Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[no1tovote4]

I guess I knew the good part of the answer on that one. My mom's mom was 16 years old and pregnant in 1950. Can you imagine?!!! She was taken out of school,I know that much. Dad was in the service. My momwas given up at 2 weeks or days for adoption and the 2 best people in the world adopted her. I couldn't have had better grandparents.

Yeah, my father was adopted as well.

 

[Gem]

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:

In case you don't know, The Alan Guttmacher Institute is part of Planned Parenthood, a Pro-Choice organization...

So a Pro-Choice Organization states that about 90% of abortions performed in the United States happen for reasons that have NOTHING TO DO with health of the mother or baby, or rape/incest.

So perhaps we should be talking about THESE abortions; rather than concentrating on the small number of abortions that most people would agree, have medical merit and could still be legal without legalizing abortions of convinience.

 

[krisy]

In case you don't know, The Alan Guttmacher Institute is part of Planned Parenthood, a Pro-Choice organization...

So a Pro-Choice Organization states that about 90% of abortions performed in the United States happen for reasons that have NOTHING TO DO with health of the mother or baby, or rape/incest.

So perhaps we should be talking about THESE abortions; rather than concentrating on the small number of abortions that most people would agree, have medical merit and could still be legal without legalizing abortions of convinience.

Thanks for posting, interesting to see the numbers. Scary though,some of the reasons.

 

[Bonnie]

In case you don't know, The Alan Guttmacher Institute is part of Planned Parenthood, a Pro-Choice organization...

So a Pro-Choice Organization states that about 90% of abortions performed in the United States happen for reasons that have NOTHING TO DO with health of the mother or baby, or rape/incest.

So perhaps we should be talking about THESE abortions; rather than concentrating on the small number of abortions that most people would agree, have medical merit and could still be legal without legalizing abortions of convinience.

Scary statistics, and scarier still that Planned Parenthood boldly broadcasts the numbers feeling no shame at all the unwarranted baby murders occurring. Pretty much says what they're all about!!

 

[no1tovote4]

Scary statistics, and scarier still that Planned Parenthood boldly broadcasts the numbers feeling no shame at all the unwarranted baby murders occurring. Pretty much says what they're all about!!

Look at their site sometime and see if you can find one thing bad about abortions written there.

There is a statement about how it is a good experience in most cases but nothing directly bad about abortion. They ignore psychological problems and other issues as well. It is clear what they stand for by an actual deep look into the site.

 

[Gem]

Planned Parenthood was the one who sponsored the, "I HAD AN ABORTION" T-Shirts...I think they epitomize the Pro-ABORTION vs. Pro-Choice movement.

 

[Bonnie]

Look at their site sometime and see if you can find one thing bad about abortions written there.

There is a statement about how it is a good experience in most cases but nothing directly bad about abortion. They ignore psychological problems and other issues as well. It is clear what they stand for by an actual deep look into the site.

Truly IMO it is clear that organization is exploitive of women, abortion is a huge money making horror, they use much of their money to get pro-choice candidates elected and re-elected, and so the cycle rolls on. Remember how Al Gore was originally staunchly pro-life until he discovered who holds the election purse strings? If they truly cared for the health of women, they would have waited for more studies to be done on the Ru486 abortion pill they were responsible for getting on the shelves in this country... that the FDA has now said needs further study as it has had deadly effects on some that have taken it, from severe abdominal bleeding, to death.

 

[Mr. P]

Bonnie...would you support Ru486?
Just wondering, I saw you mention it.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

All of those reasons are valid in the first 3 months, without question. A tiny insignificant embryo is so far removed from "Personhood" it has no rights greater than any right of the mother.

(It's useful to note that 80% of abortions are performed before 10 weeks. At this point the embryo is barely the size of my thumb.)

After 6 months however only the serious health issues can be a condition for termination, and such late term terminations are indeed rarely performed, and then for these serious health reasons.


Andy


Andy

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie...would you support Ru486?
Just wondering, I saw you mention it.

You know that is a great question, and one that I have struggled with.....The conclusion I have come to is for me personally I can not support it for two reasons, I don't believe it is safe, and if I am to be consistent with my faith teachings that life begins at conception, I can only support it if the mothers life is in danger and she would not be able to carry a child to term, then I think it's a better alternative than waiting a few weeks then performing a an actual abortion.

I have a good friend that took it a few years back, and she went through incredible pain physically due to internal bleeding, and hemmorages in her ovaries. When she recovered from that down the road she started getting horrible migraines which her doctor associated with the bleeding as she became horribly anemic. It took her a full 6 months to feel "normal again".

Emotionally she has been depressed on and off ever since, (she says) due to guilt over what she had done........

If it is going to be available it should be at the very least tested and refined.

 

[no1tovote4]

All of those reasons are valid in the first 3 months, without question. A tiny insignificant embryo is so far removed from "Personhood" it has no rights greater than any right of the mother.

(It's useful to note that 80% of abortions are performed before 10 weeks. At this point the embryo is barely the size of my thumb.)

After 6 months however only the serious health issues can be a condition for termination, and such late term terminations are indeed rarely performed, and then for these serious health reasons.


Andy


Andy

Fascinating. I would grant all living things the right to life without regard to personhood, but more especially human life.

 

[CivilLiberty]

RE: RU486

I don't believe it is safe, ---snip---
I have a good friend that took it a few years back, and she went through incredible pain physically due to internal bleeding, and hemmorages in her ovaries. When she recovered from that down the road she started getting horrible migraines which her doctor associated with the bleeding as she became horribly anemic. It took her a full 6 months to feel "normal again".
If it is going to be available it should be at the very least tested and refined.

But are you a doctor? The drug's safety is a matter for the board of doctors in the FDA to determine. Is it safer than a surgical abortion? Does RU486 have other legitimate uses? It is in fact almost as costly to use RU486 (and requires more visits) as a C&C, but that's not to say it's without benefits.

As far as your friend - such a story is anecdotal, and should not be construed as overriding factual evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of RU486 - only an objective double blind clinical study can determine that for certain.

The FDA has found RU486 safe, and this was after it had been in use in
Europe and Asia for over 12 years, a substantial track record of safety and efficacy.

One's personal belief relating to abortion in general is a separate issue from the merits of any particular course of treatment.


Andy

 

[Bonnie]

RE: RU486




But are you a doctor? The drug's safety is a matter for the board of doctors in the FDA to determine. Is it safer than a surgical abortion? Does RU486 have other legitimate uses? It is in fact almost as costly to use RU486 (and requires more visits) as a C&C, but that's not to say it's without benefits.

As far as your friend - such a story is anecdotal, and should not be construed as overriding factual evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of RU486 - only an objective double blind clinical study can determine that for certain.

The FDA has found RU486 safe, and this was after it had been in use in
Europe and Asia for over 12 years, a substantial track record of safety and efficacy.

One's personal belief relating to abortion in general is a separate issue from the merits of any particular course of treatment.


Andy

The FDA is going to restudy the affects after a series of problems being reported across the country.

more info.....

pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

 

[dilloduck]

That's true. I just can't imagine being a father and wanting and loving a growing child and having the mother abort that child for no reason other than the child is not convenient. I'm wondering dillo,how were things before abortion was legal? I was born in 1973. I have never thought to ask my parents for some reason. Mom was born in 51 and dad in 46. What I mean is,I guess if you got prego than that's just the way it was? You dealt with it and gave the baby up for adoption?

Ouch--I'm as old as your Dad. You either kept it or had an illegal abortion

 

[dilloduck]

All of those reasons are valid in the first 3 months, without question. A tiny insignificant embryo is so far removed from "Personhood" it has no rights greater than any right of the mother.

(It's useful to note that 80% of abortions are performed before 10 weeks. At this point the embryo is barely the size of my thumb.)

After 6 months however only the serious health issues can be a condition for termination, and such late term terminations are indeed rarely performed, and then for these serious health reasons.


Andy


Andy

What in the hell does size have to do with anything here ??? Would you be willing to admit that this "size" argument is totally irrelative ?

 

[Gem]

Andy,

So you are using size, and physical development as a condition of personhood.

A baby's brain isn't fully developed, its eyes aren't functioning properly, its sexual organs, as you said earlier, won't be developed until puberty (although Kinsey would disagree), the babys bone's aren't fused together...hence the "soft spot." They don't have teeth, their organs are still coming forming completely....

And, of course, a newborn baby is MUCH SMALLER than a person (a distinction you seem very obsessed with)

While you will immediately dismiss this an outrageous analogy...it really has more in common with yours than you will care to admit.

A baby outside the womb, is a still developing human, many of its proper bodily functions will not be completely developed for years to come...a "fetus" is a human being at the most beginning stages of this development.

Both are stages in human development...both are HUMAN, just in different forms. Now, you can make an argument that it is appropriate to kill a human at that stage of development but not others...but to claim that it is somehow not human because it isn't developed enough yet is a lie...it is a human in it most beginning stages of development.

Whether you agree or disagree, Andy, the Pro-Choice movement is slowly losing steam...statistics show that more and more young women are pro-life or at the very least support abortion with heavy restrictions...WHY?

Most critics point to 3-D ultrasounds, showing just how HUMAN that fetus is and just how EARLY it starts to look human. They point to studies who show that the fetus feels pain at much earlier stages then ever before...they look to the increasing number of women who have HAD abortions who have come forward to talk about what a painful experience it was, and how ill-prepared they were for it emotionally, how the "abortion counselors" at the clinic were just that...people counselling them to have abortions, NOT people helping them make a CHOICE. They point to people starting to see the hypocrisy in a fetus being a baby when someone wants it...but being a blob of tissue when they don't.

For the Pro-Choice movement to survive it is going to have to deal with all of these issues...and one of them is going to be dealing with the fact that an abortion ends life...it doesn't scrape out tissue, it doesn't get rid of part of your body you don't like..it ends life.

Whether or not you want that to happen is another question entirely. But the fact is, it is a human being in its earliest stages of development...and that is where we should be starting the debate.

 

[5stringJeff]

What in the hell does size have to do with anything here ??? Would you be willing to admit that this "size" argument is totally irrelative ?

Size means everything! Execute all people under 6'0"! Heil the master tall race!

[/sarcasm]

 

[no1tovote4]

Size means everything! Execute all people under 6'0"! Heil the master tall race!

[/sarcasm]

:fifty:

Holy moly! I better get outta here!

 

[dilloduck]

:fifty:

Holy moly! I better get outta here!

I'm right on your tail, dude !

 

[dmp]

Using Mental development as the litmus test for viability is flawed, too. How many people have been brain dead - kept alive by machines only to recover, and lead healthy lives after?

We don't kill our adults because they can't survive w/o signifigant medical help - why isn't that same courtesy afforded to babies?