Drudge: Great Abortion article; 55 million abortions since roe/wade

[Vandalshandle]

Of course, we all know that there were NO abortions before Roe Vs. wade.

Curiously enough, though, there were 55 million D&C's....

Hmmmm.......

 

[KNB]

Once those 55 million children had been born, the same "pro-life" Americans would be cutting those kids' food stamps and education funds, making their lives suck until they're old enough to join the military and die for some rich man's lies.

Go fuck yourselves, Republicans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree that saying life begins at the moment of conception, when nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created, is ridiculous. On the other hand, that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby pretty quickly. It seems to me that since death is widely understood to be the cessation of brain activity, the beginning of brain activity should be the marker for the beginning of life. Brain waves can be detected at six weeks after conception. You want to kill that packed of cells before that point? Have at it. After that point, you are killing a thinking life form with its own human genetic code. That is the very definition of humanity.

Life does begin at conception which is widely held scientific view.

Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization | LifeNews.com

appropriate sources linked in article.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Life begins at conception, science teaches | Live Action News

So if biology states this, then how can the pro-abortion crowd possibly defend the indefensible? This isn't dogma, this isn't religion, it's scientific fact.

I'm with you for the most part; I only disagree with you on one point, brain activity.

Logic tells you that a being without a brain cannot be human; in the moments directly after conception, nothing remotely resembling a brain exists. There are many cases in which people's brains have died, and their bodies live on for a time, but at those moments, nobody really believes the person is still there. Every sane counselor, friend and objective family member will tell the family member in charge to pull the plug because that is just a shell; the person has moved on. Unless you are willing to argue that a brain dead individual is still a living soul, you cannot argue that a clump of cells without even a brain to be active is a living soul.

Also if you hold that life begins at conception, all chemical contraception is murder. Birth control works be keeping an egg from being dropped, and that does prevent contraception, but the process does not work anywhere near 100% of the time, so as a secondary precaution, birth control removes the uterine lining so that a conceived egg will not stick in the womb and develop. Perhaps you knew that and are consistent in your actions, but I dare say a large percentage and perhaps a majority of pro-life people have aborted a fertilized egg in this way at some point. Personally, I don't think that's human life and I have no problem with it, but to be consistent in your position, you would have to view that as murder and just as despicable as abortion.

Life does begin at conception which is widely held scientific view.

Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization | LifeNews.com

appropriate sources linked in article.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Life begins at conception, science teaches | Live Action News

So if biology states this, then how can the pro-abortion crowd possibly defend the indefensible? This isn't dogma, this isn't religion, it's scientific fact.

And you have every right to hold that view, with the understanding that this is not the legal standard; prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections:

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

This is a question of what should be not what is.

And who is authorized to make the determination as to what ‘should be’?

You?

The voters?

Fortunately neither, where in our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; those who seek to empower the government to dictate to women whether they may have a child or not is proof of that.

 

[Knightfall]

And who is authorized to make the determination as to what ‘should be’?

You?

The voters?

Fortunately neither, where in our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; those who seek to empower the government to dictate to women whether they may have a child or not is proof of that.

In any system where the government derives its power by the consent of the governed, then yes the people do get to decide what should be. You speak of the law as if it is this all powerful deity that hands out unquestionable truths that stem from an unknowable source when in reality it just a formation of the will of man; that is not to say that mob rule should be the order of the day, but it is undeniable that the Constitution and all the law connected to it is nothing more than the product of man. If men are incapable of ruling justly, then the entire idea of government is forfeit.

I have great respect for the Constitution, but it says nothing about abortion either in protecting or prohibiting it and it has no authority to pass legislation concerning it, so any rulings about abortion based on the Constitution are at best extensions of Constitutional authority which stand on sketchy ground and are subject to vast differences in opinion on how they should be applied and at worst completely fraudulent overreaches of federal power. If a power is not given to the federal government, it is retained by the states and the people of the states, so any decision concerning abortion is a matter of state or individual discretion. States have always regulated the circumstances under which humans can be legally killed; abortion is just one more provision which should be decided in this manner.

 

[hazlnut]

What's "great" about this?

We are getting beat by China and Russia.

 

[Londoner]

Yes, but most of them were going to be the children of liberals. I would imagine more than a few Repubs would see a Silver Lining here.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, but most of them were going to be the children of liberals. I would imagine more than a few Repubs would see a Silver Lining here.

Maybe that should tell you something about the difference between liberals and Republicans.

 

[BDBoop]

Yes. Only Republicans are mentally ill enough to say shit like that to which you are agreeing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its really a very simple NON-issue. Its none of your business what women choose. That's it. That's all there is to it.

MYOB

Yes, you're right. It's no one's business when a woman decides to kill another human being. Killing is a private choice. Mind your own business. If you don't like killing people, don't kill someone. Don't try to tell other people they can't kill just because you don't. We don't need a busybody government poking its nose into private choices about ending someone's life.

That about the size of your "brilliant" argument, shitforbrains?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seeing as how the numbers of women seeking abortion before Roe v Wade is statiscally the same as after, I'm more concerned about the number of women who died after a botched abortion during those illegal years. It's been estimated to be 10k or over.

That said, no male on this forum has any right to say what a woman should do or not do to her body. That is her singular decision and only hers.

Estimated by whom? Based on what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many of those abortions are to say teenagers? To single mothers near or in poverty? To rape victims? Where the baby has birth defects? Where the mother's life is in danger?

More than half of American women obtaining abortions are in their 20s. Women aged 20–24 have the highest abortion rate of any age-group (40 abortions per 1,000 women). Just 17% of all U.S. abortions are obtained by teenagers. Teens aged 18–19 account for 11% of all abortions and 15–17-year-olds account for 6%; teens younger than age 15 account for another 0.4%. Teens aged 18–19 obtain two out of three teen abortions.

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.

Women with family incomes below the federal poverty level ($18,530 for a family of three) account for more than 40% of all abortions. They also have one of the country’s highest abortion rates (52 per 1,000 women). In contrast, higher-income women (with family incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) have a rate of nine abortions per 1,000, which is about half the national rate.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Seven percent of women cited health concerns for themselves or possible problems affecting the health of the fetus as their most important reason.

Did you have a point?

Get those numbers. Funny I hear conservatives (state that young people shouldn't have a baby until they are married, after they complete school and have a job that can support a family! Yet when a opps happens, many of these conservatives that are far right pro-lifers (meaning no exceptions to abortion) say you can't have an abortion not matter what. Sorry I have trouble with that hypocrisy.

Don't see any hypocrisy between saying, "Carelessly making human beings is a bad thing" and "killing human beings is a bad thing". Of course, I don't consider being inconvenient to be a capital crime.

My stance is always is that abortion is inherently wrong, but it's the lesser of many evils.

If you think there's an evil greater than killing an infant, you're a loon.

1st Trimester:
Abortion is legal, but the woman should have to hear an ultra sound and be given materials on adoption.

2nd Trimester:
Abortion is illegal , except for cases of incest, rape, birth defects or mother's life is in danger.

3rd Trimester:
Abortion is illegal except for birth defects and mother's life is in danger!

And you base this system on what, precisely?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Image how low unemployment and crime would be if we had doubled the number.

Too bad the deep red religious states cling to their bibles and screwed up ideas about compassion and quality of life.


How arrogant to assume you know God's will!!

Who is to say that God is not acting through abortion providers?

I'm just marveling that this level of idiocy has not ruptured the fabric of space and time with the sheer force of its stupidity.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes. Only Republicans are mentally ill enough to say shit like that to which you are agreeing.

What, that people deserve to live even if they might grow up to join a political party you don't like? That human life is more important than political posturing? That the morbid convenience of some isn't as important as the very right of others to live?


"Shit" like that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

First up, Super_Lantern? Do we have another DC Comics fan on the board?

Next, there's not much to respond to here since it's mostly an emotional plea rather than a logical one. I mean, I guess respond emotionally, but I don't feel like doing so at the moment.

As for the gist of the discussion, I would like to see the pro-life crowd become more aggressive in their willingness to discuss the issues; I just hope that they don't become antagonistic because that just gets people to shut down and go with the flow which does not lead to any change of the heart and mind which are the real changes needed.

Okay, let's deal with this. In what way is the pro-life crowd not "aggressive in their willingness to discuss the issues"? What do you see as "the issues" rather than just "an emotional plea", and how do you see the two sides fitting into your paradigm? In what way is the pro-life crowd - but NOT the pro-abortion crowd - "antagonistic" and "making people shut down"?

Let's see if I can find anything worth responding to in this.

Can anybody give me a link to the actual stats on how many people have been born since 1973? The one in three have been aborted statement is powerful, but I don't want to repeat it unless I can back it up, and a quick Googling didn't help.

Seriously, dude? You want to comment on abortion, and you can't even find the basic stats on it?

Hoo boy.

Not sure where you're getting "one in three", but according to the Guttmacher Institute, twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Also, can someone explain to me the logic of the Roe Vs. Wade decision? I don't see how the 14th amendment can be construed as to say anything about abortion.

Can't help you there, son. Roe v Wade, completely aside from the moral issues around abortion, was just really crappy case law in general.

I'm not sure that pitting the mother against the child is an accurate depiction of abortion, but describing abortion as the ultimate discrimination is another solid point.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly.
- Ayn Rand

I agree that saying life begins at the moment of conception, when nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created, is ridiculous. On the other hand, that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby pretty quickly. It seems to me that since death is widely understood to be the cessation of brain activity, the beginning of brain activity should be the marker for the beginning of life. Brain waves can be detected at six weeks after conception. You want to kill that packed of cells before that point? Have at it. After that point, you are killing a thinking life form with its own human genetic code. That is the very definition of humanity.

I believe you said you wanted issues and reason, yes? So perhaps you could explain the statement "Nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created" to me. I assume we can agree that at the moment of conception, SOMETHING has been created, so what DOES it resemble, if not humanity? What do you think humanity is?

And "that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby"? I think what you mean is "starts resembling a newborn infant", and have mistakenly assumed that that's the only definition of the word "baby".

Cessation of brain activity is not actually the definition of death. It's the definition of when and how we can recognize death. Furthermore, "life" is not scientifically defined as "brain activity", since there are many organisms on Earth which are alive, but do not have brains as humans do. Once upon a time, death was diagnosed by lack of detectable breathing and heartbeat, which resulted in people being buried alive while in severe comas, or suddenly waking up at their own funerals.

you are in your retard phase huh?

still doesnt matter, its none of your business.

You are suggesting the murder of a human being is not society's business or you are suggesting that a fetus is not human? If it is the former, then that's quite a position. If it's the latter, then please take a look at the paragraph directly above starting, "I agree that..."

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are much more likely to be abused.

Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

I make the following argument not because I agree with it but just to point out the problem with your train of thought. Democrats support the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That act made incandescent lights untennable and forced consumers to switch to CFLs. CFL lights release mercury into the air when broken.

Democrats are pro-mercury poisoning.

Every law will have far reaching effects some of which will be negative.

I honestly have to love the leftist view that child abuse is a normal, explainable, logical behavior that can occur in anyone and everyone, and only to be expected of women who aren't allowed to simply kill their unwanted offspring early on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree that saying life begins at the moment of conception, when nothing remotely resembling humanity has been created, is ridiculous. On the other hand, that little packet of cells starts resembling a baby pretty quickly. It seems to me that since death is widely understood to be the cessation of brain activity, the beginning of brain activity should be the marker for the beginning of life. Brain waves can be detected at six weeks after conception. You want to kill that packed of cells before that point? Have at it. After that point, you are killing a thinking life form with its own human genetic code. That is the very definition of humanity.

Life does begin at conception which is widely held scientific view.

Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization | LifeNews.com

appropriate sources linked in article.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Life begins at conception, science teaches | Live Action News

So if biology states this, then how can the pro-abortion crowd possibly defend the indefensible? This isn't dogma, this isn't religion, it's scientific fact.

I'm with you for the most part; I only disagree with you on one point, brain activity.

Logic tells you that a being without a brain cannot be human; in the moments directly after conception, nothing remotely resembling a brain exists. There are many cases in which people's brains have died, and their bodies live on for a time, but at those moments, nobody really believes the person is still there. Every sane counselor, friend and objective family member will tell the family member in charge to pull the plug because that is just a shell; the person has moved on. Unless you are willing to argue that a brain dead individual is still a living soul, you cannot argue that a clump of cells without even a brain to be active is a living soul.

Really? Logic tells you this? Perhaps you could explain the specific scientific logical progression you think you're following to that conclusion.

And then please explain to me why science ascribes the term "living organism" to so many things on Earth which do not, in fact, have brains.

Also if you hold that life begins at conception, all chemical contraception is murder. Birth control works be keeping an egg from being dropped, and that does prevent contraception, but the process does not work anywhere near 100% of the time, so as a secondary precaution, birth control removes the uterine lining so that a conceived egg will not stick in the womb and develop. Perhaps you knew that and are consistent in your actions, but I dare say a large percentage and perhaps a majority of pro-life people have aborted a fertilized egg in this way at some point. Personally, I don't think that's human life and I have no problem with it, but to be consistent in your position, you would have to view that as murder and just as despicable as abortion.

Who told you this pile of shit?

Chemical contraception like the Pill works by changing the hormones in a woman's body to prevent her from ovulating, that's true. It does not, however, "remove the uterine lining". The female body ejects the endometrium every month that it is not pregnant all by itself; the process of endometrial formation and ejection continues on while on the Pill just like always. This is why some women still become pregnant on the Pill: the balance of hormones necessary to halt ovulation is inadequate, and the rest of the process is still completely intact.

Life does begin at conception which is widely held scientific view.

Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization | LifeNews.com

appropriate sources linked in article.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Life begins at conception, science teaches | Live Action News

So if biology states this, then how can the pro-abortion crowd possibly defend the indefensible? This isn't dogma, this isn't religion, it's scientific fact.

And you have every right to hold that view, with the understanding that this is not the legal standard; prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections:

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

This is a question of what should be not what is.

At least you recognize that. "Abortion should be legal, because abortion is legal" is a favorite argument around here, for some reason.

 

[RDD_1210]

Conservatives aren't pro-life. What a false label that is. It's more like they are pro-birth because once that baby is born they clearly don't give a shit about it's life.

 

[Zona]

Some how, if pro-choicers were winning this battle, I don't think they'd be championing this 'mind you own business' last ditch effort rhetoric.


It's not as simple as minding your own business when morally/ethically this is a matter of life and death

If you guys were really concerned about the fetuses...

You'd support universal health care.
You'd support Family and Medical Leave.
You'd support a raise in the minimum Wage
You'd support comprehensive sex education

What you guys are upset about are the ladies controlling their lady parts.

Damn. Nice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course, we all know that there were NO abortions before Roe Vs. wade.

Curiously enough, though, there were 55 million D&C's....

Hmmmm.......

Let's run those numbers. "55 million D&C's". I can only assume you're talking about "ever, in the history of the United States", given that the entire population of the United States in 1973, the year of Roe v Wade, was 211 million.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, but most of them were going to be the children of liberals. I would imagine more than a few Repubs would see a Silver Lining here.

Really? And why would you imagine that? Because YOU think that way, so you project your evil onto everyone around you?