Female Feticide is real Santorum isn't crazy It's an issue

[g5000]

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection_(magic)

Pro-choicers use a lot of smoke and mirrors (rape and incest) and misdirection (it's about the woman and her doctor) to achieve the murder of the unborn. They are prestidigitators whose signature trick is to make babies disappear.

US law already decided you are wrong

The US Supreme Court decided the unborn may be murdered in the name of "due process".

Magic!

 

[Zoom-boing]

That is no reason to punish all expecting women

How does that punish women?

Denying them coverage of a useful tool to manage their womb so you can feel you obeyed your religion IS PUNISHMENT

How is waiting to reveal the sex of the fetus until 30 weeks 'denying them coverage' and wtf does 'useful tool to manage their womb' even mean?

 

[tinydancer]

Once again, Republicans want to step in between a woman and her doctor.

With all due respect, female feticide is becoming a world wide issue and should have nothing to do with left wing or right wing politics.

The United Nations is really flipping about this. And these women are being forced to abort after the discover of the female fetus. This isn't "choice" at all.

Here's Eastern Europe.

The trend could cause demographic problems for the small ex-Soviet state, UN Population Fund official Garik Hayrapetyan told a news conference in Yerevan.

"In ten to 20 years, we will face a deficit of women -- that means, of potential mothers," Hayrapetyan said.

Selective abortion is a problem in countries like China and India.

But it has also reached "worrying proportions" in Caucasus states Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly said in a resolution on gender selection in October.

The resolution said that pressure on women to have selective abortions should be seen as "a form of psychological violence".

Selective abortion of girls increases in Armenia: UN - FRANCE 24

 

[boilermaker55]

When freezing embryos is outlawed maybe then this will have some substance.That which republicans want to argue

 

[freedombecki]

I guess I missed all those Republican bills in congress to help these fetuses once they come actual children.

Or does cutting home heating assistance to the poor so the rich can have a tax cut not count?

Gee, leaving no child behind just tippytoed right on past ya, hm.

 

[Immanuel]

See? You go from "opinion" to stating it as fact in a handful of posts.

That's how the making-shit-up tactic works.

The evidence, once again, contradicts: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in First Half of 2011

No, never once have I expressed a single "fact" in this regard. I have given my opinion. My opinion is that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Maybe they have you believing they want to eliminate abortion, but, I have felt they really don't give a shit.

In your opinion Republicans may be working for your cause. I see all of it as being fluff with little substance.

As for the Partial Birth Abortion Act... what did it accomplish? Did it really prevent a single abortion? Not likely, it made one particular gruesome procedure illegal, but it did not stop late term abortions and it did nothing to reduce the number of abortions at all. Please, feel free to dig up any "facts" you want that will prove the act reduced the number of aboritons. I would love to see them.

Not only that, the procedure that was banned was a disgusting act. It was not at all difficult to get even some of the more moderately pro-choice individuals in America behind the banning of such barbaric practices. Banning D and X abortions was not a politically risky endeavour.

When I see Republicans start making efforts to actually reduce abortions, I will reconsider my stance on this but not before.

Immie

A Texas law which required that all abortions which take place at or after 16 weeks of gestation be performed in either a hospital or an ambulatory surgical center. When the Texas law took effect, none of Texas’s non-hospital-based abortion providers met the requirements for an ambulatory surgical center. As such, the average distance to the non-hospital-based abortion provider which performed abortions after 16 weeks increased from 33 miles to 252 miles. Not surprisingly, the number of abortions performed in Texas at or after 16 weeks of gestation fell by 88 percent.

Following the enactment of an Arizona pro-life law in 2009, Planned Parenthood announced they would stop providing abortions at seven of their ten clinics. The end result has been a 30-percent decline in the number of abortions performed in Arizona.

There exists peer reviewed research showing that declines in abortion providers reduce abortion rates. As such, considering that courts have been willing to uphold clinic regulations in many states, these supply side strategies represent a new opportunity for grassroots pro-lifers.

Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J. This article originally appeared on the National Review. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

One more thing, my opinion as stated earlier is in reference to national political figures. I realize that is qualifying my comments after the fact, but, I really don't see the national party doing a damned thing to curb abortion.

I absolutely wish I could see things differently, because right now I am so cynical in regards to my government. I wish I could have faith in the leaders we send to Washington... I only wish.

Immie

 

[g5000]

Exactly, and that was what I was attempting to say. They talk the talk, but won't walk the walk.

See? You go from "opinion" to stating it as fact in a handful of posts.

That's how the making-shit-up tactic works.

The evidence, once again, contradicts: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in First Half of 2011

No, never once have I expressed a single "fact" in this regard. I have given my opinion. My opinion is that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

You did not state it as opinion in your post quoted above. It just creeps in there. Make a supposition, then state it again without the supposition. Then it becomes "fact".

And it is serious self-delusion to say Republicans don't walk the walk in a topic about sex-specific abortions which Republicans want to make illegal. How hard did you have to hit your head to come up with that kind of ironical statement?

 

[g5000]

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

When the population trend has been upward, and the number of abortions has trended downward, that means the rate of abortions has decreased fairly significantly.

Nowhere near enough, though.

 

[Immanuel]

Once again, Republicans want to step in between a woman and her doctor.

Nope. We want to step in between a baby and her butcher.

Nice try, though!

Oh really.

Its not illegal is it?

It has already been decided by our courts.

they decided you are wrong.

And that is why it is so good to live in America. Because when we believe that a law is wrong we have the right to fight to change it. A right that you seem to want to deny us whenever we oppose your point of view.

Immie

 

[g5000]

When freezing embryos is outlawed maybe then this will have some substance.That which republicans want to argue

Not sure I get your point, but the Catholic Church is against freezing embryos.

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

When the population trend has been upward, and the number of abortions has trended downward, that means the rate of abortions has decreased fairly significantly.

Nowhere near enough, though.

You have a rather mild definition of significant.

When we are still killing a million babies a year and doing damned little to change that fact, it is sure as hell nothing you Republicans should be proud of!

Go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. In the meantime, a million more babies will suffer in the next year from your over inflated sense of pride at being a Republican.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, never once have I expressed a single "fact" in this regard. I have given my opinion. My opinion is that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Maybe they have you believing they want to eliminate abortion, but, I have felt they really don't give a shit.

In your opinion Republicans may be working for your cause. I see all of it as being fluff with little substance.

As for the Partial Birth Abortion Act... what did it accomplish? Did it really prevent a single abortion? Not likely, it made one particular gruesome procedure illegal, but it did not stop late term abortions and it did nothing to reduce the number of abortions at all. Please, feel free to dig up any "facts" you want that will prove the act reduced the number of aboritons. I would love to see them.

Not only that, the procedure that was banned was a disgusting act. It was not at all difficult to get even some of the more moderately pro-choice individuals in America behind the banning of such barbaric practices. Banning D and X abortions was not a politically risky endeavour.

When I see Republicans start making efforts to actually reduce abortions, I will reconsider my stance on this but not before.

Immie

A Texas law which required that all abortions which take place at or after 16 weeks of gestation be performed in either a hospital or an ambulatory surgical center. When the Texas law took effect, none of Texas’s non-hospital-based abortion providers met the requirements for an ambulatory surgical center. As such, the average distance to the non-hospital-based abortion provider which performed abortions after 16 weeks increased from 33 miles to 252 miles. Not surprisingly, the number of abortions performed in Texas at or after 16 weeks of gestation fell by 88 percent.

Following the enactment of an Arizona pro-life law in 2009, Planned Parenthood announced they would stop providing abortions at seven of their ten clinics. The end result has been a 30-percent decline in the number of abortions performed in Arizona.

There exists peer reviewed research showing that declines in abortion providers reduce abortion rates. As such, considering that courts have been willing to uphold clinic regulations in many states, these supply side strategies represent a new opportunity for grassroots pro-lifers.

Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J. This article originally appeared on the National Review. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

One more thing, my opinion as stated earlier is in reference to national political figures. I realize that is qualifying my comments after the fact, but, I really don't see the national party doing a damned thing to curb abortion.

I absolutely wish I could see things differently, because right now I am so cynical in regards to my government. I wish I could have faith in the leaders we send to Washington... I only wish.

Immie

I agree there is no significant change if you look at the totality. But if all states put in regulations that made abortions less accessible and desirable then I think you would see a significant reduction.

The original intent for abortions was the cleansing of the gene pool. One has to look no futher than Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder to understand that fact.

Now it's used more as birth control.

But no matter the intent it is still the taking of innocent human life.

 

[g5000]

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

When the population trend has been upward, and the number of abortions has trended downward, that means the rate of abortions has decreased fairly significantly.

Nowhere near enough, though.

You have a rather mild definition of significant.

When we are still killing a million babies a year and doing damned little to change that fact, it is sure as hell nothing you Republicans should be proud of!

Go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. In the meantime, a million more babies will suffer in the next year from your over inflated sense of pride at being a Republican.

Immie

I have repeatedly argued on this forum that pro-lifers need to come to the realization that repealing Roe v. Wade would have virtually no effect on the number of abortions in this country. I have backed that up with evidence.

I have also shown that half of all abortions in the US are the result of no birth control being used during the sex act which led to the unwanted pregnancy, and that a large portion of the remaining abortions are the result of inconsistent or improper use of birth control.

So one blazingly obvious path to greatly reducing abortions in America is to promote the widespread and proper use of birth control.

The abortion issue has been controlled by emotional extremists on both sides for far too long. The argument has been dominated by manufactured lies on both sides. And the end result has been nowhere near the pro-life goal.

Therefore, our focus should be on effective policies which will move us closer to that goal.

Those who oppose birth control are a minority in the pro-life community. We need to stop letting them control the conversation and move forward to put a huge dent in the number of abortions.

A downward trend during population growth IS significant. But it is not enough.

With the right focus, we could actually reduce abortions by at least HALF. And if abortions become that much more rare, they become that much less socially acceptable.

So I don't know if you and I are in the same ballpark or not, but that's where I stand on abortion.

 

[Immanuel]

A Texas law which required that all abortions which take place at or after 16 weeks of gestation be performed in either a hospital or an ambulatory surgical center. When the Texas law took effect, none of Texas’s non-hospital-based abortion providers met the requirements for an ambulatory surgical center. As such, the average distance to the non-hospital-based abortion provider which performed abortions after 16 weeks increased from 33 miles to 252 miles. Not surprisingly, the number of abortions performed in Texas at or after 16 weeks of gestation fell by 88 percent.

Following the enactment of an Arizona pro-life law in 2009, Planned Parenthood announced they would stop providing abortions at seven of their ten clinics. The end result has been a 30-percent decline in the number of abortions performed in Arizona.

There exists peer reviewed research showing that declines in abortion providers reduce abortion rates. As such, considering that courts have been willing to uphold clinic regulations in many states, these supply side strategies represent a new opportunity for grassroots pro-lifers.

Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J. This article originally appeared on the National Review. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

One more thing, my opinion as stated earlier is in reference to national political figures. I realize that is qualifying my comments after the fact, but, I really don't see the national party doing a damned thing to curb abortion.

I absolutely wish I could see things differently, because right now I am so cynical in regards to my government. I wish I could have faith in the leaders we send to Washington... I only wish.

Immie

I agree there is no significant change if you look at the totality. But if all states put in regulations that made abortions less accessible and desirable then I think you would see a significant reduction.

The original intent for abortions was the cleansing of the gene pool. One has to look no futher than Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder to understand that fact.

Now it's used more as birth control.

But no matter the intent it is still the taking of innocent human life.

I agree with you. The issue should be about saving lives... reducing the number of abortions to zero or as close to that number as we can achieve.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as being the case in the national political arena. Sure there are local Republican politicians that fight against abortion. Hell, there might even be one or two Democrats too, but that is not the focus of the leaders of the political parties.

What is their focus? The only answer I can give to that question is... power and I don't care which party they belong to.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thank you Lonestar for the article. It does put a different perspective on the issue, but when I look at the number of abortions provided every year in the country, I see no significant change at all. The trend has been downward, I will agree with that, but not by any significant amount.

One more thing, my opinion as stated earlier is in reference to national political figures. I realize that is qualifying my comments after the fact, but, I really don't see the national party doing a damned thing to curb abortion.

I absolutely wish I could see things differently, because right now I am so cynical in regards to my government. I wish I could have faith in the leaders we send to Washington... I only wish.

Immie

I agree there is no significant change if you look at the totality. But if all states put in regulations that made abortions less accessible and desirable then I think you would see a significant reduction.

The original intent for abortions was the cleansing of the gene pool. One has to look no futher than Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder to understand that fact.

Now it's used more as birth control.

But no matter the intent it is still the taking of innocent human life.

I agree with you. The issue should be about saving lives... reducing the number of abortions to zero or as close to that number as we can achieve.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as being the case in the national political arena. Sure there are local Republican politicians that fight against abortion. Hell, there might even be one or two Democrats too, but that is not the focus of the leaders of the political parties.

What is their focus? The only answer I can give to that question is... power and I don't care which party they belong to.

Immie

To that... I can agree.

 

[Immanuel]

When the population trend has been upward, and the number of abortions has trended downward, that means the rate of abortions has decreased fairly significantly.

Nowhere near enough, though.

You have a rather mild definition of significant.

When we are still killing a million babies a year and doing damned little to change that fact, it is sure as hell nothing you Republicans should be proud of!

Go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. In the meantime, a million more babies will suffer in the next year from your over inflated sense of pride at being a Republican.

Immie

I have repeatedly argued on this forum that pro-lifers need to come to the realization that repealing Roe v. Wade would have virtually no effect on the number of abortions in this country. I have backed that up with evidence.

I have also shown that half of all abortions in the US are the result of no birth control being used during the sex act which led to the unwanted pregnancy, and that a large portion of the remaining abortions are the result of inconsistent or improper use of birth control.

So one blazingly obvious path to greatly reducing abortions in America is to promote the widespread and proper use of birth control.

The abortion issue has been controlled by emotional extremists on both sides for far too long. The argument has been dominated by manufactured lies on both sides. And the end result has been nowhere near the pro-life goal.

Therefore, our focus should be on effective policies which will move us closer to that goal.

Those who oppose birth control are a minority in the pro-life community. We need to stop letting them control the conversation and move forward to put a huge dent in the number of abortions.

A downward trend during population growth IS significant. But it is not enough.

With the right focus, we could actually reduce abortions by at least HALF. And if abortions become that much more rare, they become that much less socially acceptable.

So I don't know if you and I are in the same ballpark or not, but that's where I stand on abortion.

We're on the same page in those regards.

I'm sorry, this discussion seemed to be getting a bit heated even though I was trying not to let it.

Where you and I differ is in our beliefs in the qualities of the political parties. I think Republicans are playing us and for the most part getting away with it. I truly wish they wanted to do something about the number of abortions rather than simply use it to divide America. Again, I'm not saying there are no Republicans who want to reduce the number of abortions and I damned sure am not saying that the Democrats want to do so at all, but I don't think the Mitt Romney's, Rick Perry's, Newt Gingrich's etc. etc. etc. really want to do so.

If they did, then we would see results come out of Washington rather than local and state bills being introduced, some passed and most of those shot down as unconstitutional later.

Forgive me... but I have lost faith in the men and women who supposedly lead this country.

Immie

 

[Steelplate]

It stands to reason that activists in the US want fewer girls. There is a societal manipulation that the population of homosexual men might increase with fewer women.

Do you really believe this shit, or are you ******* with us? Good God, and you wonder why we call you extreme righties crazy?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Basically what your saying is after your little 5 minute conversation you would make an educated guess.

Which anyone with half a brain could do.

Not very scientific and not hardly accurate.

I think you're making too much out of what I was saying in the first place. It was suggested that, eventually, there could be prenatal genetic screenings that could tell you the eye color of your baby. All I was trying to point out is that, actually, we already have a great deal of knowledge that can provide us this information with pretty good accuracy.

What I'm saying is based on scientific information about how eye color is determined in humans. I apply a bit more information than, for example, you probably would, merely basing a guess off the name of your own eye color and that of your partner. For example, you said you have blue eyes. Did you know that blue eyes don't have their own pigment? They result from a combination of pigments, and are related to brown eyes? Though, the main contributing factor to the blue appearance is the same electromagnetic properties that cause the sky and oceans to appear blue. That effect aside, blue eyes are, essentially a "very light" brown, for hereditary purposes. They are also hop, skip, and a jump away from albinism.

Green eyes, on the other hand, have more to do with yellow pigments, though also a little bit with brown pigments. However, these are mildly pigmented eyes, and the same thing that happens to make blue eyes blue happens with green eyes. The resulting blue on yellow creates a green appearance.

"Brown" eyes are actually two different but related colors; dark brown and light brown. Both rely primarily on melanin, but light brown eyes have a greater variance of exact shade, as influenced by other pigments. Dark brown is the most dominant genetic trait in eye color, while green eyes are the most recessive (however, "dominant" and "recessive" are somewhat of a somewhat clumsy way to describe eye color inheritence). Unlike what many people might suspect, brown and green eyes are practically polar opposites, even for people who have dark green eyes that may appear nearly light brown.

There are other eye colors too, that are less common. Understanding how eye color is created in humans makes it reasonably possible to predict the color of a baby's eyes when combined with just a bit of information about the baby's parentage, based on scientific information.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection_(magic)

Pro-choicers use a lot of smoke and mirrors (rape and incest) and misdirection (it's about the woman and her doctor) to achieve the murder of the unborn. They are prestidigitators whose signature trick is to make babies disappear in the palms of their bloodstained hands.

Anti-abortioners use alot of smoke and mirrors (sexual "immorality," murder) and misdirection (it's all about religious freedom and valuing "life," eugenics, infanticide, and lots of unsubstantiated claims) to achiever their goals of government intrusion into what women will do with their own bodies, decided upon between her and her doctor.

 

[Steelplate]

We are NOT talking about China are we?

we are talking about the US.

We have many Asian people in America. And if it is part of their culture to discriminate against females and female fetuses, then it is probably going on right here in the good ol' USA, too.

It's not "part of their culture", you idiot. It's Chinese Law. A law designed to control the population problem. It's a "one child" policy.... many people in China need males to help provide for the family...so that puts males at more of a premium than females. Before that law was instituted, they procreated freely. Let me ask you something... If you were Chinese, had a few acres of rice paddies to maintain, and were only allowed to have one child... which one would YOU choose to abort... remember... you have no choice in the matter.

Once again... the misinformation displayed, the ignorance shown from the right is utterly ridiculous. This is what happens when you choose rhetoric and opinion over facts and logic.