The history in Poland invalidates claim that women suffer when elective abortion is illegal

[NYcarbineer]

Abortion is a 'safe procedure'- but like any medical procedure it can go wrong. And yes- legal abortions reduce abortion deaths, and yes, the medical providers who provide abortion services are legitimate health providers- your lies notwithstanding.

I am all for reducing abortion- even eliminating abortion by eliminating any demand for abortion.

So- what is your position on contraception to reduce abortion?

Exactly.

And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.

The same is true in Poland today.

So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.

I was speaking about the net effect of KG's position on the Law of the Land, not her actual words.

Yes, it is easier to prosecute the providers than those who "willingly aided and abetted them". (Legal terminology only.)

But if KG's will did become the Law of the Land a lawyer is going to bring in a destitute mother with 3 children and no ability to support another to portray the provider as someone who was helping the poor and downtrodden and ask the jury if they are willing to try her as the accused's accomplice?

Hence what KG wants is never going to happen.

I did not see where koshergrl called for the prosecution of the mother. Was that in another topic somewhere, or are you making an assumption?

How can you not prosecute a woman for having an abortion if abortion is murder?

The two cannot be rationally reconciled.

 

[g5000]

When you think about all the excuses people give for having an abortion, there is no difference between a five year old and an unborn child. The five year old just has a five or six year head start.

"Financial burden". You lose your job or sustain a life changing injury. Oops! That five year old is just too expensive to keep around now.

It's at this point in the discussion, the cry goes out, "DRAG OUT THE RAPE KID!" Victims of rape and incest make up less than two percent of abortions, and yet they are used as human shields to prevent discussion about the fact that over 98 percent of abortions are in the "financial/emotional" burden category.

Because then we would have to talk about the greater truth: There is virtually no difference between a one month old baby and a 20 week old fetus from the perspective of all the excuses given for the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions.

A kid can become damned inconvenient at any time. Every parent knows this. But we love them unconditionally anyway, and will sacrifice everything for them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Abortion is a 'safe procedure'- but like any medical procedure it can go wrong. And yes- legal abortions reduce abortion deaths, and yes, the medical providers who provide abortion services are legitimate health providers- your lies notwithstanding.

I am all for reducing abortion- even eliminating abortion by eliminating any demand for abortion.

So- what is your position on contraception to reduce abortion?

Exactly.

And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.

The same is true in Poland today.

So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.

I was speaking about the net effect of KG's position on the Law of the Land, not her actual words.

Yes, it is easier to prosecute the providers than those who "willingly aided and abetted them". (Legal terminology only.)

But if KG's will did become the Law of the Land a lawyer is going to bring in a destitute mother with 3 children and no ability to support another to portray the provider as someone who was helping the poor and downtrodden and ask the jury if they are willing to try her as the accused's accomplice?

Hence what KG wants is never going to happen.

I did not see where koshergrl called for the prosecution of the mother. Was that in another topic somewhere, or are you making an assumption?

No different to the assumption that only providers would be prosecuted. Without women needing an abortion there would be no abortions. To claim that only the provider is guilty is disingenuous.

To quote from the link in the OP;

One woman told me, “People must think women are stupid. If abortion were illegal and I wanted one, I sure wouldn't use a clothes hanger.” Since 90 percent of pre-1973 illegal abortions were done by doctors, it's safe to assume many physicians would continue to give abortions. “Self-help” abortion kits are being widely promoted and distributed by proabortion groups who have vowed they will step up their efforts if abortion is made illegal again. [18] Sadly, many women would continue to have abortions.​

In other words it isn't the providers "selling abortions on street corners" who are the cause of abortions.

 

[g5000]

Exactly.

And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.

The same is true in Poland today.

So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.

I was speaking about the net effect of KG's position on the Law of the Land, not her actual words.

Yes, it is easier to prosecute the providers than those who "willingly aided and abetted them". (Legal terminology only.)

But if KG's will did become the Law of the Land a lawyer is going to bring in a destitute mother with 3 children and no ability to support another to portray the provider as someone who was helping the poor and downtrodden and ask the jury if they are willing to try her as the accused's accomplice?

Hence what KG wants is never going to happen.

I did not see where koshergrl called for the prosecution of the mother. Was that in another topic somewhere, or are you making an assumption?

How can you not prosecute a woman for having an abortion if abortion is murder?

The two cannot be rationally reconciled.

So you made an assumption. You put words in her mouth.

 

[g5000]

Exactly.

And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.

The same is true in Poland today.

So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.

I was speaking about the net effect of KG's position on the Law of the Land, not her actual words.

Yes, it is easier to prosecute the providers than those who "willingly aided and abetted them". (Legal terminology only.)

But if KG's will did become the Law of the Land a lawyer is going to bring in a destitute mother with 3 children and no ability to support another to portray the provider as someone who was helping the poor and downtrodden and ask the jury if they are willing to try her as the accused's accomplice?

Hence what KG wants is never going to happen.

I did not see where koshergrl called for the prosecution of the mother. Was that in another topic somewhere, or are you making an assumption?

No different to the assumption that only providers would be prosecuted.

I assumed nothing about koshergrl. You did.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Don't know about Poland but history here supports that claim. Outlawing abortion increases infanticide, child abuse, and crime.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When you think about all the excuses people give for having an abortion, there is no difference between a five year old and an unborn child. The five year old just has a five or six year head start.

"Financial burden". You lose your job or sustain a life changing injury. Oops! That five year old is just too expensive to keep around now.

It's at this point in the discussion, the cry goes out, "DRAG OUT THE RAPE KID!" Victims of rape and incest make up less than two percent of abortions, and yet they are used as human shields to prevent discussion about the fact that over 98 percent of abortions are in the "financial/emotional" burden category.

Because then we would have to talk about the greater truth: There is virtually no difference between a one month old baby and a 20 week old fetus from the perspective of all the excuses given for the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions.

Yes, there are compelling cases to be made on the anti-abortion side of the argument just as there are on the pro-abortion side.

But neither side can be allowed to impose it's will on We the People because this is a matter of individual rights and not mob rule.

It doesn't matter what either side thinks or believes.

All that matters is the pregnant woman who has to make an extremely difficult personal decision. No one else can make it for her.

If there was a social safety net for single mothers that would ensure that their children would be properly housed, fed and educated then that would make the decision of having an abortion far less likely to occur.

But those social safety nets cost a lot of money and those who are anti-abortion are also anti-taxes and anti-social safety nets.

 

[Syriusly]

When you think about all the excuses people give for having an abortion, there is no difference between a five year old and an unborn child. The five year old just has a five or six year head start..

I would prefer that there are no abortions.

But yes- there is a significant difference between a five year old child- and a potential life that has never been born.

One is a living breathing human being- the other is a potential living breathing human being.

We can clearly define that the 5 year old is a living breathing human being- but there is no consensus or agreement on that that potential human being is- from the continuum from the moment of implantation to the day before birth.

 

[Syriusly]

"The history in Poland invalidates claim that women suffer when elective abortion is illegal"

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

That you don't understand the issue comes as no surprise.

The issue concerns safeguarding the right to privacy of all citizens, placing vital restrictions on the authority of government to engage in unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives, where fundamental life choices, such as whether to have a child or not, are immune from attack by the state.

For pro-lifers, the unborn life is just as important as a five year old kid's life. It isn't hard to understand, if you want to.

I understand that they believe so- that doesn't mean that I agree with them.

 

[Syriusly]

Our abortion culture is built upon a huge network of lies. The lie that women without abortion on demand die...in a variety of ways. The lie that in order to REDUCE ABORTIONS and abortion deaths, you must legalize abortion on demand for all...the lie that an abortion is a *safe* procedure. The lie that abortionists are legitimate health providers.

Abortion is a 'safe procedure'- but like any medical procedure it can go wrong. And yes- legal abortions reduce abortion deaths, and yes, the medical providers who provide abortion services are legitimate health providers- your lies notwithstanding.

I am all for reducing abortion- even eliminating abortion by eliminating any demand for abortion.

So- what is your position on contraception to reduce abortion?

Exactly.

And what is the OP's solution to ending abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Criminalizing women by denying them their rights and charging doctors with murder.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion. Abortionists were.

The same is true in Poland today.

So I would stop building straw men and putting words in koshergrl's mouth.

If you believe that unborn life is the same as a 5 year old- why would you prosecute a mother for killing her 5 year old- but not prosecute her for having an abortion?

If you believe that unborn life is the same as a 5 year old- if you would prosecute a mother for killing a child by neglect- either starving a child to death, or leaving it unattended in a warm car-
how could you not also prosecute a pregnant woman for neglect if her behavior caused a miscarriage?

 

[koshergrl]

Don't know about Poland but history here supports that claim. Outlawing abortion increases infanticide, child abuse, and crime.

Nope. Quite the opposite.

You see where RvW happened? Right before the steep increase in infanticide. See where it is as of 2010?

 

[koshergrl]

"...
For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.
The 1980's followed similar trends. Whereby overall homicide rates were decreasing in the United States, the rate at which parents were killing their children was increasing"

History of Infanticide

 

[koshergrl]

"While murder rates for almost every group in society have plummeted in recent decades, there's one group where murder rates have doubled, according to CDC and National Center for Health Statistics data — babies less than a year old."

"Gosnell's actions are readily explainable by a culture that embraces, and in some quarters celebrates, abortion as a constitutional right. Gosnell made his living by performing legal abortions, many of them late in the pregnancy. Is it really all that surprising that he might not have seen a significant moral difference in performing the abortion a few inches inside the birth canal rather than somewhere outside?"

"...at least Planned Parenthood recognizes that there is little difference. This is presumably why Planned Parenthood opposes legislation protecting children born during failed abortions, out of fear that if those babies are protected, the similar babies we allow to be killed inside the womb might have to be protected, too."

Gosnell s crimes not uncommon Column

 

[g5000]

When you think about all the excuses people give for having an abortion, there is no difference between a five year old and an unborn child. The five year old just has a five or six year head start..

I would prefer that there are no abortions.

But yes- there is a significant difference between a five year old child- and a potential life that has never been born.

One is a living breathing human being- the other is a potential living breathing human being.

We can clearly define that the 5 year old is a living breathing human being- but there is no consensus or agreement on that that potential human being is- from the continuum from the moment of implantation to the day before birth.

When you examine the fetus and the five year old from the perspective of the reasons given for abortion, there is no difference.

"Financial burden."

"If forced to keep the kid, the mother will abuse them."

All of this is just as true for a five year old as it is for the unborn.

 

[Old Rocks]

"The history in Poland invalidates claim that women suffer when elective abortion is illegal"

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

That you don't understand the issue comes as no surprise.

The issue concerns safeguarding the right to privacy of all citizens, placing vital restrictions on the authority of government to engage in unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives, where fundamental life choices, such as whether to have a child or not, are immune from attack by the state.

It is sometimes really financially and/or emotionally inconvenient to have a spouse. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from killing their spouse?

Sometimes a job is lost and/or someone becomes very ill and then there is suddenly a huge financial burden on the family. Maybe even a permanent one. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from culling a few kids?

How is you can see grasp the appropriateness of state interference for the protection of human life in one circumstance, but utterly fail to see the same principle is involved with an unborn life? How is it you can see that human life trumps privacy in one case but cannot see the same principle at work in another?

For pro-lifers, the unborn life is just as important as a five year old kid's life. It isn't hard to understand, if you want to.

I could understand the position of the pro-lifers were they the ones that push for the protection and care of children, medical, educational, emotional, after they were born. But they are the very ones that justify abandoning them at that point. Indeed, your point about valuing an unborn's life as much as a five year old's has problem. The pro-lifers are the same people that oppose food programs at schools, help with pre-school for working Mothers, and medical care for all children. A sad commentary on their priorities.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you think about all the excuses people give for having an abortion, there is no difference between a five year old and an unborn child. The five year old just has a five or six year head start..

I would prefer that there are no abortions.

But yes- there is a significant difference between a five year old child- and a potential life that has never been born.

One is a living breathing human being- the other is a potential living breathing human being.

We can clearly define that the 5 year old is a living breathing human being- but there is no consensus or agreement on that that potential human being is- from the continuum from the moment of implantation to the day before birth.

When you examine the fetus and the five year old from the perspective of the reasons given for abortion, there is no difference.

"Financial burden."

"If forced to keep the kid, the mother will abuse them."

All of this is just as true for a five year old as it is for the unborn.

Is that why the GOP opposes any kind of help for young children and their mothers?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Our abortion culture is built upon a huge network of lies. The lie that women without abortion on demand die...in a variety of ways. The lie that in order to REDUCE ABORTIONS and abortion deaths, you must legalize abortion on demand for all...the lie that an abortion is a *safe* procedure. The lie that abortionists are legitimate health providers. The lie that there is any oversight of the abortion industry in this country. The lie that there are any statistics that prove any of the nonsense that we hear in support of abortion from the CDC, the Guttmacher Inst., or PP. Their own sites have the disclaimers that say their numbers mean nothing. They're just good guesses by people who are motivated to encourage a LOT of abortion.

No society has ever gotten better when abortion was criminalized.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As with most of your posts, this one is a lie. While abortion in most states was illegal the U.S. Became the greatest country in the world. Society got a lot better and the middle class a lot bigger, women got,the vote, we saved the world from fascism. Get your head out of your partisanship.

 

[koshergrl]

"The history in Poland invalidates claim that women suffer when elective abortion is illegal"

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

That you don't understand the issue comes as no surprise.

The issue concerns safeguarding the right to privacy of all citizens, placing vital restrictions on the authority of government to engage in unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives, where fundamental life choices, such as whether to have a child or not, are immune from attack by the state.

It is sometimes really financially and/or emotionally inconvenient to have a spouse. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from killing their spouse?

Sometimes a job is lost and/or someone becomes very ill and then there is suddenly a huge financial burden on the family. Maybe even a permanent one. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from culling a few kids?

How is you can see grasp the appropriateness of state interference for the protection of human life in one circumstance, but utterly fail to see the same principle is involved with an unborn life? How is it you can see that human life trumps privacy in one case but cannot see the same principle at work in another?

For pro-lifers, the unborn life is just as important as a five year old kid's life. It isn't hard to understand, if you want to.

I could understand the position of the pro-lifers were they the ones that push for the protection and care of children, medical, educational, emotional, after they were born. But they are the very ones that justify abandoning them at that point. Indeed, your point about valuing an unborn's life as much as a five year old's has problem. The pro-lifers are the same people that oppose food programs at schools, help with pre-school for working Mothers, and medical care for all children. A sad commentary on their priorities.

. Typical progressive bs...maintain that unless we embrace depraved and stupid prog policies, we don't REALLY care. Nonsense. Your ridiculous policies across the last 100 years have done nothing but increase suffering, death and brutality exponentially, worldwide.

 

[guno]

But they are alive viable children

 

[guno]

"The history in Poland invalidates claim that women suffer when elective abortion is illegal"

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

That you don't understand the issue comes as no surprise.

The issue concerns safeguarding the right to privacy of all citizens, placing vital restrictions on the authority of government to engage in unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives, where fundamental life choices, such as whether to have a child or not, are immune from attack by the state.

It is sometimes really financially and/or emotionally inconvenient to have a spouse. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from killing their spouse?

Sometimes a job is lost and/or someone becomes very ill and then there is suddenly a huge financial burden on the family. Maybe even a permanent one. Would you be upset if the government interfered in our private lives and prevented someone from culling a few kids?

How is you can see grasp the appropriateness of state interference for the protection of human life in one circumstance, but utterly fail to see the same principle is involved with an unborn life? How is it you can see that human life trumps privacy in one case but cannot see the same principle at work in another?

For pro-lifers, the unborn life is just as important as a five year old kid's life. It isn't hard to understand, if you want to.

I could understand the position of the pro-lifers were they the ones that push for the protection and care of children, medical, educational, emotional, after they were born. But they are the very ones that justify abandoning them at that point. Indeed, your point about valuing an unborn's life as much as a five year old's has problem. The pro-lifers are the same people that oppose food programs at schools, help with pre-school for working Mothers, and medical care for all children. A sad commentary on their priorities.

. Typical progressive bs...maintain that unless we embrace depraved and stupid prog policies, we don't REALLY care. Nonsense. Your ridiculous policies across the last 100 years have done nothing but increase suffering, death and brutality exponentially, worldwide.

increase suffering, death and brutality exponentially, worldwide

Yes christianity has done that