The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Newby]

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby. Once they see it, it is very real to them. It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s. They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said. Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old. In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant. She got a 4d ultrasound. If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures. That is a BABY, it is nothing else. It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY. Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son". It is a real child. It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage. Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat. They become savage. The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion. People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are. It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society. Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last. We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader. This is what the absence of religion means. It means no moral compass. We aren't born with it. The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community. Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass. Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself. With each generation more and more people become consciousless. They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything. We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all. Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the bolded part. It may be true for a small subset of humanity, but not the majority.

 

[Underhill]

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby. Once they see it, it is very real to them. It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s. They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said. Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old. In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant. She got a 4d ultrasound. If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures. That is a BABY, it is nothing else. It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY. Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son". It is a real child. It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage. Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat. They become savage. The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion. People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are. It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society. Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last. We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader. This is what the absence of religion means. It means no moral compass. We aren't born with it. The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community. Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass. Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself. With each generation more and more people become consciousless. They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything. We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all. Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?

So without religion there is no moral compass? What a crock.

Morality is a logical choice. Atheist don't automatically devolve into murdering sprees. They don't steal or rape just because no deity is telling them not to.

We recognize that the rules we follow protect us.

As for society becoming more savage and sadistic... sorry but again, you are wrong.

Remember slavery? How about wives getting beaten and it being swept under the rug? Child labor was going strong 100 years ago. In revolutionary days when a politician did something you didn't like they could be tarred and feathered, not figuratively, literally.

I realize we are becoming a less religious society. But that is not even close to the same thing.

Today the savagery that is out there is more visible thanks to the media. But do a bit of reading and you quickly find that our society is much improved over centuries past.

 

[Underhill]

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby. Once they see it, it is very real to them. It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s. They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said. Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old. In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant. She got a 4d ultrasound. If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures. That is a BABY, it is nothing else. It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY. Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son". It is a real child. It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage. Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat. They become savage. The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion. People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are. It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society. Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last. We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader. This is what the absence of religion means. It means no moral compass. We aren't born with it. The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community. Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass. Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself. With each generation more and more people become consciousless. They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything. We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all. Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the bolded part. It may be true for a small subset of humanity, but not the majority.

We agree on something...

 

[Foxfyre]

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby. Once they see it, it is very real to them. It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s. They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said. Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old. In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant. She got a 4d ultrasound. If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures. That is a BABY, it is nothing else. It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY. Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son". It is a real child. It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage. Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat. They become savage. The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion. People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are. It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society. Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last. We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader. This is what the absence of religion means. It means no moral compass. We aren't born with it. The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community. Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass. Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself. With each generation more and more people become consciousless. They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything. We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all. Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the bolded part. It may be true for a small subset of humanity, but not the majority.

I do think there is a cultural component to morality though, and here in the USA, our moral compass is mostly directed by JudeoChristian influences brought forward from the earliest settlers here as people began arriving from the Old World. The Native Americans here had no reverence for life other than in their own tribe. Compassion or respect for the rights of others was in short supply in their culture, and to kill to take what others had, etc. was not something they felt guilty about.

But even among those most primitive of cultures, the love of a parent for his/her child was very real. The instinct to nurture and care for the child you bear is as strong in humans as it is in most other higher orders of birds and animals, and exists even among some insects; i.e. bees, ants, etc.

And pre Roe v Wade, our culture demanded a traditional marriage before children were rightfully conceived. The out of wedlock pregnancy was not something to be celebrated--you didn't announce it proudly in church or throw a baby shower for it. The woman stayed pretty well mostly out of sight, and it was considered most responsible to give up the newborn to a loving family who could offer it a loving mom and dad.

Okay, maybe the 'scarlet letter' mentality seems really cruel and barbaric. But it sure resulted in most kids having a traditional family with a mom and dad. In many schools now, the child with that blessing is in a small minority. It shouldn't be that way.

There must be a reasonable compromise between stoning women who violated cultural mores and the anything is okay mentality of our modern society. Somewhere in the middle there is the best solution for children and all of us. And if we could find it, we wouldn't be looking at 1.2 million babies aborted every single year--a number all of us should see as unacceptable.

 

[Newby]

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby. Once they see it, it is very real to them. It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s. They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said. Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old. In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant. She got a 4d ultrasound. If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures. That is a BABY, it is nothing else. It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY. Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son". It is a real child. It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage. Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat. They become savage. The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion. People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are. It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society. Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last. We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader. This is what the absence of religion means. It means no moral compass. We aren't born with it. The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community. Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass. Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself. With each generation more and more people become consciousless. They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything. We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all. Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the bolded part. It may be true for a small subset of humanity, but not the majority.

We agree on something...

Imagine that..

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe that people who do not believe are bad or immoral, and I don't like when people say that I'm pushing my religion on others whenever I speak out for or against issues that I find to be moral or immoral. It's not due to my religion, but my convictions about what I see as right and wrong. I see religion as just another 'subject' that I see as being the right path, in other words I chose my religion, my religion did not choose my morals. I think very often it's convenient for the left to paint the broad brush of religion over political issues, when that's not really the case a good majority of the time. I would believe abortion to be wrong regardless of my religious beliefs, the same as I would feel that murder or stealing are wrong were I a Christian or not.

 

[Delia]

The Way It Was | Mother Jones

This is a very hard article to read, and will be for both sides of the discussion. I'm pro-choice, though that is not a choice I would ever make for myself. The first page is quite graphic, giving specifics of abortion. The rest is graphic as to what happens when it's not a legal option.

It's a long article, but I believe it to be worth the time it takes to read it.

I really wouldn't want to see Roe v Wade repealed.

I didn't read the article but I know where Ma Jones stands on most issues. What happens when hiring someone to kill your unborn baby is not a legal option? Surely you jest. What happens when murder is not a legal option?

I'd really appreciate it if you read the article, so we could discuss the article. I don't believe anybody but possibly one person has read it as yet.

 

[Delia]

Yeah, wouldn't that be nice if the government forced abortion clinics to keep accurate records and report how many they do each an every year. Yet they don't, and the reason they don't is just so people like you can refute the numbers put up. So is your stance that they're going down? There aren't 1.2 million abortions per year. Put up your statistics to show what the actual number is then.

Participation is completely voluntary, and they have no data past 2008, isn't that convenient?

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2008

Abortion Statistics for the United States

Doesn't look like they've changed, other than they have significantly gone up since 1973, and then went down slightly, and haven't changed much within the last 10 years or so.

Incorrect.

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

I was looking at the right column in my earlier post, which led to my deleted post. However, 1.2 million is way down from over 1.6 million.

You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade? A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school. It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year. Why not just say it's birth control? Why can't you bring yourself to do that? Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'. Why not?

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards. But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion. Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will. It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.

Again. I need to see a citation for "a whole lot less."

 

[Delia]

You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade? A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school. It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year. Why not just say it's birth control? Why can't you bring yourself to do that? Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'. Why not?

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards. But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion. Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will. It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.

Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price. We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly. Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that? How could you possiblty know what I believe? Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex? That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part. I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context. What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control. It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people. Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.

Which is it? They're suffering forevermore, or there are no consequences.

 

[Delia]

First, I wasn't talking to you. Second, I am speaking in generalities.

The vast majority of pro-lifers fit into that description I gave. I've been arguing these points on forums for close to a decade and you are the first to call me on this.

If it doesn't fit you, then great!

As for your comments on consequences, they are wrong. Of course there are consequences. Nobody I know wants to get an abortion. And pregnancy is still a massive problem. So the notion that just having legal abortion out there as an option takes away all consequences is nonsense.

The problem is teens (and yes, some adults) do not use good judgement. Never have. This is why we limit their freedom in so many ways. Why they don't vote. Why they don't drive.

Sure there are a tiny minority of nuts out there having 15 abortions, but they are nothing even remotely in the ballpark of normal and probably have some serious mental or drug abuse issues.

From the article, and what I am trying to discuss:

That year in the 1960s, several thousand American women were treated in emergency rooms for botched abortions, and there were at least 200 known deaths.

It's on page four, which would explain why I'm the only one mentioning it.

One doctor's "awakening" is vividly described in The Worst of Times, a collection of interviews with women, cops, coroners, and practitioners from the illegal abortion era. In 1948, when this doctor was an intern in a Pittsburgh hospital, a woman was admitted with severe pelvic sepsis after a bad abortion. She was beautiful, married to someone important and wealthy, and already in renal failure. Over the next couple of days, despite heroic efforts to save her, a cascade of systemic catastrophes due to the overwhelming infection culminated with the small blood vessels bursting under her skin, bruises breaking out everywhere as if some invisible fist were punching her over and over, and she died. Being well-to-do didn't always save you.

Her death was so horrible that it made him, he recalls, physically ill. He describes his anger, but says he didn't quite know with whom to be angry. It took him another 20 years to understand that it was not the abortionist who killed her—it was the legal system, the lawmakers who had forced her away from the medical community, who "…killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or the coat hanger or whatever. I'm still angry. It was all so unnecessary."

All so unnecessary.

In the same book, a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. "The deaths stopped overnight in 1973." He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. "That," he says, "ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal."

 

[Delia]

I'm guessing you could take any pregnant female and regardless of how she was raised, she would know that killing her own child is wrong. It's not natural. I think it's the other way around, people like you are trying to convince girls and women that it's natural to want to kill your own child, that there's nothing wrong with it, when instinctually they know that it's not right.

Have you ever carried a child? You didn't answer.

From the article.

The arguments would be endless, but they would be irrelevant to the facts: From the moment I started looking for an abortion, not once did I even consider going through with the pregnancy. Not for one second. It simply was not going to happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was going to stop me, and it could have cost me my life. And this is what I had in common with millions and millions of women throughout time and history. When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. And whether we like it or not, humans, married and unmarried, will continue to have sex—wisely, foolishly, violently, nicely, hostilely, pleasantly, dangerously, responsibly, carelessly, sordidly, exaltedly—and there will be pregnancies: wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted.

And before you ask, no. I have never been pregnant. It's not a good idea, for me. Health issues. Before we got married, we discussed in-depth to make sure he was okay with not fathering a child in his life.

 

[Delia]

Exactly.

Umm, I never claimed I did.

Umm, yes you did.

It all depends on circumstance and upbringing. If they have been raised thinking as you do then yes, there are guilt issues.

He said 'thinking as you do,' not raised as you were.

 

[Delia]

I'm guessing you could take any pregnant female and regardless of how she was raised, she would know that killing her own child is wrong. It's not natural. I think it's the other way around, people like you are trying to convince girls and women that it's naturual to want to kill your own child, that there's nothing wrong with it, when instinctually they know that it's not right.

Have you ever carried a child? You didn't answer.

No. Of course not.

And I have never tried to convince a woman anything about her choices. It's none of my business. My wife and I have 3 kids. And if one of my daughters came home pregnant the choice is hers and hers alone.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that how you felt when you were pregnant does not give you all knowing insight into how all women feel.

Coming from a guy, that's pretty amusing.

So you don't think men should be participating in this conversation?

 

[Delia]

We are already doing that and have been doing it for years, yet abortions go up every year. Plain and simple, it's used for birth control, which is unacceptable. When there are no consequences to deter behavior, the behavior will continue, not only continue but expand and flourish. The further this country moves to the left, the more consequences are taken away. It's not a good thing, and we will pay for it down the road.

Sorry but no. Consequences don't seem to matter a whole lot as the behavior has always existed. Not to mention the largest reason we don't consider teens adults is a lack of judgement. As a father of three teens I can tell you it pisses me off almost daily, but it's a fact.

So the evidence, the physiology and the psychology says consequences simply won't matter to most youth.

As for education, yes we have been working on that since the 80's. But birth control and the day after pill are not universally available.

And anyone who tells you that the day after pill is abortion needs to educate themselves. It simply isn't the same thing.

I honestly think anyone who truly believes abortion is murder should be advocating for giving the day after pill out like candy. Oh I know, they use the same argument you do. But the idea holds no water. On the one hand, you believe abortion is murder. On the other you are not willing to stop the murder because someone may have premarital sex.
Think about that. If I have the choice between a murder, and a teen, or even a bunch of teens having premarital sex, sex wins every time. Hands down.

Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price. We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly. Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that? How could you possiblty know what I believe? Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex? That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part. I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context. What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control. It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people. Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.

That's the point of this article. I'm honestly expecting people to extrapolate. Okay. You win. No abortion. What will happen then?

 

[Delia]

Are we going around in circles here? What was 'raised thinking as I do' supposed to mean exactly? Do we need a translator? You're going to deny English? It meant that you had insight or knowledge as to how I was raised, since you would know how I thought based on how I was raised. It's really not that complicated, unless of course you're trying to deny the obvious.

Let me spell it out for you.

I know, having been raised in a hard core christian conservative family the affect that upbringing can have on a person. The guilt that comes with that strict list of rules and sins can be staggering.

I was saying that that guilt comes from believing an act is wrong, as you do about abortion.

So no, I was not saying anything about how you were raised.

Clear enough?

So this is about religion to you then? You don't think anyone brought up in a secular household could think abortion was wrong? I know atheists who agree that murder is wrong. It's about whether or not you think the taking of a human life is murder or not. Some people rationalize that killing a baby in uterus isn't taking or ending a human life. But, that's all it is, rationalization.

And again, I counter that killing your own child is not natural, taking religion out of the equation entirely. It's not natural or instinctual for a mother to kill her child, you aren't 'taught' guilt, people brought up in a secular household are capable of feeling guilt.

Probably all atheists agree murder is wrong. I don't think you'd get much of a consensus on abortion being murder, though.

 

[Delia]

I did. If you wanted more than that you shouldn't have posted this in the safe zone.

And why exactly are you personally attacking a poster in the clean debate zone?

The better question is why has no moderator acted on it, especially since a later post was acted on.

 

[Delia]

After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leeled off at about 1.2 million a year.

Using AGI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3 percent undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.

Christian Life Resources

That would be more than 54 million people who were never allowed to live. The vast majority of those would never have been conceived in a pre Roe v Wade culture.

The only way that statistic can exist is that women are told over and over again that it is NOT a baby they are killing but is rather a clump of cells, a zygote, not a person. Getting rid of it is of no more consequence and no more a moral issue than removing anything else on your body that you don't want there. So more and more women don't experience remorse or guilt when they use abortion as a means of birth control. They have been conditioned to believe it is not a life that is involved.

I personally am not that opposed to Roe v Wade. But I believe we should all demand that it be implemented as SCOTUS intended. In the first trimester, it is a matter between the woman and her doctor and everybody else respects that privacy. In the second trimester, it would require a panel or determination that it is advisable to end the pregnancy and that would require a better reason than the woman didn't want to be pregnant or didn't want the baby. In the third trimester, a court order could be required and only the life of the mother would be justification for ending a viable pregnancy and a healthy infant.

And we should work much harder in re-estabishing a reference and respect for life, most especially for the more innocent and helpless among us. That is the way it was pre Roe v Wade.

Please tell me you read the article, and will discuss it with me.

 

[Newby]

Incorrect.

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

I was looking at the right column in my earlier post, which led to my deleted post. However, 1.2 million is way down from over 1.6 million.

You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade? A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school. It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year. Why not just say it's birth control? Why can't you bring yourself to do that? Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'. Why not?

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards. But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion. Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will. It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.

Again. I need to see a citation for "a whole lot less."

It's in the chart.

 

[Newby]

You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade? A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school. It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year. Why not just say it's birth control? Why can't you bring yourself to do that? Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'. Why not?

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards. But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion. Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will. It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.

Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price. We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly. Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that? How could you possiblty know what I believe? Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex? That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part. I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context. What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control. It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people. Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.

Which is it? They're suffering forevermore, or there are no consequences.

It's just a different set of consequences, they trade one for another, supposedly feeling that one set of consequences has less impact than the other I guess. I wonder if you asked a group of women that were contemplating abortion at one point in their lives, but made the decision to keep their child, how many of them would say that they regretted not aborting?

 

[Newby]

First, I wasn't talking to you. Second, I am speaking in generalities.

The vast majority of pro-lifers fit into that description I gave. I've been arguing these points on forums for close to a decade and you are the first to call me on this.

If it doesn't fit you, then great!

As for your comments on consequences, they are wrong. Of course there are consequences. Nobody I know wants to get an abortion. And pregnancy is still a massive problem. So the notion that just having legal abortion out there as an option takes away all consequences is nonsense.

The problem is teens (and yes, some adults) do not use good judgement. Never have. This is why we limit their freedom in so many ways. Why they don't vote. Why they don't drive.

Sure there are a tiny minority of nuts out there having 15 abortions, but they are nothing even remotely in the ballpark of normal and probably have some serious mental or drug abuse issues.

From the article, and what I am trying to discuss:

That year in the 1960s, several thousand American women were treated in emergency rooms for botched abortions, and there were at least 200 known deaths.

It's on page four, which would explain why I'm the only one mentioning it.

One doctor's "awakening" is vividly described in The Worst of Times, a collection of interviews with women, cops, coroners, and practitioners from the illegal abortion era. In 1948, when this doctor was an intern in a Pittsburgh hospital, a woman was admitted with severe pelvic sepsis after a bad abortion. She was beautiful, married to someone important and wealthy, and already in renal failure. Over the next couple of days, despite heroic efforts to save her, a cascade of systemic catastrophes due to the overwhelming infection culminated with the small blood vessels bursting under her skin, bruises breaking out everywhere as if some invisible fist were punching her over and over, and she died. Being well-to-do didn't always save you.

Her death was so horrible that it made him, he recalls, physically ill. He describes his anger, but says he didn't quite know with whom to be angry. It took him another 20 years to understand that it was not the abortionist who killed her—it was the legal system, the lawmakers who had forced her away from the medical community, who "…killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or the coat hanger or whatever. I'm still angry. It was all so unnecessary."

All so unnecessary.

In the same book, a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. "The deaths stopped overnight in 1973." He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. "That," he says, "ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal."

200 deaths versus 54 million...

 

[Newby]

Umm, I never claimed I did.

Umm, yes you did.

It all depends on circumstance and upbringing. If they have been raised thinking as you do then yes, there are guilt issues.

He said 'thinking as you do,' not raised as you were.

His implication is that no one would 'think the way I do' unless they were raised in a specific enviroment, which he later went on to describe as a 'conservative Christian household'.