafer thin veneer of cover you try to provide for yourselves. Calling it the 'freedom to be a bigot' doesn't excuse the blatant bigotry involved.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So let me ask you this. Are you for or against abortion?

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

So the government has no business telling a business owner what they can do with their property? But the government should be allowed to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body?

You say that it's THEIR business, THEIR property thus THEIR decision. A person's own body is the most private form of ownership yet you don't want to allow people to have a say over that and strip their rights away from them. If a woman wants an abortion, that's not harming you, yet you still want to stop her from doing that. Seems unfair.

Show me in the Constitution where abortion is legal. Show me in the constitution where the government has the authority to to decide what a person can do on his own property.

The leading causes of abortion related maternal deaths within a week of the surgery are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.(2)

BREAST CANCER:
The risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion, and rises even further with two or more abortions.(3)

CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER:
Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)

UTERINE PERFORATION:
Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.(5) Such an examination may be useful when beginning an abortion malpractice suit. The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion.(6) Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.

CERVICAL LACERATIONS:
Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.(7)

PLACENTA PREVIA:
Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.(8)

COMPLICATIONS OF LABOR: Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks).(17) Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neo-natal death and handicaps.

HANDICAPPED NEWBORNS IN LATER PREGNANCIES:
Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.(9)

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY:
Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.(10)

PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID):
PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion.(11)

ENDOMETRITIS:
Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.(12)

IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS:
Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.(13)

INCREASED RISKS FOR WOMEN SEEKING MULTIPLE ABORTIONS:
In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters.

LOWER GENERAL HEALTH:
In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of "present health." While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that "if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater." (15)

This finding is supported by a 1984 study that examined the amount of health care sought by women during a year before and a year after their induced abortions. The researchers found that on average, there was an 80 percent increase in the number of doctor visits and a 180 percent increase in doctor visits for psychosocial reasons after abortion.(18)

INCREASED RISK FOR CONTRIBUTING HEALTH RISK FACTORS:
Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems. For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post- abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.

INCREASED RISKS FOR TEENAGERS:
Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.(14)


But abortions don't harm anyone, just the life of an unborn child and the health risk of the mother.

Abortion Risks: A list of major physical complications related to abortion

 

[bodecea]

I'm against Roe v Wade. I think that issue should be a states rights issue and not federal. I'm against abortion except under special circmustances.

So the government has no business telling a business owner what they can do with their property? But the government should be allowed to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body?

You say that it's THEIR business, THEIR property thus THEIR decision. A person's own body is the most private form of ownership yet you don't want to allow people to have a say over that and strip their rights away from them. If a woman wants an abortion, that's not harming you, yet you still want to stop her from doing that. Seems unfair.

Show me in the Constitution where abortion is legal. Show me in the constitution where the government has the authority to to decide what a person can do on his own property.

The leading causes of abortion related maternal deaths within a week of the surgery are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.(2)

BREAST CANCER:
The risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion, and rises even further with two or more abortions.(3)

CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER:
Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)

UTERINE PERFORATION:
Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.(5) Such an examination may be useful when beginning an abortion malpractice suit. The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion.(6) Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.

CERVICAL LACERATIONS:
Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.(7)

PLACENTA PREVIA:
Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.(8)

COMPLICATIONS OF LABOR: Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks).(17) Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neo-natal death and handicaps.

HANDICAPPED NEWBORNS IN LATER PREGNANCIES:
Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.(9)

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY:
Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.(10)

PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID):
PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion.(11)

ENDOMETRITIS:
Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.(12)

IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS:
Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.(13)

INCREASED RISKS FOR WOMEN SEEKING MULTIPLE ABORTIONS:
In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters.

LOWER GENERAL HEALTH:
In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of "present health." While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that "if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater." (15)

This finding is supported by a 1984 study that examined the amount of health care sought by women during a year before and a year after their induced abortions. The researchers found that on average, there was an 80 percent increase in the number of doctor visits and a 180 percent increase in doctor visits for psychosocial reasons after abortion.(18)

INCREASED RISK FOR CONTRIBUTING HEALTH RISK FACTORS:
Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems. For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post- abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.

INCREASED RISKS FOR TEENAGERS:
Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.(14)


But abortions don't harm anyone, just the life of an unborn child and the health risk of the mother.

Abortion Risks: A list of major physical complications related to abortion

Show us in the Constitution (or any laws from the times of the Founders) where abortion is ILLEGAL.


(BTW, there's nothing in the Constitution saying that appendectomies are legal either....)