The high cost of unintended pregnancy

[Sunshine]

We have so many abortions that the population is shrinking enough to require immigration to maintain.

If it make sense, it is only to a liberal.

If killing people was a net benefit, then why treat anyone? Why bother with flu shots when we could easily put the sick in a vaccum chamber. How much does a gall bladder operation cost compared to a final shot? How much could we save without hospitals, doctors or nurses at all?

If Avian Flu ever becomes transmissible human to human, the elderly will not be treated.

 

[koshergrl]

I once believed that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that abortions would plummet to about 8 percent of current levels. I forget where I got that number from.

But as a critical thinker, it was incumbent on me to challenge my assumptions. And so I did some in-depth research into this hypothetical scenario. And the end result was a fairly undebunkable conclusion which forced me to rethink my pro-life position.

You see, I discovered that the number of abortions would change negligibly were Roe v. Wade overturned. That was quite a shocking discovery to me, but indisputable.

Perhaps if I have time, I will dig up my old evidence bomb for that conclusion and drop it around here somewhere.

Nevertheless, as was stated in the OP, nearly half of all abortions are the result of the complete and total non-use of any kind of birth control whatsoever.

I want my fellow pro-lifers to ponder the significance of that truth for a moment.



Half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used.






I believe that when people start screaming at each other, it just results in their opponents becoming that much more polarized on whatever subject is at issue. This is particularly true when it comes to gun control and abortion. And it seems like both of these issues are waged on an "ends justify the means" no holds barred level of warfare. No amount of lying is off limits, and no amount of propaganda is too much.

However, I believe the facts I have stated present a middle ground upon which rational people on both sides can meet. (Please resist the temptation to claim there are no rational people on the other side. )

I know that most pro-choice people are horrified at the number of abortions which occur each year, and I know that most pro-life people are not opposed to birth control. Only pro-choice extremists are okay with late term abortions, and only pro-life extremists are opposed to the pill.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the number of abortions would remain unchanged if Roe v. Wade were overturned, I believe a great deal of pro-life energy is being wasted arguing over it. While I still believe it should be overturned strictly for moral reasons, I think we have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

If the aim is to actually eliminate abortions, repealing Roe v. Wade will not accomplish that. Just imagine the huge letdown that would be felt across the land if and when that happens.

Instead, perhaps we should be looking at that "no birth control" figure. Half of all abortions because of no birth control being used.

We might not be able to eliminate abortions entirely, but we sure could put one big ******* dent in it if we ramped up some kind of plan to get more people to use birth control, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't this some kind of common ground we can find with the non-extremist pro-choicers?


One other point of fact. I have a survey around here somewhere that shows half of all people call themselves "pro-life" and half of all people call themselves "pro-choice". And yet...two thirds of the same people are okay with abortion in the first trimester!

That strongly suggest that a fairly large number of people who are okay with first trimester abortions still consider themselves pro-life.

So there are not as many extremists out there as some might think. But they have been in control of this issue for far too long.

Thank you.

What "truth"? That you think that the number of abortions wouldn't drop...hence you think, most women who obtain abortions are criminal? That the law means nothing to them? There's absolutely no evidence that the number of abortions wouldn't drop if we shut down the industry. Of course they would drop. Just as they rose exponentially with the advent of legalized abortion.

And there's no doubt that people who promote and believe in abortion call themselves "pro-life". They do it on this messageboard all the time. Just listen to the loons say "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life because abortions SAVE LIVES". It's insane, and absolutely untrue. Legalized abortion doesn't save lives. It takes lives, women and children, it trivializes life, it establishes a precedent that children are abhorrent and worthless.

 

[koshergrl]

And people who aren't on birth control aren't on birth control because either they're being PREVENTED by abusive partners, or because they CHOOSE not to use birth control. Are you suggesting that we force birth control upon the masses? Perhaps via forced sterilizations, or birth control in the water? This is Margaret Sanger shit and not worthy of anything but derision.

 

[DaGoose]

I once believed that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that abortions would plummet to about 8 percent of current levels. I forget where I got that number from.

But as a critical thinker, it was incumbent on me to challenge my assumptions. And so I did some in-depth research into this hypothetical scenario. And the end result was a fairly undebunkable conclusion which forced me to rethink my pro-life position.

You see, I discovered that the number of abortions would change negligibly were Roe v. Wade overturned. That was quite a shocking discovery to me, but indisputable.

Perhaps if I have time, I will dig up my old evidence bomb for that conclusion and drop it around here somewhere.

Nevertheless, as was stated in the OP, nearly half of all abortions are the result of the complete and total non-use of any kind of birth control whatsoever.

I want my fellow pro-lifers to ponder the significance of that truth for a moment.



Half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used.






I believe that when people start screaming at each other, it just results in their opponents becoming that much more polarized on whatever subject is at issue. This is particularly true when it comes to gun control and abortion. And it seems like both of these issues are waged on an "ends justify the means" no holds barred level of warfare. No amount of lying is off limits, and no amount of propaganda is too much.

However, I believe the facts I have stated present a middle ground upon which rational people on both sides can meet. (Please resist the temptation to claim there are no rational people on the other side. )

I know that most pro-choice people are horrified at the number of abortions which occur each year, and I know that most pro-life people are not opposed to birth control. Only pro-choice extremists are okay with late term abortions, and only pro-life extremists are opposed to the pill.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the number of abortions would remain unchanged if Roe v. Wade were overturned, I believe a great deal of pro-life energy is being wasted arguing over it. While I still believe it should be overturned strictly for moral reasons, I think we have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

If the aim is to actually eliminate abortions, repealing Roe v. Wade will not accomplish that. Just imagine the huge letdown that would be felt across the land if and when that happens.

Instead, perhaps we should be looking at that "no birth control" figure. Half of all abortions because of no birth control being used.

We might not be able to eliminate abortions entirely, but we sure could put one big ******* dent in it if we ramped up some kind of plan to get more people to use birth control, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't this some kind of common ground we can find with the non-extremist pro-choicers?


One other point of fact. I have a survey around here somewhere that shows half of all people call themselves "pro-life" and half of all people call themselves "pro-choice". And yet...two thirds of the same people are okay with abortion in the first trimester!

That strongly suggest that a fairly large number of people who are okay with first trimester abortions still consider themselves pro-life.

So there are not as many extremists out there as some might think. But they have been in control of this issue for far too long.

Thank you.

What "truth"? That you think that the number of abortions wouldn't drop...hence you think, most women who obtain abortions are criminal? That the law means nothing to them? There's absolutely no evidence that the number of abortions wouldn't drop if we shut down the industry. Of course they would drop. Just as they rose exponentially with the advent of legalized abortion.

And there's no doubt that people who promote and believe in abortion call themselves "pro-life". They do it on this messageboard all the time. Just listen to the loons say "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life because abortions SAVE LIVES". It's insane, and absolutely untrue. Legalized abortion doesn't save lives. It takes lives, women and children, it trivializes life, it establishes a precedent that children are abhorrent and worthless.

Again.....I respect the fact that you don't believe those things are right and I would never take issue with you over your beliefs.

But the minute you start pushing your beliefs on others and ask for "big gubmint" to step in and enforce your beliefs on others I WILL take issue with you and quite forceful at that.

Because unless you are God, the woman or her doctor you have absolutely no right to stick your nose in.

 

[g5000]

I once believed that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that abortions would plummet to about 8 percent of current levels. I forget where I got that number from.

But as a critical thinker, it was incumbent on me to challenge my assumptions. And so I did some in-depth research into this hypothetical scenario. And the end result was a fairly undebunkable conclusion which forced me to rethink my pro-life position.

You see, I discovered that the number of abortions would change negligibly were Roe v. Wade overturned. That was quite a shocking discovery to me, but indisputable.

Perhaps if I have time, I will dig up my old evidence bomb for that conclusion and drop it around here somewhere.

Nevertheless, as was stated in the OP, nearly half of all abortions are the result of the complete and total non-use of any kind of birth control whatsoever.

I want my fellow pro-lifers to ponder the significance of that truth for a moment.



Half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used.






I believe that when people start screaming at each other, it just results in their opponents becoming that much more polarized on whatever subject is at issue. This is particularly true when it comes to gun control and abortion. And it seems like both of these issues are waged on an "ends justify the means" no holds barred level of warfare. No amount of lying is off limits, and no amount of propaganda is too much.

However, I believe the facts I have stated present a middle ground upon which rational people on both sides can meet. (Please resist the temptation to claim there are no rational people on the other side. )

I know that most pro-choice people are horrified at the number of abortions which occur each year, and I know that most pro-life people are not opposed to birth control. Only pro-choice extremists are okay with late term abortions, and only pro-life extremists are opposed to the pill.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the number of abortions would remain unchanged if Roe v. Wade were overturned, I believe a great deal of pro-life energy is being wasted arguing over it. While I still believe it should be overturned strictly for moral reasons, I think we have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

If the aim is to actually eliminate abortions, repealing Roe v. Wade will not accomplish that. Just imagine the huge letdown that would be felt across the land if and when that happens.

Instead, perhaps we should be looking at that "no birth control" figure. Half of all abortions because of no birth control being used.

We might not be able to eliminate abortions entirely, but we sure could put one big ******* dent in it if we ramped up some kind of plan to get more people to use birth control, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't this some kind of common ground we can find with the non-extremist pro-choicers?


One other point of fact. I have a survey around here somewhere that shows half of all people call themselves "pro-life" and half of all people call themselves "pro-choice". And yet...two thirds of the same people are okay with abortion in the first trimester!

That strongly suggest that a fairly large number of people who are okay with first trimester abortions still consider themselves pro-life.

So there are not as many extremists out there as some might think. But they have been in control of this issue for far too long.

Thank you.

What "truth"? That you think that the number of abortions wouldn't drop...hence you think, most women who obtain abortions are criminal? That the law means nothing to them? There's absolutely no evidence that the number of abortions wouldn't drop if we shut down the industry. Of course they would drop. Just as they rose exponentially with the advent of legalized abortion.

You are making the same assumption I did. But your assumption that abortions would drop is actually untrue. And I can prove it.

Evidence bomb, coming right up.

[And there's no doubt that people who promote and believe in abortion call themselves "pro-life". They do it on this messageboard all the time. Just listen to the loons say "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life because abortions SAVE LIVES". It's insane, and absolutely untrue. Legalized abortion doesn't save lives. It takes lives, women and children, it trivializes life, it establishes a precedent that children are abhorrent and worthless.

You are having a serious comprehension problem. In fact, you are one of the emotionally over-reactive people of which I was speaking.

Nowhere in my post did I say that abortion saves lives. I said that half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used during the sex act which led to the unintended pregnancy. So if the goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions, then we can make a big dent in the number of them by creating a plan that gets more people to use birth control so they don't create the unwanted pregnancies in the first place that lead to the deaths of the unborn.

Or you can sit there and scream hysterically like pro-lifers have been for the past 40 years, and have ZERO effect on the number of abortions as has been the end result over all that time.

 

[Avatar4321]

We have so many abortions that the population is shrinking enough to require immigration to maintain.

If it make sense, it is only to a liberal.

If killing people was a net benefit, then why treat anyone? Why bother with flu shots when we could easily put the sick in a vaccum chamber. How much does a gall bladder operation cost compared to a final shot? How much could we save without hospitals, doctors or nurses at all?

If killing people was a net benefit, why all the effort for Obamacare?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The public cost of unintended pregnancy is estimated to be about 11 billion dollars per year in short term medical costs.[11] This includes costs of births, one year of infant medical care and costs of fetal loss.[11] Preventing unintended pregnancy would save the public over 5 billion dollars per year in short term medical costs.[11] Savings in long term costs and in other areas would be much larger.[11] By another estimate, the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancies, not including infant medical care, was $5 billion in 2002.[27]

Of the 800,000 teen pregnancies per year,[28] over 80% were unintended in 2001.[1] One-third of teen pregnancies result in abortion.[28] In 2002, about 9% of women at risk for unintended pregnancy were teenagers,[20] but about 20% of the unintended pregnancies in the United States are to teenagers.[29] A somewhat larger proportion of unintended births are reported as mistimed, rather than unwanted, for teens compared to women in general (79% mistimed for teens vs. 69% among all women in 1998).[30]

In the US it is estimated that 52% of unintended pregnancies result from couples not using contraception in the month the woman got pregnant, and 43% result from inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use; only 5% result from contraceptive failure, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute.[1] Contraceptive use saved an estimated $19 billion in direct medical costs from unintended pregnancies in 2002.[27]

In 2006, publicly funded family planning services (Title X, medicaid, and state funds) helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, thus preventing about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[31] Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double[31] The services provided at publicly funded clinics saved the federal and state governments an estimated $5.1 billion in 2008 in short term medical costs.[31] Nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid unintended pregnancy saved $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed.[31]

Reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States would be particularly desirable since abortion is such a politically divisive issue.[3]

Rape

A longitudinal study in 1996 of over 4000 women in the United States followed for 3 years found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0% among victims aged 12–45 years. Applying that rate to rapes committed in the United States would indicate that there are over 32,000 pregnancies in the United States as a result of rape each year.[32]

Unintended pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government should just sterilize everyone and only let select people have children, think of how much money we would save.

 

[Avatar4321]

Life costs money. Can't afford your living expenses? Kill yourself.

Yes, as Alan Grayson said of the cons' plan, "Die quickly".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco]Alan Grayson on the GOP Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick! And if You Do Get Sick, Die Quickly!"' - YouTube[/ame]

Ironically, it's the liberals here who are arguing for people to die quickly.

 

[g5000]

Okay, here is the evidence that the number of abortions would not change if Roe v. Wade did not exist.


Here is a 1996 report which provides the number of legal abortions for the period 1972 to 1996: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss4804.pdf

The figure for legal abortions in 1972 (the year before Roe V. Wade) is about 586,760.

Also, on page 48 of the CDC report, it states deaths from induced abortions in 1972 as 24 deaths from legal abortions, and 39 deaths from illegal abortions. There were 25 deaths from miscarriages resulting in the mother's death. There were a further 2 listed as "Unknown".

One more data point: The Straight Dope: Before Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from illegal abortions?

Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing.

So, putting the 586,760 estimate for legal abortions in 1972 and supposing that the 1972 death rate for illegal abortions is comparable to those for legal abortions (since 85% were performed by doctors in the 1950's, and I can't think of a reason why that might go down), we come to a figure of 586,760 * (39 illegal / 24 legal abortion deaths) = 953,485 illegal abortions in 1972.

Which means the total number of abortions, legal and illegal, would have been about 1.54 million in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.

If anything, the deaths from illegal abortions would be most likely be underreported compared to those for legal abortions.

Now, does this seem a reasonable number? A reasonable way to check would be to look at the number of legal abortions when legal abortion becomes widely available. The 1.2 million level for 1980 seems to be about right (and the reported deaths from illegal abortions goes to about 0 there), so this would mean that our 1.54 million total estimate is high. I doubt it could be above the 1980 saturation level.

If we assumed that the actual total was about 1.2 million in 1972, then the death rate of illegal abortions would be 39/620k = 6.29/100k compared to 24/580k = 4.14/100k for legal. If the number of illegal abortions in 1972 was less than 620k, arguing for a suppressive effect pre-Roe, then the presumed death rate for illegal abortions goes up even more.

And since the number of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade did not change after Roe v. Wade, there is no reason to suppose a reversal would have any effect, either. Especially since abortion is now far less stimatized and therefore less likely to be outlawed in very many states. And there are a lot more doctors experienced in performing abortions.


So while reversing Roe v. Wade is the morally correct thing to do, it would have no effect on the number of abortions in America.

All that pro-life energy would be better directed at those things which would actually move us close to the goal of reducing or eliminating abortions.

 

[Gagafritz]

What about the high cost of Intended Abortion? What about the lack of manpower and workers and wage earners to pay SS, work , pay taxes and keep the country moving forward? What about the lost cost of brain power, man power and so forth for people that no longer exist? What about the fact that Europe is on the verge of losing their way of life due to low birth rate and immigration?
Funny , but i watch my son's basketball team and there is a kid who plays who was an unintended result of a teen pregnancy and oh what a scandal, yada , yada. NOw, that young child is a senior in HS and a great joy to the team, community and what a loss it would have been had he never been born. It is easy to calculate the cost of what is. But, not so easy to calculate the cost of what might have been or could have been.

 

[barry1960]

Yes, you are an asshole.

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.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Why not just say you don't think Gypsies are any good too, and how about those mentally deficient kids, just a burden.

Exactly.

After all, how self aware are children with severe autism? We don't know...how self aware are children in diabetic comas? Just kill them. They're worthless, after all.

Children with heart defects? Genetic disorders? A drain on society....off them.

I do not sanction abortions or euthanasia, however if one takes a stand against abortion and believes in the sanctity of life, then that person should step up and put their money where their principles are. Unwanted pregnancies cost money. Are you willing to help pay for the care of children, caring for the disabled, the autistic? If you claim these high minded principles regarding the sanctity of life, yet rail against taxes, then your so-called principles are mere talking points and nothing more than a veil over your own selfishness. If your principles are faith based then your faith is nothing more than hypocrasy. It will take money to raise these children who otherwise might have been aborted.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. Republicans want to force these women to bring their pregnancies to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a person. If it was then the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

 

[westwall]

The public cost of unintended pregnancy is estimated to be about 11 billion dollars per year in short term medical costs.[11] This includes costs of births, one year of infant medical care and costs of fetal loss.[11] Preventing unintended pregnancy would save the public over 5 billion dollars per year in short term medical costs.[11] Savings in long term costs and in other areas would be much larger.[11] By another estimate, the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancies, not including infant medical care, was $5 billion in 2002.[27]

Of the 800,000 teen pregnancies per year,[28] over 80% were unintended in 2001.[1] One-third of teen pregnancies result in abortion.[28] In 2002, about 9% of women at risk for unintended pregnancy were teenagers,[20] but about 20% of the unintended pregnancies in the United States are to teenagers.[29] A somewhat larger proportion of unintended births are reported as mistimed, rather than unwanted, for teens compared to women in general (79% mistimed for teens vs. 69% among all women in 1998).[30]

In the US it is estimated that 52% of unintended pregnancies result from couples not using contraception in the month the woman got pregnant, and 43% result from inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use; only 5% result from contraceptive failure, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute.[1] Contraceptive use saved an estimated $19 billion in direct medical costs from unintended pregnancies in 2002.[27]

In 2006, publicly funded family planning services (Title X, medicaid, and state funds) helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, thus preventing about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[31] Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double[31] The services provided at publicly funded clinics saved the federal and state governments an estimated $5.1 billion in 2008 in short term medical costs.[31] Nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid unintended pregnancy saved $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed.[31]

Reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States would be particularly desirable since abortion is such a politically divisive issue.[3]

Rape

A longitudinal study in 1996 of over 4000 women in the United States followed for 3 years found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0% among victims aged 12–45 years. Applying that rate to rapes committed in the United States would indicate that there are over 32,000 pregnancies in the United States as a result of rape each year.[32]

Unintended pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government should just sterilize everyone and only let select people have children, think of how much money we would save.

Ultimately, that is their goal.

 

[westwall]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. Republicans want to force these women to bring their pregnancies to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a person. If it was then the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Well, you're pro murder, so I guess you're even.

 

[Chris]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. Republicans want to force these women to bring their pregnancies to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a person. If it was then the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Well, you're pro murder, so I guess you're even.

Bullshit.

Anyone who says an embryo is a person is an idiot.

An embryo has no consciousness.

So you are pro child abuse.

 

[Rinata]

Then buy some ******* condoms and stop reproducing... what is wrong with you libs? You have zero self control and you always want somebody else to foot the bill for your **** ups.

Geesh.

Are you actually trying to say that conservatives don't get abortions?

And that conservatives always practice self control?

Because if you are I can see this thread really getting exciting.

Why do leftist whack jobs always have to pretend something is being said other than what is actually being said?

I know. Because they don't dare speak to the point. It exposes them for what they are.

What in the hell are you babbling about??? Soggy said that liberals have zero self control. DaGoose merely asked if she was trying to say that conservatives always practice self control. A very logical question. So what's your problem??

 

[Rinata]

Sorry, you make about as much sense as a guppy. I'm not wrong, there is no 'WRONG" when it comes to defining a human. I provided the definition.

And the "you are pro child abuse" is just propaganda. Child abuse has nothing to do with the definition of human. You are pro-abortion..which is pro-infanticide.

Pssst...I have actually worked with abused children in a variety of different venues. And I don't mean as a volunteer. I know what causes child abuse. Trivializing life and perpetuating the myth that children are "mistakes" and "disposable" leads to child abuse. People who abuse children have no concept of the sanctity of life. They buy the garbage pigs like you like to spread around..that children are disposable, that they aren't really "alive", that it's okay to kill, maim and hurt them.

Congratulations.

How can you be so ignorant??? You consevatives want to take us right back to the stone age. Let's just keep having babies when we cannot afford them or have no time or energy to give a child. They will end up like Caylee Anthony. Or worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. Republicans want to force these women to bring their pregnancies to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a person. If it was then the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

Bullshit.

 

[Gagafritz]

What does Caylee Anthony have to do with abortion? Oh, it would have been better for her to be killed in the womb instead of 3 yrs later? Is that supposed to be some great solution or something? I guess i am missing something.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sorry, you make about as much sense as a guppy. I'm not wrong, there is no 'WRONG" when it comes to defining a human. I provided the definition.

And the "you are pro child abuse" is just propaganda. Child abuse has nothing to do with the definition of human. You are pro-abortion..which is pro-infanticide.

Pssst...I have actually worked with abused children in a variety of different venues. And I don't mean as a volunteer. I know what causes child abuse. Trivializing life and perpetuating the myth that children are "mistakes" and "disposable" leads to child abuse. People who abuse children have no concept of the sanctity of life. They buy the garbage pigs like you like to spread around..that children are disposable, that they aren't really "alive", that it's okay to kill, maim and hurt them.

Congratulations.

How can you be so ignorant??? You consevatives want to take us right back to the stone age. Let's just keep having babies when we cannot afford them or have no time or energy to give a child. They will end up like Caylee Anthony. Or worse.

So youll murder your child whether in the womb or not? That's seriously messed up.