The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Underhill]

And I still say encouraging single parenthood is not in the best interest of the children. And 56+ million abortions is not in the best interest of anybody, most especially all those people who never had a chance to live at all. And those statistics are not something any of us should be proud of, and rather than justifying it because we don't want to admit we're doing some things badly, we should be encouraging solutions to the problem.

I agree with this bit. But as I see it, making abortion illegal is not the answer. The solution lies in taking preventative steps. And too many people are afraid to lose control and so they fight these kinds of solutions tooth and nail.

It's sad really. Because I honestly believe that number could be reduced by 90+% if we as a society took the right steps. But I suspect it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I still say encouraging single parenthood is not in the best interest of the children. And 56+ million abortions is not in the best interest of anybody, most especially all those people who never had a chance to live at all. And those statistics are not something any of us should be proud of, and rather than justifying it because we don't want to admit we're doing some things badly, we should be encouraging solutions to the problem.

I agree with this bit. But as I see it, making abortion illegal is not the answer. The solution lies in taking preventative steps. And too many people are afraid to lose control and so they fight these kinds of solutions tooth and nail.

It's sad really. Because I honestly believe that number could be reduced by 90+% if we as a society took the right steps. But I suspect it won't happen in my lifetime.

I don't think a single pro-lifer here has suggested that abortion should be made illegal. But many of us think the principle concepts of Roe v Wade should be strictly enforced. And all of us seem to believe that we should return to a culture where the traditional family welcoming a new life into the world was a great blessing, and that the huge majority of us see the proper time for risking or planning a pregnancy is when we are prepared to give that child that blessing.

THAT would take care of the problem.

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't think a single pro-lifer here has suggested that abortion should be made illegal. But many of us think the principle concepts of Roe v Wade should be strictly enforced. And all of us seem to believe that we should return to a culture where the traditional family welcoming a new life into the world was a great blessing, and that the huge majority of us see the proper time for risking or planning a pregnancy is when we are prepared to give that child that blessing.

THAT would take care of the problem.

That's hardly a realistic solution. Having universal medical coverage would make it easier and more affordable for women to have babies. As would a better social safety net. Women bear the brunt of economic changes to the family when divorce strikes, especially if the children are young.

I read a lot of posts about parents should have all of the responsibility but parents are not living up to those obligations. If they teach their children anything about sex at all, it's full of mis-information and personal prejudices. Sex should be taught in schools - not morality, but the actual nuts and bolts of sex so the kids have clear, concise and accurate information. A lot of kids get pregnant because of old wives tales, like you can't get pregnant your first time.

Studies have shown that children who receive proper sex education through their schools, are less sexually active (no curiosity factor, real information on STD's), and get pregnant less often. But no, we can't have kids learning about sex except from their parents, who are obviously doing a piss poor job of it or there wouldn't be all these issues with pregnancy and abortion.

Part of the problem is the insistence by some parents, that they and only they provide their children with information about sex. This has lead to all sorts of problems. It's time for students to learn the facts about sex - not the half truths and out and out lies they're currently learning.

 

[Delia]

I don't think a single pro-lifer here has suggested that abortion should be made illegal. But many of us think the principle concepts of Roe v Wade should be strictly enforced. And all of us seem to believe that we should return to a culture where the traditional family welcoming a new life into the world was a great blessing, and that the huge majority of us see the proper time for risking or planning a pregnancy is when we are prepared to give that child that blessing.

THAT would take care of the problem.

That's hardly a realistic solution. Having universal medical coverage would make it easier and more affordable for women to have babies. As would a better social safety net. Women bear the brunt of economic changes to the family when divorce strikes, especially if the children are young.

I read a lot of posts about parents should have all of the responsibility but parents are not living up to those obligations. If they teach their children anything about sex at all, it's full of mis-information and personal prejudices. Sex should be taught in schools - not morality, but the actual nuts and bolts of sex so the kids have clear, concise and accurate information. A lot of kids get pregnant because of old wives tales, like you can't get pregnant your first time.

Studies have shown that children who receive proper sex education through their schools, are less sexually active (no curiosity factor, real information on STD's), and get pregnant less often. But no, we can't have kids learning about sex except from their parents, who are obviously doing a piss poor job of it or there wouldn't be all these issues with pregnancy and abortion.

Part of the problem is the insistence by some parents, that they and only they provide their children with information about sex. This has lead to all sorts of problems. It's time for students to learn the facts about sex - not the half truths and out and out lies they're currently learning.

I think the most trouble is encountered by teaching celibacy and celibacy only.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think a single pro-lifer here has suggested that abortion should be made illegal. But many of us think the principle concepts of Roe v Wade should be strictly enforced. And all of us seem to believe that we should return to a culture where the traditional family welcoming a new life into the world was a great blessing, and that the huge majority of us see the proper time for risking or planning a pregnancy is when we are prepared to give that child that blessing.

THAT would take care of the problem.

That's hardly a realistic solution. Having universal medical coverage would make it easier and more affordable for women to have babies. As would a better social safety net. Women bear the brunt of economic changes to the family when divorce strikes, especially if the children are young.

I read a lot of posts about parents should have all of the responsibility but parents are not living up to those obligations. If they teach their children anything about sex at all, it's full of mis-information and personal prejudices. Sex should be taught in schools - not morality, but the actual nuts and bolts of sex so the kids have clear, concise and accurate information. A lot of kids get pregnant because of old wives tales, like you can't get pregnant your first time.

Studies have shown that children who receive proper sex education through their schools, are less sexually active (no curiosity factor, real information on STD's), and get pregnant less often. But no, we can't have kids learning about sex except from their parents, who are obviously doing a piss poor job of it or there wouldn't be all these issues with pregnancy and abortion.

Part of the problem is the insistence by some parents, that they and only they provide their children with information about sex. This has lead to all sorts of problems. It's time for students to learn the facts about sex - not the half truths and out and out lies they're currently learning.

Sorry. But I've lived long enough to have lived in both cultures. Sex education does not reduce the curiosity factor one bit. And it was perfectly possible, with no government healthcare of any kind provided back then, to expect to be married when your first child was born. Women without insurance had their babies just fine, in a nice clean hospital. I worked in a hospital then and helped them work out a way to pay off their bills if they needed to pay it out.

Again I am not judging anybody. I'm just very sure of the cultural forces that created the most stable society that was best for the kids and the grownups alike. And I am too aware of the downside in a culture that no longer encourages kids to wait until they are married and can support a family before they have kids that exists within a cuture that has aborted more than 56 million babies since Roe v Wade.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I still say encouraging single parenthood is not in the best interest of the children. And 56+ million abortions is not in the best interest of anybody, most especially all those people who never had a chance to live at all. And those statistics are not something any of us should be proud of, and rather than justifying it because we don't want to admit we're doing some things badly, we should be encouraging solutions to the problem.

I agree with this bit. But as I see it, making abortion illegal is not the answer. The solution lies in taking preventative steps. And too many people are afraid to lose control and so they fight these kinds of solutions tooth and nail.

It's sad really. Because I honestly believe that number could be reduced by 90+% if we as a society took the right steps. But I suspect it won't happen in my lifetime.

The government has spent mega millions, probably billions 'taking steps' to prevent STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. etc. etc. and we still aborted 56+ million babies since Roe v Wade.

The best prevention is a cultural expectation of personal responsibility and accountability. Cultural pressures to meet cultural expectations are one of the strongest forces on Earth and they can be instilled in the very young as well as adults. There will always be those who swim against the tide and refuse to do what society expects of them. But they are always in a fairly small minority. And there will always be the occasional slip up or oops. But those too can be in a very small minority.

1. Make it a cultural expectation that respectable and responsible people have some means to support a family and get married before they have kids.

2. Make it a cultural expectation that moral and responsible people put the welfare of the kids first meaning they give them every opportunity. That would include a loving mom and dad in the home whenever possible.

3. Make it a cultural expectation that moral and responsible people accept personal responsibility and hold themselves and others accountable for the choices they make. We need to stop rewarding poor choices and punishing good ones.

THAT is how you solve the problem.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I still say encouraging single parenthood is not in the best interest of the children. And 56+ million abortions is not in the best interest of anybody, most especially all those people who never had a chance to live at all. And those statistics are not something any of us should be proud of, and rather than justifying it because we don't want to admit we're doing some things badly, we should be encouraging solutions to the problem.

I agree with this bit. But as I see it, making abortion illegal is not the answer. The solution lies in taking preventative steps. And too many people are afraid to lose control and so they fight these kinds of solutions tooth and nail.

It's sad really. Because I honestly believe that number could be reduced by 90+% if we as a society took the right steps. But I suspect it won't happen in my lifetime.

Correct.

And what would constitute making abortion ‘illegal’?

If Griswold/Roe/Casey were overturned, and left to the states only, many – perhaps the majority – would leave abortion legal. There likely wouldn’t be a significant decrease in abortion, if at all.

What then?

A Federal law banning abortion? How well might we expect that to work…

No, the solution is not to ‘ban’ abortion, but to address the root cause, which will be considerably more difficult than simply passing laws.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. Make it a cultural expectation that respectable and responsible people have some means to support a family and get married before they have kids.

2. Make it a cultural expectation that moral and responsible people put the welfare of the kids first meaning they give them every opportunity. That would include a loving mom and dad in the home whenever possible.

3. Make it a cultural expectation that moral and responsible people accept personal responsibility and hold themselves and others accountable for the choices they make. We need to stop rewarding poor choices and punishing good ones.

THAT is how you solve the problem.

Americans have had a culture of "personal responsibility" now for decades. That doesn't seem to be working. And your "cultural expectations" sound like something out of the 1950's. It is completely unrealistic to expect people to go back to behaviours that really didn't work well for them. What you fail to recognize is that obtaining an abortion is taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

People do put their children's welfare first, but you and I might disagree as to what that is. I absolutely do not believe that every child need to be raised by two loving parents, although that would be ideal. I would rather a child be raised in a loving home with access to lots of family than with two adults who stay together for the sake of the children.

You have a very idealized vision of the past. It was not always the way it seemed or the way you remember it. Women were not equals in the home or the workplace and had fewer options than they do today. I certainly wouldn't want to be an adult woman living in the 50's - no birth control, expected to stay at home and raise the children, always deferring to my lord and master. No thank you. Women by the millions revolted and demanded rights and choices. That should tell you in the plainest possible way, that the social constructs of the 1950's were not working for many women.

Today, we have rights and choices. You don't like where those rights and choices have led us, and I admit, there are some things that grate on my last nerve, but we're not going back to what you perceive as the good old days, because they really weren't that good.

Canada's abortion rate is substantially lower than that of the United States. In 2011, there were 1,210,880 abortions performed in the US versus 70,549 in Canada. Considering that the population of the US is 10X what Canada's is, it's to be expected that you would have more, but even if you take the number of Canadian abortions times 10, the US abortion rate is nearly 60% higher than Canada.

In Canada, abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, which is as it should be. There is no cost for the woman to have an abortion because it's covered by her government funded health plan. She can opt to have the abortion in a free-standing, privately owned abortion clinic (only in larger cities) or at her local hospital. Her choice. And teenagers can get abortions without their parents' knowledge or permission.

Sex education starts in senior public school and is a mandatory part of health class and it is on the exam. Your parents cannot sign you out of sex education. Condoms are available in the high school washrooms. Birth control pills are easily obtainable and your doctor cannot tell your parents about them.

Women who become pregnant have access to many programs which will help support them when their children are small, retrain them when they are ready to join the workforce (usually after the kids are in school), supplement their income until they can support their families on their own. Because of these programs, there is less economic incentive for women to have abortions.

THAT is how you reduce abortions.

Abortions statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

The abortion statistics for all of the social democracies are all similarly low. We welcome children, and we try to help young families who are struggling, make a better life for themselves. A far cry from the "baby killing liberals" some on this board keep trying to portray us as.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The Way It Was | Mother Jones

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

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

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

Having been sexually active before Roe when local women with money went to New York for abortions while poor women in the hands of inexperienced practitioners occasionally got butchered - or more often, added human misery by having unwanted children, it sickens me that anti-American religious nuts appear to be growing in influence.

The Declaration is clear about "self-evident" rights of men and women, while the United States Constitution is clear about freedom of religion. But these anti-American religious fascists can't seem to accept the concept of freedom of religion, and so find delusional scientists demented enough to claim life begins before their own Bible admits life begins (with "quickening" or the first breath). In the Bible if abortion was punished at all it was by a small fine. These people don't even understand their own religious history. How pathetic is that?

Which of course means the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion - including freedrom from persecution by crazy anti-abortion zealots - and the Declaration's "we hold these rights to be self evident" - including fundamental rights to control one's own reproductive processes - are well above their emotional and intellectual ceilings.

The thing for people with normal adult intellect and emotional development to do is stop equivocating about abortion. It is acceptable for women who want one. Period.

Next.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Why do you automatically assign them to that status in life?? Is that why you prefer them all killed? Less for you to have to potentially support? More of the pie available for you to use? Who's the cold hearted one here again?

The fallacy in the argument is that there would have been 54 million unwanted babies on the dole. Or 54 million unwanted babies period. With a return to a concept of personal responsibility and the pre 1970's notion that people were capable of making smart choices, there never would have been 54 million unwanted babies in the first place.

And again. The point of the article was that people get pregnant and need help. They did before 1973, they will if abortion is re-criminalized. And if abortion is criminalized, and women return to the back alleys, then several things will happen.

Women will die, or be rendered sterile.

Millions of welfare moms will be created.

A black market for abortion will exist.

Probably more. That's just off the top of my head.

It seriously amazes me that nobody will think beyond the tip of their personal belief system.

Women die with legal abortion today.

Women are rendered sterile today from legal abortion.

A black market still exists for those who do not want to pay or follow the law which stops a woman from aborting a when she is too far along.


12 women died from complications in 2008 ( I am uable to find stats beyond that date.) Women end up sterile still today from legal abortions in fact it is plainly listed as a side effect.

This doctor was arrested not too long ago for murder of women and babies:

Alleged Victim Calls Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell a 'Monster' - ABC News

And in 1972 prior to Roe v Wade there were only 39 deaths from illegal abortions.


Not to mention if Roe. v. Wade were overturned not all states would outlaw abortion, there were several states who legalized it before Roe v. wade. So this Armageddon scenario is just ridiculous. The article in the OP is clearly arguing that partial birth abortion should be allowed and somehow with its being limited this is some sort of atrocity or encrochment upon a woman's right. I noted the dead woman on the floor after her lover tried to hide the abortion from her husband. Surprising that this is used as some sort of tool to persuade those who oppose abortion. Yet when those who want to convince a woman not to get an abortion to look at a the child within them its some sort of horrible thing. Or the opposite of showing the discarded remains of a baby who was ripped apart or had a scapal shoved into her brain after being partially born.


Links to my stated facts above::

In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the mother,[7] and New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being," essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where the womans's physical health was endangered. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to states where it was legal.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boxer’s False Statistic

On July 5, Sen. Boxer claimed that overturning Roe v. Wade would cost the lives of more than 5,000 pregnant women a year. That might have been true before the invention of penicillin and the birth control pill, but it's not true now. The best evidence indicates that the annual deaths from illegal abortions would number in the hundreds, not thousands.

Boxer made the claim to support her position that the repeal of Roe would be the sort of "extraordinary circumstance" that could justify use of the filibuster to stop the confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court. The Associated Press quoted her this way:


Boxer: It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table.

But Boxer was just wrong. The figure comes from a 1936 study by Dr. Frederick Taussig who estimated that abortion claimed the lives of 5,000 to 10,000 women a year. It is impossible to know if his figures are accurate, given that no reliable records exist on the total number of illegal abortions that occurred, much less the number of deaths. Taussig extrapolated the data from trends in New York City and Germany.

His estimate is at least plausible. Women had few means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and illegal abortions were often performed in less than sanitary settings. Furthermore, penicillin wasn't in use until World War II, and not widely available to the civilian population until after the war ended in 1945. And Enovid, the first oral contraceptive, wasn't available until 1957. But whether Taussig's estimate was accurate or not, the conditions of the 1930's don't apply today.

From the 1940s through the 1960s, in fact, the best available evidence shows a dramatic decline in abortion-related deaths occurring even before the first states liberalized abortion laws in 1967. The Journal of the American Medical Association quotes official estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics showing an 89 percent decrease in abortion-related deaths by 1966. That is based on counting the number of death certificates that listed complications from abortion as the cause of death. The numbers reported for any given year are assuredly low since doctors could easily misstate the cause of death to protect the family. Still, these are the only figures that allow comparisons over time. There's no reason to think that the rate of under-reporting would vary from one year to another, and so little reason to doubt that a steep downward trend took place long before Roe was decided.

FactCheck.org: Abortion Distortions

 

[sealadaigh]

When a woman is pregnant, she says 'I am going to have a baby'. That implies a baby doesn't yet exist.

c'mon noomi. that's a stretch. you're better than that.

i am opposed to abortion for one reason and one reason only. a human fetus is human life and i am not quite ready to arbitrarily decide when that life is or isn't valuable.

also, i am a man who has always very strongly advocated for equal rights for men and women completely and until those people who are pro-choice consider the father's wishes in the matter...well...that offends me.

it is a can of worms and i think people are standing on their positions with no consideration being given to the parties directly involved, as a whole, and one of those parties is the fetal child.

what if the father wants the mother to have the child and the mother wants to have an abortion?

what if the mother wants the child and the father wants her to have an abortion?

i do know many men who are or have raised their child)ren) on their own. that includes me.

I give consideration to the potential child. But I weigh those considerations against those of the mother who has to carry him for 9 months and pay for him for another 20. I love my kids. But I would not force anyone into having them.

There are too many bad parents out there already, we really don't need more. I think that when you weigh the partially formed life against that of the mother, yes the father, the cost, the potential for a miserable life for an unwanted child...

The picture is not as clear as some on your side want to paint it.

i am not quite sure who "the people on my side" are or what they think.

thr can of worms is that if the mother decides to have the child, the father would be forced to pay for that child for another 20 years, even though he wanted that child to be aborted. i think we can squeeze that into your scenario of "the potential for a miserable life for an unwanted child..."

all i am really saying is that i am not sure we want to be taking human life based upon some arbitrary concept of what we deem to be a worthwhile human life when that human life has no control over his/her condition, in the case of abortion, the condition of being a fetal human.

i am pretty sure there is no link between bad parenting and abortion.

we "force" people to do things all the time.

what we are talking about is killing human life for reasons over which that life has no control.

 

[sealadaigh]

When a woman is pregnant, she says 'I am going to have a baby'. That implies a baby doesn't yet exist.

c'mon noomi. that's a stretch. you're better than that.

i am opposed to abortion for one reason and one reason only. a human fetus is human life and i am not quite ready to arbitrarily decide when that life is or isn't valuable.

also, i am a man who has always very strongly advocated for equal rights for men and women completely and until those people who are pro-choice consider the father's wishes in the matter...well...that offends me.

it is a can of worms and i think people are standing on their positions with no consideration being given to the parties directly involved, as a whole, and one of those parties is the fetal child.

what if the father wants the mother to have the child and the mother wants to have an abortion?

what if the mother wants the child and the father wants her to have an abortion?

i do know many men who are or have raised their child)ren) on their own. that includes me.

To the bolded; yes. Did you read the entire article? Did you watch the video.

i did, and while i am certainly not without empathy, i do not readily succumb to emotional arguments.

a human fetus is a human life and you are killing that fetal human life for arbitrary reasons that are no fault of that fetal human life.

i myself can think of plenty of arbitrary reasons to kill human life based upon what i consider worthwhile or of quality. personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

i think abortion is an easy way out and a way of avoiding addressing real issues.

 

[Underhill]

personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

All fetal human life? Even a week after conception? Because that seems just silly. Not to mention the most emotional of all abortion positions.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape over late term abortion. But this whole "life begins at conception" thing is just hard to fathom.

 

[Katzndogz]

The answer is to make fewer women want to have an abortion, or beyond that, want to be promiscuous. Right now, girls are taught that promiscuity is an acceptable lifestyle from the time they can walk. Females are becoming a commodity, like corn or cattle. Eight year old girls think nothing of sexting the rest of the class with pictures of their privates. Mothers tart up three year olds so they look like prostitutes. The people, as an entire culture have lost the capacity to be revolted.

 

[Foxfyre]

personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

All fetal human life? Even a week after conception? Because that seems just silly. Not to mention the most emotional of all abortion positions.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape over late term abortion. But this whole "life begins at conception" thing is just hard to fathom.

So when does life begin? I seriously doubt you bypassed those first days/weeks. I certainly didn't. Those first days/weeks were just as critical and important to the person you are today as were the last three months of your mother's pregnanacy or all the years you have lived since.

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

That was pre Roe v Wade.

You can find anecdotal evidence for any argument. You can look at the anomalies and use that to make almost any case. If you take the tiny number of cases of rape and incest pregnancies out of the equation, medical science has now advanced to the point that we know when the mother's life is in danger from her pregnancy. We know when the fetus is so badly damaged that he or she has no chance for any quality of life. I don't think anybody with common sense would judge any woman who would end a pregnancy under such circumstances and of course it should be safe and legal for her to do so.

But in the much broader big picture, the abortion of 54+ million babies has not been good for the country or us as a people. We need to return to a culture that values life, that values the children, and appreciates the value of the traditional marriage and home as the best situation we can give the kids.

 

[Dragonlady]

a human fetus is a human life and you are killing that fetal human life for arbitrary reasons that are no fault of that fetal human life.

i myself can think of plenty of arbitrary reasons to kill human life based upon what i consider worthwhile or of quality. personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

i think abortion is an easy way out and a way of avoiding addressing real issues.

You are entitleld to your opinion, and by all means don't have an abortion if that's how you feel. But an fetus is NOT a human life. It is the potential for human life.

And again, here is someone suggesting that abortion is easy and people shouldn't be getting abortions as the easy way out. A child is not punishment. A child is to be loved. We should not be suggesting women should have babies they don't want or can't afford simply to punish them for having sex for fun.

Last but certainly least, if God is so opposed to abortion, why do so women have miscarriages? If every fetus is so sacred, why do 1/3 of all pregnancies end in "spontaneous abortions"? If God didn't believe in abortion, women would not miscarry.

 

[Katzndogz]

personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

All fetal human life? Even a week after conception? Because that seems just silly. Not to mention the most emotional of all abortion positions.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape over late term abortion. But this whole "life begins at conception" thing is just hard to fathom.

So when does life begin? I seriously doubt you bypassed those first days/weeks. I certainly didn't. Those first days/weeks were just as critical and important to the person you are today as were the last three months of your mother's pregnanacy or all the years you have lived since.

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

That was pre Roe v Wade.

You can find anecdotal evidence for any argument. You can look at the anomalies and use that to make almost any case. If you take the tiny number of cases of rape and incest pregnancies out of the equation, medical science has now advanced to the point that we know when the mother's life is in danger from her pregnancy. We know when the fetus is so badly damaged that he or she has no chance for any quality of life. I don't think anybody with common sense would judge any woman who would end a pregnancy under such circumstances and of course it should be safe and legal for her to do so.

But in the much broader big picture, the abortion of 54+ million babies has not been good for the country or us as a people. We need to return to a culture that values life, that values the children, and appreciates the value of the traditional marriage and home as the best situation we can give the kids.

Unfortunately women today see themselves as "the warm place to put it". Women today actually believe they are nothing but the sum total of their genitalia. They just want someone to pay them to be the warm place to put it.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

 

[Foxfyre]

All fetal human life? Even a week after conception? Because that seems just silly. Not to mention the most emotional of all abortion positions.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape over late term abortion. But this whole "life begins at conception" thing is just hard to fathom.

So when does life begin? I seriously doubt you bypassed those first days/weeks. I certainly didn't. Those first days/weeks were just as critical and important to the person you are today as were the last three months of your mother's pregnanacy or all the years you have lived since.

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

That was pre Roe v Wade.

You can find anecdotal evidence for any argument. You can look at the anomalies and use that to make almost any case. If you take the tiny number of cases of rape and incest pregnancies out of the equation, medical science has now advanced to the point that we know when the mother's life is in danger from her pregnancy. We know when the fetus is so badly damaged that he or she has no chance for any quality of life. I don't think anybody with common sense would judge any woman who would end a pregnancy under such circumstances and of course it should be safe and legal for her to do so.

But in the much broader big picture, the abortion of 54+ million babies has not been good for the country or us as a people. We need to return to a culture that values life, that values the children, and appreciates the value of the traditional marriage and home as the best situation we can give the kids.

Unfortunately women today see themselves as "the warm place to put it". Women today actually believe they are nothing but the sum total of their genitalia. They just want someone to pay them to be the warm place to put it.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. A woman once put her value in being desirable to her husband, yes, but also in being competent and useful, a good wife, a good mother to her children, a pillar of her church, a blessing to her neighbors, and, if she worked outside the home, an asset to her employer, the glue that held it all together. We all had high hopes, sought an education, and looked forward with anticipation to what life held in store for us. But our value was in being a valued member of society and not in being a sex object.

Likewise men were once necessary to a stable and successful society. The culture expected them as much as possible to be the primary bread winner, the protector, a positive role model for the children, and the security that let a society operate peacefully and productively. His value was in being a a valued member of society and not in being a sperm donor and otherwise deemed unnecessary to the family.

The woman whose self worth is tied up in how 'sexy' or 'hot' or how much she arouses sexual desire is a pretty sad creature all things considered. But sexualization, even at a very early age, seems to be one of the legacies of post Roe v Wade.

 

[Dragonlady]

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Again, longing for a past that never was. If a girl was lucky, the guy would offer to marry her. If they were in high school, they had to quit school. You couldn't be married or pregnant in high school. So kids were pushed out of school, without a proper education, and often struggled financially and emotionally because they weren't prepared for adult responsibilities. So yes the child had to parents, but hardly the best situation for the family or raising a child.

Often, if the boy were well off, he would get his friends to say they's slept with the girl too. DNA testing isn't what it is today. They could only determine if you weren't the father. If blood types matched, you might be the father, but not test to prove it, so there was no way of forcing the man to support his child.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

This is called a "double standard". Men got what they could and then denigrated women who "put out for them". It was disgusting and it still happens today. Women were not taught to respect themselves, rather they were warned that if they were too "easy", they'd never find a husband. Hardly the same thing.

Unfortunately women today see themselves as "the warm place to put it". Women today actually believe they are nothing but the sum total of their genitalia. They just want someone to pay them to be the warm place to put it.

Well your opinion of women couldn't be much lower could it? I know of no woman of any age, with the attitude you suggest here. You have some serious sexual issues going on here.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Well those of us who have had what used to be traditional male careers would disagree with you. You woman issues are scary.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

There is so much misogyny in this post I hardly know how to address it. You hate women. You hate that women have sex. I feel sorry for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Again, longing for a past that never was. If a girl was lucky, the guy would offer to marry her. If they were in high school, they had to quit school. You couldn't be married or pregnant in high school. So kids were pushed out of school, without a proper education, and often struggled financially and emotionally because they weren't prepared for adult responsibilities. So yes the child had to parents, but hardly the best situation for the family or raising a child.

Often, if the boy were well off, he would get his friends to say they's slept with the girl too. DNA testing isn't what it is today. They could only determine if you weren't the father. If blood types matched, you might be the father, but not test to prove it, so there was no way of forcing the man to support his child.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

This is called a "double standard". Men got what they could and then denigrated women who "put out for them". It was disgusting and it still happens today. Women were not taught to respect themselves, rather they were warned that if they were too "easy", they'd never find a husband. Hardly the same thing.

Unfortunately women today see themselves as "the warm place to put it". Women today actually believe they are nothing but the sum total of their genitalia. They just want someone to pay them to be the warm place to put it.

Well your opinion of women couldn't be much lower could it? I know of no woman of any age, with the attitude you suggest here. You have some serious sexual issues going on here.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Well those of us who have had what used to be traditional male careers would disagree with you. You woman issues are scary.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

There is so much misogyny in this post I hardly know how to address it. You hate women. You hate that women have sex. I feel sorry for you.

Again, longing for a past that never was.

Exactly, well said.

The bane of reactionaryism will only weaken our great Nation, particularly when Americans have always looked forward to a future promising great potential. American is experiencing transition, not ‘decline,’ where change can be difficult.

Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any time in this Nation’s history, that’s especially true for women.