# The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

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I really wouldn't want to see Roe v Wade repealed.


----------



## Politico (Jan 22, 2013)

Then do something about it.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

Will you be addressing the article.


----------



## Politico (Jan 22, 2013)

I did. If you wanted more than that you shouldn't have posted this in the safe zone.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

No. You didn't. You addressed me, not the contents of the article.


----------



## Newby (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



No offense, Delia, but I found the article just another endless excuse for why women should be allowed to murder their unborn children.  Especially disgusting is that she's trying to rationalize partial birth abortions, we all know that if they weren't illegal, it wouldn't be '12 year olds raped by their uncle' that would be getting them.  Just like it isn't '12 year olds raped by their uncles' that are responsible for the millions of babies killed every year in this country, and the millions of dollars in literal blood money the abortion industry makes off of these 'poor women who are just victims'.  Just so tired of hearing it.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 22, 2013)

Abortion sucks.   And the article underlines this.  

It's a lousy procedure that nobody wants to endure and who's morality is questionable.    The alternative, of making it illegal is just as fucked up for very similar reasons.

There is no easy answer.    And in the absence of easy answers I think Roe v. Wade had the right idea.   

As for late term abortions, I think making them generally illegal is the right thing to do.

Saying that, I think the author makes an excellent point about our responsibilities to women.   We should be educating young people, making birth control available and giving out the day after pill to anyone who wants it.   

What I really don't understand are those who are against abortion yet at the same time are against these measures which could actually reduce them.    And to make matters worse, these are all too often the same people who think we should gut social services and any form of government healthcare.   

One third of high school teens are having sex.   And this hasn't changed in decades even with abstinence programs.   So it's time people face the facts and move beyond the fairy tail of abstinence as a working alternative to real education and action.


----------



## Newby (Jan 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Abortion sucks.   And the article underlines this.
> 
> It's a lousy procedure that nobody wants to endure and who's morality is questionable.    The alternative, of making it illegal is just as fucked up for very similar reasons.
> 
> ...



We are already doing that and have been doing it for years, yet abortions go up every year.  Plain and simple, it's used for birth control, which is unacceptable.  When there are no consequences to deter behavior, the behavior will continue, not only continue but expand and flourish.  The further this country moves to the left, the more consequences are taken away.  It's not a good thing, and we will pay for it down the road.


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby:  The PROPER INDICATION for what you are calling 'a partial birth abortion' does exist:  the 'dilation and intact extraction' is the method least harmful to a woman whose life and future childbearing is threatened by a fetus having extreme hydrocephalus - which is always and absolutely fatal to that baby.t

The outlawing of a medical procedure which is the best way to minimize the tragedy of mother and baby dying in childbirth is an outrage:  no evidence was ever presented to even suggest that diagnoses of 'extreme hydrocephalus' were being faked or that this procedure was being over-used or mis-used.

As a result of that "law", sometime or other a woman who might otherwise have been able to give birth to a child after suffering the ordeal of miscarriage and surgery and death of a baby, is going to be denied that joy.  Because the 'alternative' methods are fraught with peril for her fecundity, if not her very life - and some idiots who don't comprehend the certainty of 'death due to no brain matter in the skull' have made her best option illegal.

Before you so blithely condemn something, it's best to learn what that something (ie, 'partial birth abortion') actually entails.  

MANY medications - including such 'simple' ones as aspirin and penicillin - can injure or even kill a person.  We have safeguards in place already to prevent such mistakes in diagnosis and treatment.

Outlawing 'dilation and intact extraction' as a procedure has saved NOBODY's life.  Enforcing the already-extant laws against 'unnecesary' surgeries and false diagnoses and such would have been enough.  The ban was simply grandstanding, a cynical ploy on the part of extremist legislators pandering to the extremists of their political base.

I say this as a mother whose first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.   IF the goal is to ensure that every viable fertilized egg becomes a neonate,  then that ban actually caused the very harm it claimed to prevent - by forcing more women to endure a hysterectomy along with the miscarriage.

I would be happier with a requirement that every pregnant woman get free ultrasounds regularly:  that is how the extreme hydrocephalus could be diagnosed earlier than the end of the second trimester when some less drastic procedure might be used.  It would also alert medical staff to expect certain problems, spina bifida, etc. which can be diagnosed fairly reliably with ultrasound.


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 22, 2013)

I have no problem with abstinence:  it worked for me.

IMHO, at birth a DNA sample should be taken from male infants and the results recorded in a nationwide bank.  Then whenever a girl or woman is pregnant, we should be able to ID the 'sperm donor' and take appropriate action .....


----------



## Newby (Jan 22, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Newby:  The PROPER INDICATION for what you are calling 'a partial birth abortion' does exist:  the 'dilation and intact extraction' is the method least harmful to a woman whose life and future childbearing is threatened by a fetus having extreme hydrocephalus - which is always and absolutely fatal to that baby.t
> 
> The outlawing of a medical procedure which is the best way to minimize the tragedy of mother and baby dying in childbirth is an outrage:  no evidence was ever presented to even suggest that diagnoses of 'extreme hydrocephalus' were being faked or that this procedure was being over-used or mis-used.
> 
> ...



Do we have one instance in the U.S. of a woman who has died because of not being able to have this 'procedure'?  The procedure is allowed if the baby died, i.e. a miscarriage.

Every pregnant woman that I've known, including myself, has had an ultra sound mid way thru the first trimester.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion sucks.   And the article underlines this.
> ...



Can I see your citation proving that they are going up?


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> I have no problem with abstinence:  it worked for me.
> 
> IMHO, at birth a DNA sample should be taken from male infants and the results recorded in a nationwide bank.  Then whenever a girl or woman is pregnant, we should be able to ID the 'sperm donor' and take appropriate action .....



That's a great idea. Of course, Maury would be out of a job.


----------



## Newby (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Approximately 1.2 million abortions a year in the U.S.  Why isn't education and easy access to birth control making that number significantly drop every year?   No one would ever personally have an abortion, it's only needed for those women who are victims of crimes, etc... yet we're at 1.2 million a  year.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No. Citation. I want to see documentation to back up what you're saying.

For instance:

Abortion rates plummet with free birth control | e! Science News



> Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced  unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by 62 percent to 78 percent  over the national rate, a new study shows. The research, by  investigators at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis,  appears online Oct. 4 in _Obstetrics & Gynecology_.
> 
> Among a range of birth control methods offered in the study, most  women chose long-acting methods like intrauterine devices (IUDs) or  implants, which have lower failure rates than commonly used birth  control pills. In the United States, IUDs and implants have high  up-front costs that sometimes aren't covered by health insurance, making  these methods unaffordable for many women.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



  Yeah, wouldn't that be nice if the government forced abortion clinics to keep accurate records and report how many they do each an every year.  Yet they don't, and the reason they don't is just so people like you can refute the numbers put up.  So is your stance that they're going down?  There aren't 1.2 million abortions per year.  Put up  your statistics to show what the actual number is then.

Participation is completely voluntary, and they have no data past 2008, isn't that convenient?

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2008



> Description of System: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). This information is provided voluntarily. For 2008, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For the purpose of trend analysis, data were evaluated from the 45 areas that reported data every year during 1999--2008. Abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) were calculated using census and natality data, respectively.
> 
> Results: A total of 825,564 abortions were reported to CDC for 2008. Of these, 808,528 abortions (97.9% of the total) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1999--2008. Among these same 45 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2008 was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births. Compared with 2007, the total number and rate of reported abortions for these 45 reporting areas essentially were unchanged, although the abortion ratio was 1% higher. Reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios remained 3%, 4%, and 10% lower, respectively, in 2008 than they had been in 1999.



http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

Doesn't look like they've changed, other than they have significantly gone up since 1973, and then went down slightly, and haven't changed much within the last 10 years or so.


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 22, 2013)

The number of abortions could be going up, but it's not a simple single number:  it's *in proportion to* the size of the population of child-bearing age.  It's a frequency.


----------



## jwoodie (Jan 22, 2013)

This is why abortion was, and still should be, a matter for States to decide.  Instead of allowing voters to decide this issue, just like other laws concerning marriage, rape,incest, manslaughter, etc.  Instead, seven members of the SCOTUS decided to take a private poll as to their personal opinions about abortion and impose them on the rest of the country.  Even the most rabid abortion supporters know the Roe v. Wade decision was a joke when it came to legal reasoning.

The fact of the matter is that 70% of the public believes that there should be some restrictions on abortions.  The problem is that they encompass a variety of views as to specific restrictions (e.g., first trimester), whereas the remaining 30% are unified in their opposition to any restrictions whatsoever.  Unfortunately, this minority is politically and journalistically influential and has been able to control the terms of this debate.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion sucks.   And the article underlines this.
> ...



Sorry but no.   Consequences don't seem to matter a whole lot as the behavior has always existed.    Not to mention the largest reason we don't consider teens adults is a lack of judgement.    As a father of three teens I can tell you it pisses me off almost daily, but it's a fact.  

So the evidence, the physiology and the psychology says consequences simply won't matter to most youth.    

As for education, yes we have been working on that since the 80's.   But birth control and the day after pill are not universally available.  

And anyone who tells you that the day after pill is abortion needs to educate themselves.    It simply isn't the same thing.

I honestly think anyone who truly believes abortion is murder should be advocating for giving the day after pill out like candy.    Oh I know, they use the same argument you do.   But the idea holds no water.   On the one hand, you believe abortion is murder.   On the other you are not willing to stop the murder because someone may have premarital sex.

Think about that.   If I have the choice between a murder, and a teen, or even a bunch of teens having premarital sex, sex wins every time.   Hands down.


----------



## Politico (Jan 22, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> IMHO, at birth a DNA sample should be taken from male infants and the results recorded in a nationwide bank.



Good thing you're in the clean zone.


----------



## jwoodie (Jan 22, 2013)

Fear of unwanted pregnancy used to be the most effective contraceptive.  Now it is a minor inconvenience to be erased by a ghoulish abortionist.  Some people consider that progress.


----------



## Staidhup (Jan 22, 2013)

Regardless of politics, the right to have an abortion is etched in stone. The moral and emotional decision is one the female must shoulder and remains between her and God. The government should not be forced or coerced to provide financial assistance nor support for birth control, this is for the women to shoulder and accept the full consequences for their actions. If those that support abortions wish to finance clinics and birth control so be it, but do not ask American Tax payers to shoulder the financial burden. I know of many families that would love to have the gift of a child and would make great parents if given the opportunity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2013)

Remember the fact that _Griswold/Roe/Casey_ isnt solely about abortion, its about the right to privacy, its about government restriction where the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is paramount, as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Consequently, a woman has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right to privacy any undue burden manifested by the state to interfere with that right  whatever she elects to do, with regard to any type of contraception  is invalid and un-Constitutional. 

Everyone is pro-life, everyone is anti-abortion, theres no dispute in that; the conflict arises with regard to how to actually end the practice.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Fear of unwanted pregnancy used to be the most effective contraceptive.  Now it is a minor inconvenience to be erased by a ghoulish abortionist.  Some people consider that progress.



"Fear of unwanted pregnancy" needs to be as big a deal for the male as it is the female, and that is rarely the case.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

It feels like all the usual talking points are being bandied about, without actually discussing the experiences of the author of the article.


----------



## Staidhup (Jan 22, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Remember the fact that _Griswold/Roe/Casey_ isnt solely about abortion, its about the right to privacy, its about government restriction where the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is paramount, as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Consequently, a woman has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right to privacy any undue burden manifested by the state to interfere with that right  whatever she elects to do, with regard to any type of contraception  is invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> Everyone is pro-life, everyone is anti-abortion, theres no dispute in that; the conflict arises with regard to how to actually end the practice.



And thus you have the "Supreme Court Creating Law" not the interpretation of law. Employing the 4th amendment is a weak stretch at best. In retrospect congress did not have the balls to pass a law it knew would never pass muster.


----------



## arKangel (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > "Fear of unwanted pregnancy" needs to be as big a deal for the male as it is the female, and that is rarely the case.
> ...


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

arKangel said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 22, 2013)

Politico said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, at birth a DNA sample should be taken from male infants and the results recorded in a nationwide bank.
> ...



  Are you unable to voice your objections to seeking to hold males responsible for 
accidental' pregnancies without resorting to obscenity or insults?    

I can't understand why anyone would object to being able to identify the other parent:  would you make the effort to explain your views, please?


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

Misreading of graph led to embarrassing post.


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 22, 2013)

arKangel said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > The Way It Was | Mother Jones
> ...



They are not children if they are unborn. They are a foetus. Words have meanings.


----------



## Delia (Jan 22, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Incorrect.

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

I was looking at the right column in my earlier post, which led to my deleted post. However, 1.2 million is way down from over 1.6 million.


----------



## arKangel (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> arKangel said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 22, 2013)

Dr Grump said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



Words do have meaning but a fetus does not have any meaning whatsoever to some. Sad


----------



## Noomi (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



The lifers wouldn't care about how it was before Roe. They'd like to see more women suffer and die, or live with health problems all their lives from trying to abort a pregnancy. *Not appropriate for CDZ> Newby*


----------



## whitehall (Jan 22, 2013)

Delia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I didn't read the article but I know where Ma Jones stands on most issues. What happens when hiring someone to kill your unborn baby is not a legal option? Surely you jest. What happens when murder is not a legal option?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade?  A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school.  It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year.  Why not just say it's birth control?  Why can't you bring yourself to do that?  Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'.  Why not?  

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards.  But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion.   Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will.  It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > The Way It Was | Mother Jones
> ...



I'm a woman and pro-life Noomi, so to make the comment that I'd like to see more women suffer and die is pathetic, not to mention totally false.   What about the women who live with guilt and mental issues the rest of their lives after they've killed their own baby?  Or are they all proud of what they've done?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Staidhup said:


> Regardless of politics, the right to have an abortion is etched in stone. The moral and emotional decision is one the female must shoulder and remains between her and God. The government should not be forced or coerced to provide financial assistance nor support for birth control, this is for the women to shoulder and accept the full consequences for their actions. If those that support abortions wish to finance clinics and birth control so be it, but do not ask American Tax payers to shoulder the financial burden. I know of many families that would love to have the gift of a child and would make great parents if given the opportunity.



Yes, much better to shoulder the cost of childbirth than the cost of contraceptives...   

Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

arKangel said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price.  We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly.  Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that?  How could you possiblty know what I believe?  Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex?    That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part.  I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context.  What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control.  It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people.  Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



It all depends on circumstance and upbringing.   If they have been raised thinking as you do then yes, there are guilt issues.

Personally, I doubt I would feel guilty if it were an early pregnancy.   I don't buy the argument that it is murder from day one.      I'm not sure where the line is.   I don't know that there is one as it's a gradual change from a collection of cells into what we consider human.

And that is what I would like to see.   If someone has sex and they aren't sure.   If there is any chance, we should be encouraging them to take the day after pill.   Then you would see abortion rates plummet.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...




How have I been raised that caused me to 'think as I do'?
Have you ever carried a child?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



First, I wasn't talking to you.   Second, I am speaking in generalities.    

The vast majority of pro-lifers fit into that description I gave.   I've been arguing these points on forums for close to a decade and you are the first to call me on this.    

If it doesn't fit you, then great!   

As for your comments on consequences, they are wrong.    Of course there are consequences.   Nobody I know wants to get an abortion.    And pregnancy is still a massive problem.   So the notion that just having legal abortion out there as an option takes away all consequences is nonsense.  

The problem is teens (and yes, some adults) do not use good judgement.   Never have.   This is why we limit their freedom in so many ways.   Why they don't vote.   Why they don't drive.

Sure there are a tiny minority of nuts out there having 15 abortions, but they are nothing even remotely in the ballpark of normal and probably have some serious mental or drug abuse issues.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I don't know how you were raised.   But a 15 year old, told her whole life that abortion is murder, is of course going to have guilt issues.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



You really believe, in this day and age, that pro-life people are against abortion because they are against pre-marital sex?  Seriously?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, that isn't what I said.  

I said, many (most in my experience) pro lifers are against contraceptives in schools and the day after pill  which makes no sense.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Umm, I never claimed I did.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I'm guessing you could take any pregnant female and regardless of how she was raised, she would know that killing her own child is wrong. It's not natural.  I think it's the other way around, people like you are trying to convince girls and women that it's natural to want to kill your own child, that there's nothing wrong with it, when instinctually they know that it's not right.

Have you ever carried a child?  You didn't answer.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



So we 'limit their freedom' because they don't have good judgment, we don't let them vote or drive, but yet you feel they can make decisions with regards to contraception and abortion without any parental input at all. Who needs a parent, right?  Let the government remove the parent from the equation so their young daughter, who can't make mature decisions, can have sex at will without their knowledge, and then if she gets pregnant, she can go kill the child without her parent's knowledge.  What kind of message does that send to our children?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Umm,  yes you did.



Underhill said:


> It all depends on circumstance and upbringing.  * If they have been raised thinking as you do* then yes, there are guilt issues.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No.  Of course not.

And I have never tried to convince a woman anything about her choices.   It's none of my business.   My wife and I have 3 kids.   And if one of my daughters came home pregnant the choice is hers and hers alone.    

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that how you felt when you were pregnant does not give you all knowing insight into how all women feel.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Exactly.   Where did I say anything about how you were raised?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Coming from a guy, that's pretty amusing.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Are we going around in circles here?  What was 'raised thinking as I do' supposed to mean exactly?  Do we need a translator?  You're going to deny English?  It meant that you had insight or knowledge as to how I was raised, since you would know how I thought based on how I was raised.  It's really not that complicated, unless of course you're trying to deny the obvious.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



All I am saying is that your belief that abortion is wrong obviously would make you feel guilty.    And many women clearly do not think abortion is wrong.   

Guilty - Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.

If you don't see the act as wrong, why on earth would you feel guilty?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Let me spell it out for you.

I know, having been raised in a hard core christian conservative family the affect that upbringing can have on a person.   The guilt that comes with that strict list of rules and sins can be staggering.

I was saying that that guilt comes from believing an act is wrong, as you do about abortion.

So no, I was not saying anything about how you were raised.    

Clear enough?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

I would love to continue the conversation and will later if you like, but I really need to get some work done this morning....


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



So this is about religion to you then?  You don't think anyone brought up in a secular household could think abortion was wrong?  I know atheists who agree that murder is wrong.  It's about whether or not you think the taking of a human life is murder or not.  Some people rationalize that killing a baby in uterus isn't taking or ending a human life.  But, that's all it is, rationalization.

And again, I counter that killing your own child is not natural, taking religion out of the equation entirely.  It's not natural or instinctual for a mother to kill her child, you aren't 'taught' guilt, people brought up in a secular household are capable of feeling guilt.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



But you are, you're making assumptions about how I was raised based on the fact that I think abortion is wrong.

So I only believe it's wrong because you think I was brought up in a 'hard core christian conservative' family?  I wouldn't think it was wrong were I raised differently?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



Actually, women that have guilt and mental issues after an abortion are in a distinct minority.   Mostly what they feel is a profound sense of relief.  Especially now after decades of mental manipulation telling them, from the time they were girls, that they should be PROUD of what they've done.  

Pre Roe there was no such mental aberration as abortion addiction where a woman deliberately gets pregnant in order to have an abortion.  There is now.

American 'abortion addict' who had 15 terminations in 17 years publishes her memoir | Mail Online


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> No. You didn't. You addressed me, not the contents of the article.



No... I've grown weary of all this stupid shit about da poor womens and the myriad of issues they have with self control.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 23, 2013)

Politico said:


> I did. If you wanted more than that you shouldn't have posted this in the safe zone.



And why exactly are you personally attacking a poster in the clean debate zone?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I have a hard time believing that.  What you're saying is the flip side of the other comment in the thread that women only feel guilt because of their religious upbringing.  Killing your own child is not natural, you can't be taught that it's not wrong, instinctually for the majority of women it would go against what their nature would tell them.  Perhaps a lot of women rationalize, or lie about how they really feel when they've had an abortion, because it is the continuation of the rationalization that they've worked through to relieve themselves of guilt from what they've done.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Are you reading what I am posting?   This has nothing to do with religion.   I was simply pointing out my experience with guilt and where I am coming from.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I said nothing about how you were raised.   Not one word.  

I said something about people who are raised to believe as you do.   That is not the same thing at all.

I am trying very hard to not make assumptions about you.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It sounds like you are making an assumption based upon your personal experience...


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I think it is perhaps you that is not reading what you're posting. There's no debating with someone who won't own a statement they made when it is in plain sight for everyone to read.  You completely ignored the points that I made, I think they were more than answerable if you're being honest in a discussion.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I think you're beating a dead horse at this point, but whatever makes you happy dude.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Okay, let's try another form of communication since the one we're using apparently isn't working.  You said you're a father.  You don't feel any instinct as a father to protect your children?  You had to learn that or be taught that, once your children were born?  Did you love your children before they were born, i.e. while your wife or partner was pregnant with them?  Did your wife love her children while she was carrying them?  Would she have been able to kill them in uterus wihout feeling any emotion or guilt?  If not, was that because she was taught it was immoral to kill her child when she was growing up, or because as her instincts to love and protect her child as they grew inside her became more prevalent as her pregnancy continued.  Why do women cry and mourn when they have miscarriages when they're still early on in a pregnancy?  Is it only because they were taught growing up that they should love the child they carry?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You are right.   Everyone can read what was said.   No question about that.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I have worked with a number of women that have had abortions.  Most if not all the women that I personally know have had at least one abortion.  Religion really has nothing to do with it.   That's why bringing religion into the abortion debate is counter productive.   Women learn, very early on, that a fetus isn't a baby, it's not human.   What it is, is a burden, an intrusion into their lives.   So they feel a sense of relief at having it gone.   They aren't killing their own child.  They can't see it, or hold it, an unborn child occupies the same place as an appendix that's infected.   You are relying on an instinct that just isn't there.  Or, to be more precise, isn't there anymore.    YOU might feel some instinctive imperative to protect the life of your child, but for the vast majority of women, that instinct has been eliminated.   That's why abortion has grown from an option for the desperate to a convenience.     Some women do feel a sense of guilt, but they are in a distinct minority and usually do come from religious backgrounds.  

One of the main reasons why the anti abortion arguments fail to persuade women not to have an abortion is by assuming that women feel a sense of guilt when they obviously don't.   Women talk to their friends who never felt a sense of guilt.  They were there for women friends or family members who had abortions and never felt guilty but happy that they could continue on with their lives uninterrupted.    If you want to stop abortions, the way isn't by telling women they will have an experience that they will never have.  It's by imposing that experience on them.   Do you understand?   They don't naturally feel guilty.  They must be made to feel guilty.  There must be consequences.   There were consequences but they have been eliminated.   Bring them back.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes.  Once my children were born, of course I felt protective.    But they were living breathing children.   

At 2-6 weeks I don't know that there is anything to feel guilty over.   

You may be right that there is some natural feeling in the mother.    But I don't see clear evidence of that.

What you are describing may very well be the difference between a mother who wants a baby (consciously or unconsciously) and one who doesn't.    If you desired a child, I could see where there could be feelings of attachment.    I'm just not sure that exist in a mother who is dreading the notion of being a mother.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Then mankind is doomed.  If women can be programmed to not feel guilt over killing their own unborn child, then mankind can be programmed to do anything, and there's no such thing as a conscience or an internal moral compass.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 23, 2013)

Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby.  Once they see it, it is very real to them.  It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.   

I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s.  They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said.   Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old.  In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant.   She got a 4d ultrasound.   If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures.  That is a BABY, it is nothing else.  It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY.   Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son".  It is a real child.  It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage.   Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.

Now you know why these ultrasounds are so dangerous to the liberal mantra and why they fight so hard against them.  

To answer your question, there is no such thing as an internal moral compass.   Leave human beings alone and they don't have the consciousness of the average housecat.    They become savage.  The internal moral compass comes from religion, or the secondary effects of religion.   People who aren't religious and may not believe in God at all, absorb that moral compass from those around them who are.   It's herd mentality.

If you pay attention to what's going on around you, it doesn't take much to realize that we are becoming a more savage and sadistic society.   Each succeeding generation is a little bit more sadistic than the last.   We don't have the moral compass of a primitive people who worship trees and have a shaman as leader.  This is what the absence of religion means.  It means no moral compass.  We aren't born with it.  The moral compass is imposed on us normally by parents and then it is reinforced by the larger community.    Now we have no parents to impose a moral compass.   Unless you are have some age on you, your mother has likely had an abortion or two herself.   With each generation more and more people become consciousless.  They do what feels good to them and damn everyone else.  

Mankind can, absolutely, be programmed to do anything.  We are nothing more than Pavolvian dogs after all.   Don't we already believe that we can control the weather by the cars we drive and how we heat our homes?


----------



## regent (Jan 23, 2013)

Roe v. Wade had may have had an effect on the number of unemployed. Before Roe guys with coat-hangers performed the task, now people go to medical doctors and have all kinds of safeguards, and the coat hanger guys are left jobless.


----------



## MHunterB (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



What 'consequences' do you envision, exactly?  And how do you propose to do so?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 23, 2013)

> After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually  in the U.S. has leeled off at about 1.2 million a year.
> 
> Using AGI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3 percent undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.
> 
> Christian Life Resources



That would be more than 54 million people who were never allowed to live.  The vast majority of those would never have been conceived in a pre Roe v Wade culture.

The only way that statistic can exist is that women are told over and over again that it is NOT a baby they are killing but is rather a clump of cells, a zygote, not a person.  Getting rid of it is of no more consequence and no more a moral issue than removing anything else on your body that you don't want there.  So more and more women don't experience remorse or guilt when they use abortion as a means of birth control.  They have been conditioned to believe it is not a life that is involved.

I personally am not that opposed to Roe v Wade.  But I believe we should all demand that it be implemented as SCOTUS intended.  In the first trimester, it is a matter between the woman and her doctor and everybody else respects that privacy.  In the second trimester, it would require a panel or determination that it is advisable to end the pregnancy and that would require a better reason than the woman didn't want to be pregnant or didn't want the baby.  In the third trimester, a court order could be required and only the life of the mother would be justification for ending a viable pregnancy and a healthy infant.

And we should work much harder in re-estabishing a reference and respect for life, most especially for the more innocent and helpless among us.  That is the way it was pre Roe v Wade.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby.  Once they see it, it is very real to them.  It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.
> 
> I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s.  They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said.   Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old.  In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant.   She got a 4d ultrasound.   If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures.  That is a BABY, it is nothing else.  It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY.   Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son".  It is a real child.  It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage.   Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.
> 
> ...



I agree with some of what you say, but I don't agree with the bolded part.  It may be true for a small subset of humanity, but not the majority.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby.  Once they see it, it is very real to them.  It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.
> 
> I have friends, not young, she's in her 30s and he's in his 50s.  They planned on getting married and having children, or at least that's what he said.   Except that he didn't want children. He felt he was too old.  In order to "persuade" him, she got pregnant.   She got a 4d ultrasound.   If you have never seen a 4d ultrasound you owe it to yourself to google it and look at those pictures.  That is a BABY, it is nothing else.  It is not a glob of cells, it is a BABY.   Now, my friend shows off those ultrasound pictures and says "this is my son".  It is a real child.  It isn't a glob of cells, it's his son and looks rather like him even at this early stage.   Of course they are now married and anxiously looking forward to having a son, and more to follow.
> 
> ...



So without religion there is no moral compass?    What a crock.   

Morality is a logical choice.   Atheist don't automatically devolve into murdering sprees.   They don't steal or rape just because no deity is telling them not to.   

We recognize that the rules we follow protect us.   

As for society becoming more savage and sadistic...  sorry but again, you are wrong.

Remember slavery?   How about wives getting beaten and it being swept under the rug?   Child labor was going strong 100 years ago.   In revolutionary days when a politician did something you didn't like they could be tarred and feathered, not figuratively, literally.  

I realize we are becoming a less religious society.   But that is not even close to the same thing.   

Today the savagery that is out there is more visible thanks to the media.    But do a bit of reading and you quickly find that our society is much improved over centuries past.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby.  Once they see it, it is very real to them.  It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.
> ...



We agree on something...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Now you know why it is so very important to the pro abortionists to keep women from seeing ultrasounds of an unborn baby.  Once they see it, it is very real to them.  It is MUCH harder to persuade women to have an abortion once they actually see the child.
> ...



I do think there is a cultural component to morality though, and here in the USA, our moral compass is mostly directed by JudeoChristian influences brought forward from the earliest settlers here as people began arriving from the Old World.  The Native Americans here had no reverence for life other than in their own tribe.  Compassion or respect for the rights of others was in short supply in their culture, and to kill to take what others had, etc. was not something they felt guilty about.

But even among those most primitive of cultures, the love of a parent for his/her child was very real.  The instinct to nurture and care for the child you bear is as strong in humans as it is in most other higher orders of birds and animals, and exists even among some insects; i.e. bees, ants, etc.

And pre Roe v Wade, our culture demanded a traditional marriage before children were rightfully conceived.  The out of wedlock pregnancy was not something to be celebrated--you didn't announce it proudly in church or throw a baby shower for it.  The woman stayed pretty well mostly out of sight, and it was considered most responsible to give up the newborn to a loving family who could offer it a loving mom and dad.

Okay, maybe the 'scarlet letter' mentality seems really cruel and barbaric.  But it sure resulted in most kids having a traditional family with a mom and dad.  In many schools now, the child with that blessing is in a small minority.  It shouldn't be that way.

There must be a reasonable compromise between stoning women who violated cultural mores and the anything is okay mentality of our modern society.  Somewhere in the middle there is the best solution for children and all of us.  And if we could find it, we wouldn't be looking at 1.2 million babies aborted every single year--a number all of us should see as unacceptable.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Imagine that.. 

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe that people who do not believe are bad or immoral, and I don't like when people say that I'm pushing my religion on others whenever I speak out for or against issues that I find to be moral or immoral. It's not due to my religion, but my convictions about what I see as right and wrong.  I see religion as just another 'subject' that I see as being the right path, in other words I chose my religion, my religion did not choose my morals.  I think very often it's convenient for the left to paint the broad brush of religion over political issues, when that's not really the case a good majority of the time.  I would believe abortion to be wrong regardless of my religious beliefs, the same as I would feel that murder or stealing are wrong were I a Christian or not.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > The Way It Was | Mother Jones
> ...



I'd really appreciate it if you read the article, so we could discuss the article. I don't believe anybody but possibly one person has read it as yet.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Again. I need to see a citation for "a whole lot less."


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade?  A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school.  It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year.  Why not just say it's birth control?  Why can't you bring yourself to do that?  Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'.  Why not?
> 
> *Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards.  But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion.*   Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will.  It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.





Newby said:


> *Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price.*  We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly.  Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.
> 
> Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that?  How could you possiblty know what I believe?  Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex?    That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part.  I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context.  What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control.  It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people.  Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.



Which is it? They're suffering forevermore, or there are no consequences.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> First, I wasn't talking to you.   Second, I am speaking in generalities.
> 
> The vast majority of pro-lifers fit into that description I gave.   I've been arguing these points on forums for close to a decade and you are the first to call me on this.
> 
> ...



From the article, and what I am trying to discuss:



> That year in the 1960s, several thousand American women were treated in emergency rooms for botched abortions, and there were at least 200 known deaths.



It's on page four, which would explain why I'm the only one mentioning it.



> One doctor's "awakening" is vividly described in The Worst of Times, a collection of interviews with women, cops, coroners, and practitioners from the illegal abortion era. In 1948, when this doctor was an intern in a Pittsburgh hospital, a woman was admitted with severe pelvic sepsis after a bad abortion. She was beautiful, married to someone important and wealthy, and already in renal failure. Over the next couple of days, despite heroic efforts to save her, a cascade of systemic catastrophes due to the overwhelming infection culminated with the small blood vessels bursting under her skin, bruises breaking out everywhere as if some invisible fist were punching her over and over, and she died. Being well-to-do didn't always save you.
> 
> Her death was so horrible that it made him, he recalls, physically ill. He describes his anger, but says he didn't quite know with whom to be angry. It took him another 20 years to understand that it was not the abortionist who killed her&#8212;it was the legal system, the lawmakers who had forced her away from the medical community, who "&#8230;killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or the coat hanger or whatever. I'm still angry. It was all so unnecessary."
> 
> ...


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> I'm guessing you could take any pregnant female and regardless of how she was raised, she would know that killing her own child is wrong. It's not natural.  I think it's the other way around, people like you are trying to convince girls and women that it's natural to want to kill your own child, that there's nothing wrong with it, when instinctually they know that it's not right.
> 
> Have you ever carried a child?  You didn't answer.



From the article.



> The arguments would be endless, but they would be irrelevant to the facts: From the moment I started looking for an abortion, not once did I even consider going through with the pregnancy. Not for one second. It simply was not going to happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was going to stop me, and it could have cost me my life. And this is what I had in common with millions and millions of women throughout time and history. When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. And whether we like it or not, humans, married and unmarried, will continue to have sexwisely, foolishly, violently, nicely, hostilely, pleasantly, dangerously, responsibly, carelessly, sordidly, exaltedlyand there will be pregnancies: wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted.



And before you ask, no. I have never been pregnant. It's not a good idea, for me. Health issues. Before we got married, we discussed in-depth to make sure he was okay with not fathering a child in his life.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



He said 'thinking as you do,' not raised as you were.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



So you don't think men should be participating in this conversation?


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



That's the point of this article. I'm honestly expecting people to extrapolate. Okay. You win. No abortion. What will happen then?


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Probably all atheists agree murder is wrong. I don't think you'd get much of a consensus on abortion being murder, though.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > I did. If you wanted more than that you shouldn't have posted this in the safe zone.
> ...



The better question is why has no moderator acted on it, especially since a later post was acted on.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> > After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually  in the U.S. has leeled off at about 1.2 million a year.
> >
> > Using AGI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3 percent undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.
> >
> ...



Please tell me you read the article, and will discuss it with me.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



It's in the chart.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade?  A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school.  It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year.  Why not just say it's birth control?  Why can't you bring yourself to do that?  Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'.  Why not?
> ...



It's just a different set of consequences, they trade one for another, supposedly feeling that one set of consequences has less impact than the other I guess.   I wonder if you asked a group of women that were contemplating abortion at one point in their lives, but made the decision to keep their child, how many of them would say that they regretted not aborting?


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > First, I wasn't talking to you.   Second, I am speaking in generalities.
> ...



200 deaths versus 54 million...


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



His implication is that no one would 'think the way I do' unless they were raised in a specific enviroment, which he later went on to describe as a 'conservative Christian household'.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I found it ironic when he said I would not have insight to what pregnant women would feel when in fact, I have been a pregnant woman, and he has never been.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Do you apply that same shoe to pro-life men, wanting to discuss the issue at hand?


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



No. Again! Why do you do this? 200 KNOWN deaths in one year versus ALL the deaths since Roe v Wade? I expect some level of honesty, madam.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



People will be more responsible about using contraception?  More adoptions? People will adjust to the fact that their lives will now be different because of actions that *they took *that caused it to be different?  And most likely never regret their decision once they hold that child in their arms and love it.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Okay. Find yourself a new dance partner. You refuse to discuss the article, you abuse the facts to fit your agenda, you don't even stand by your own statements. I won't be discussing this matter further with you.

Good day.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> 200 deaths versus 54 million...



I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong.   So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.   

I would like to see  a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...).   That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



Where did I ever say he couldn't discuss the issue.  Now you're just being petty.


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > 200 deaths versus 54 million...
> ...



Thank you, Voice of Reason. Let's have that discussion. May as well have it here, the thread isn't being used to discuss the article.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



I know, the truth hurts.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > 200 deaths versus 54 million...
> ...



It's been 40 years of supposed 'preventive actions', yet here we are at 1.2 million per year.  There's no incentive to not get an abortion, the more you dehumanize a baby, the less incentive there is.  What incentive is there to use birth control when you can get a cheap abortion at the clinic?  It's used as a form of birth control.  And if you don't think it's wrong or immoral, why would you care anymore about reducing the number of abortions than you would reducing the number of women on birth control pills?  They're the same thing in your mind are they not?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 23, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



2 reasons.

First cost.    No sane person will spend $600 (last I know 10 years ago) for an abortion when they can spend $10 for a pill.

Second, I do see late term abortion as morally dubious.    I wouldn't go so far as murder.    But it is a life.    So I am in favor of anything that would reduce late term abortions.

As for your claim that it's been 40 years....  I would say it's been 40 years, but for most of that, anything that could actually reduce those numbers has been fought tooth and nail.   And all too often it was by the same people who claimed abortion is murder.   

First it was education.   We got that in the 80's (sort of, many states turned that into a abstinence campaign which has proven useless).   Then it was contraceptives which are still only available sporadically depending on the politics in your state.   And the day after pill is a relatively new development and that too has been fought by the pro life groups (why, I have no idea).


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



How can you make a point like that when we're talking about people who obviously have little to no sense of responsibility to begin with?  They're at the abortion clinic because they're immature or irresponsible, so why do you think they'd even think about contraception?  These are people who don't think that far ahead, we live in a world of 'I want it, and I want it now', or they deny that bad things can happen to them.

What state has outlawed contraceptives?


----------



## oldfart (Jan 23, 2013)

Staidhup said:


> I know of many families that would love to have the gift of a child and would make great parents if given the opportunity.



I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought up the "We need more unpaid surrogate mothers down on the (white, healthy infant) baby farm to accommodate the demand" argument.  Of course it's too expensive and legally problematic to rent a uterus ("hire a surrogate") so we just hope enough fourteen-year old's get knocked up and that they buy the tap dance about how much better they will feel if they carry the baby to term and then give it up just before walking away into oblivion.  Much more mentally healthy than an abortion, obviously.  

I know of many people who want to live and whose only hope is an organ donation, but they don't run around lobbying for compulsory organ donation laws or pining for more "clean" head injuries in auto accidents to increase the supply of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, and tissue.  

BTW, your driver's license states that you are an organ donor, doesn't it?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 23, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You make a point.   But I think the day after pill, used as I laid it out, solves much of the problem.  

I think young people make poor decisions on the spot, especially in the midst of sexual exploration.    But if they were offered something like the day after pill in a routine visit, they could hold onto it and would be willing, probably happy, to use it later.



> What state has outlawed contraceptives?



None of them.   That is not what I am talking about.    I'm talking about easy access to contraceptives.


----------



## Newby (Jan 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



What is the average age of a woman having an abortion? What percentage are teenagers??  Do they even keep those statistics?  

What is 'easy access' to you?  The corner drugstore isn't good enough?


----------



## Delia (Jan 23, 2013)

You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.


----------



## arKangel (Jan 23, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Actually, women that have guilt and mental issues after an abortion are in a distinct minority.   Mostly what they feel is a profound sense of relief.  Especially now after decades of mental manipulation telling them, from the time they were girls, that they should be PROUD of what they've done.



*Incorrect.*
Quoting a survey of 21 women that planned parenthood and other baby-butchers routinely harp is hardly authoritative.  It is pure propaganda.

Meanwhile, let us refer to statistical analysis:
The mental toll of abortion - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


> In the fall, a meta-analysis was published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. The report was the most extensive of its kind to date -- the author looked at 22 published studies and data from more than 870,000 women. The results showed that women who have an abortion are at an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, drug abuse and suicidal behaviors. The study revealed the shocking statistic that close to 10 percent of all mental health problems in women can be directly attributed to abortion.






Underhill said:


> I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong.   So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.
> 
> On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.
> 
> I would like to see  a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...).   That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.



So your solution to a cultural problem of hating babies is to encourage degenerate behavior, drug pushing, and eventual health problems?
Is it just about pharmaceutical profits to you?
Or do you harbor some deep hatred of human life?

*XXXXXXX*
Basically what you are saying is that babies = bad, money = good, the standard anti-life mantra. 



The problem is the degeneracy of hating babies and loving only money.
Any culture who embraces such insanity should not, and will not, survive.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Depends.  For adults, yes the corner drugstore is adequate.   For teens, not so much.   Personally I think it should be available at the school nurse.    Hell, make it mail order.   Anything we can do to make it easier...


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

arKangel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, women that have guilt and mental issues after an abortion are in a distinct minority.   Mostly what they feel is a profound sense of relief.  Especially now after decades of mental manipulation telling them, from the time they were girls, that they should be PROUD of what they've done.
> ...



I'm not going to talk to anyone who essentially just makes up my position for me.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Delia said:


> You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.



Some would end up adopted.  Most would end up in social services, raised by a single mom.   

And we hear people bitching now about these leaches living off the system.   Another 40+ million single moms would really do us good!


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.
> ...



Why are women considered to be such animals?   They are bitches in heat who have no choice but to get laid and end up pregnant.   What has increased the abortion rate is the pregnancy rate.  What has increased the pregnancy rate is the debasement of women to nothing more than cum vessels.   What's worse, is that the concept of women as nothing more than convenient depositories start at the earliest age they can be made to understand exactly what they are.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



Animals?   Debasement?

I think women are much more free and strong now than ever in history.    It wasn't that long ago that people were marrying off their daughters at 13-15 yrs old for cash.    You may long for that day again, I do not.  

I'm working with the world we live in.  Not some mystical place that has never existed.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



i read underhill's post.

you are the one who needs help in understanding english.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Pre 1970's, there was no public notion that if people did not receive free condoms or other contraceptives, they were being DENIED such protection.   The protection was available and all responsible people acquired them and used them to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  But maybe there was more of a cultural sense of personal responsibility then?

I don't hear the Left or other 'progressive' programs emphasizing ANY sort of personal responsibility now.  You hear that it should be their RIGHT to have contraceptives of the type and quanity they want, and those should be provided to them free of cost.  If they don't get the free stuff, then it isn't their fault that they got pregnant with a baby they didn't want.  It is the fault of the government.  Of the eeeeeevil people who DENIED them contraceptives.    And you hear it emphasized that it is their RIGHT to have an abortion and only hateful people would judge them for killing a baby that isn't really a baby.  It is just a clump of cells.  Up to the minute that it is free of the womb it isn't a person.  And they shouldn't think of it as one.

No our modern culture is of the mindset that kids are going to have sex so we better give them free contraceptives to avoid the pregnancies.  But why, pre 1970's, when there would have been a huge outcry of protest if the schools were passing out free contraceptives, were there so many fewer teenage pregnancies?

Our modern culture is that people are going to have sex and if we want fewer abortions we need to provide more contraceptives.  But why pre 1970's, was there no push to provide contraceptives and there were so many fewer abortions?

What is wrong with cultural pressure to be responsible and mature and take responsibility for your own behavior?  What is wrong with cultural pressure that strongly encourages marriage before pregnancy, and again instills the concept that every child deserves and benefits from a mom and dad in the home whenever possible? 

I simply don't buy the concept that women today are too stupid or uneducated or incompetent to make smart choices and if society doesn't keep them from getting pregnant, the abortion is our fault.


----------



## Newby (Jan 24, 2013)

Delia said:


> You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.



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?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.
> ...



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.


----------



## Newby (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



So to hell with the parents and any authority they should have over their own children?   They are still children, and the parents should be notified of anything that is given to their kids from a medical standpoint, or even a standpoint of where their children could be in emotional or psychological danger.  You're just willing to get out of the way and let the government raise your daughter?  You want some stranger handing her potentially harmful medication for free without your knowledge?


----------



## Newby (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.
> ...



Right, so kill the babie instead!  What a great solution!


----------



## Newby (Jan 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Great post, Fox.   With what I bolded, what is wrong with it is that is doesn't breed government dependancy, it doesn't create a generation of people who need the government to take care of them and therefore, control them.  It doesn't fit with the progressive/leftist agenda that is working hard to gain power and control in this country.


----------



## Delia (Jan 24, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



You have GOT to be kidding me.  

Sex is natural. We all enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, you and your partner need to have a little chat. Attempting to bring sex down into the gutter so that you can blame the woman because she didn't 'just say no' is ludicrous.


----------



## Delia (Jan 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Delia (Jan 24, 2013)

"Until the mid-1800's, abortion was legal in the United States."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKd9zWjxr6k]When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories (1992) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Who said that?   

All I am saying is that those who truly want to prevent what they have labeled as murder, may want to come up with a way of drastically reducing them since the chance of them becoming illegal is nigh on zero at the moment.

But I'm not terribly worried about it.   So if you think it's more important to save a few bucks than prevent "murder"  I suppose you have that right.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes to hell with parental authority.   I realize it isn't a popular thought, but I would rather a teen receive contraceptives if needed than be too afraid to go get them because they are required to tell daddy.  

Think about the teens who end up moms at 13-16.   I think it's fair to say many, if not most, do not come from the best homes. 

Parental authority can be wonderful if you have responsible, reasonable and well educated parents.    But way, way ,way too often that is not the case.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > The Way It Was | Mother Jones
> ...



Fetuses aren't babies.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 24, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



They aren't?

Please point to a single human being who was never a fetus.  Please point to any stage in the process of the fertilized egg dividing and developing into a functioning human being that is any less important than any other stage.

Please point to a single woman who has said to you:  "I am pregnant with a zygote.  Or I am pregnant with a fetus.  I never was.  I was pregnant with my child, my baby, precious, important, loved, and with all the potential to be a great addition to the human race.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes but pull that fetus out and put it on the table and it is a dead collection of cells.    

I'm not a fan of late term abortions for this reason.   But I don't think the solution is to make all pregnant women have their babies.    Educate them to have the abortions earlier.   Or as I suggested, give out the day after pill (which is unequivocally not abortion).


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Pull a live full term baby out of the womb and put it on the table and without the nourishment and nurture of another human being, it also soon becomes a dead collection of cells.  It is every bit as helpless and dependent as is the fetus.  It might live longer and suffer more than it would as a fetus, but make no mistake about it.  That collection of cells that makes up the fetus was once every bit as important to a living breathing human being as was being that newborn infant and/or any other stage of human development.  There are few creatures on earth as helpless as a human newborn. 

So those who think it isn't ending a human life to kill the fetus could realistically extrapolate that to it not ending a human life to kill the newborn.  I know very few people who see it that way.  But they do allow themselves to be programmed to believe the fetus isn't important or precious.


----------



## oldfart (Jan 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> > What state has outlawed contraceptives?
> 
> 
> 
> None of them.   That is not what I am talking about.    I'm talking about easy access to contraceptives.



Before Griswold v Connecticut in 1965 quite a few states outlawed contraception.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> We are already doing that and have been doing it for years, yet abortions go up every year.  Plain and simple, it's used for birth control, which is unacceptable.  When there are no consequences to deter behavior, the behavior will continue, not only continue but expand and flourish.  The further this country moves to the left, the more consequences are taken away.  It's not a good thing, and we will pay for it down the road.



Do I understand you correctly?  You want girls and women to be forced to carry children they don't want to term simply to punish them for not using birth control?  Well at least you're honest about it.

So are you prepared to force the men who fathered these children to pay child support for them as their part in these consequences?  Or do the boys get off scott free because boys will be boys.  Why should the boys be allowed to have sex without consequences if the girls can't?

Unwanted children have lower IQ's, and higher rates of juvenile delinquency than children who are loved and wanted.  Even in the womb, it appears that children can sense if they're loved and wanted.  As much as I wish there were no abortions, I would rather a child grow up knowing he or she was always loved and wanted. 

But yes, by all means, lets force women to bear unwanted children.  That worked really well in the era before legal abortions.


----------



## Noomi (Jan 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



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


----------



## sealadaigh (Jan 25, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Wow, that's a pretty sad point of view you have there.  If you want to give up your rights as a parent to the state to raise your child as they see fit, more power to you, but it will happen to me over my dead body.  Do you even realize what you're saying you're in favor of here?  Why stop at birth control?  Maybe you don't feed them well enough?  Maybe you leave them alone too much, so they should removed from your care?  The power you're willing to relinguish to the state over your own children is never ending once you start to give it away.  Very sad.

Who decides who is 'responsible' and 'reasonable'?  The state?  Then when they decide that you're neither, they get to take over?  Scary road you're going down.  It always starts with something small, like birth control, then the rationalizations start for the next thing, and the next..


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > We are already doing that and have been doing it for years, yet abortions go up every year.  Plain and simple, it's used for birth control, which is unacceptable.  When there are no consequences to deter behavior, the behavior will continue, not only continue but expand and flourish.  The further this country moves to the left, the more consequences are taken away.  It's not a good thing, and we will pay for it down the road.
> ...



Actually you'd rather they were dead than grow up at all.  But how about this.  A compromise.   We permit women to have abortions and if they do, start prosecuting the fathers for murder.  After all, it was their act that ended up with a dead baby.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Sorry to inform you, but you're a bit late to the party.     Kids are taken from parents all the time for neglect.   

Why would this be any different than school lunches?   I can understand if it's morally ambiguous.   But this isn't.    Every teen who is having sex should have birth control.    It's that simple.   So no, I don't see it any different than feeding them at school without getting permission from the parents.

And I don't think the state needs to judge parent's.    Simply make it available to all.   As I said, what is the downside?


----------



## regent (Jan 25, 2013)

Roe v Wade did not start abortions, they have probably been around for a long time, just not performed in medical centers by doctors, but rather by someone, with some kind of instruments and a safe place.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Except that those children ARE wanted!   They might not be wanted by their parents, but they are still wanted.  Otherwise we wouldn't have 60,000 babies adopted from Russia alone.   Almost 5,000 more than that are adopted from China, every year.   

The solution is, of course, to persuade women to delay sexual gratification or achieve it in ways other than by promiscuity.   This means penalties, but not always legal penalties.   There was a time when a girl getting pregnant could expect to be expelled from school, her family might go so far as to put her out on the street.   She would be friendless and ostracized.   The social penalties alone were enough to make girls think twice before spreading their legs.   Today, girls feel obligated to have sex as early as possible, certainly pre menstrual, otherwise what kind of pictures would they be able to send to the kids who go to their school?


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Not to me it doesn't.  My children expressed personality even within the womb.  Each very different.  But the fact remains, there is no stage of human development that is any less important than any other stage of human development in any of our lives.

I am not saying there is never a valid reason for abortion.  I will not judge the woman who is pregnant via rape or incest or who has no hope of giving birth to a healthy baby.  I am all for the woman making a decision with her doctor early in the pregnancy and that should be none of our business.

But unless we as a people regain a sense of the sanctity of life and an appreciation that each life is precious--you don't have to be religious to understand that--I fear for our future.  The unborn is a life as much as you and I are a life.  And it should never be casually thrown away just because it is inconvenient to the mother.

At the same time, every one of us should take responsibility for the life we help create, and if we are not ready to be a mother or father, we can either wait on the sex or take proper precautions to prevent a pregnancy.

And yes, the man who helps create that new life should be required to be every bit as responsible for its care, well being, education, etc. as the mother.  The guys are just as capable of being responsible as the women are.   And no man should ever have the right to demand that the woman kill that life they created together or he will have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



To the bold in red; are you really that bad a parent that your child would not turn to you in their time of need? 

Do you honestly believe that all parents are fit to be included in that decision? I can say with certainty that somebody forced to carry a child to term is not going to be a great parent. Fortunately, at this point we don't have to let them prove it. You don't want to wear the mom title? Fine. You don't have to. 

Within this thread, all I hear is "she has to stay pregnant. The ZEF has a 'right to life'" *unless the church attorney's decide for the winning of their case that life begins at birth* - but after that? Utter silence. Not a blessed peep.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



The downside is kids might start thinking for themselves, rather than blindly following the path their parents placed them on.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Of course! Because the children from Russia are white. Now: What's the adoption rate for black children in America. Hispanic? Special needs?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



So far as I'm concerned that is a  separate problem.    One I am willing to talk about.   But I am dealing with the reality we live in.    Where 80% of high school kids are sexually active.    

And in that reality doing anything other than preparing them, is morally reprehensible.

As for adoption... sounds good.   But it also sounds unrealistic.   How many woman actually give up their babies for adoption?    Very few.   And this was true even before Roe v Wade.    Getting rid of abortion will mean more adoptions, but it will also mean a lot more kids in poor homes, unfit homes, single mother homes... not to mention on the street.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 25, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Actually you'd rather they were dead than grow up at all.  But how about this.  A compromise.   We permit women to have abortions and if they do, start prosecuting the fathers for murder.  After all, it was their act that ended up with a dead baby.



First off, an aborted fetus is NOT a dead baby.  The father gets no say in this decision, because he is NOT pregnant.

This whole idea that people who favour choice, hate children is also false and ridiculous.  I have three children who I love dearly.  I chose to have these children and to raise them.  My children know they are loved and wanted, as should all children.  That gives them the confidence to succeed in the world.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> I'm pro-choice, though that is not a choice I would ever make for myself.



Really? So if you become pregnant who will make the decision if not you?


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pro-choice, though that is not a choice I would ever make for myself.
> ...



In honor of the fact that pregnancy must not happen due to my health issues, both my husband and I have taken medical steps to ensure said decision will never need to be made.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



You never know. My youngest sister should have never been possible.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying a pregnancy would kill me. Therefore, he had a vasectomy six months before the wedding, and I had my tubes cut and cauterized.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



What is the downside?  You're a parent and you have to ask that question?  Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives?   You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant?  You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age?  Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay?  Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal.  We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Blindly following the path their parents placed them on? What the hell does that mean? You have some real issues that go well beyond this topic apparently, and there's no rational discussion to be had here unfortunately.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 25, 2013)

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care of all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all. 

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives. 

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling? 

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells. 

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans?  If so support an effort to end this. 

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required. 

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate. 

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/241999-abortion-rape-question-4.html#post5859215
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Race. Not racism. The race of the child.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you'd rather they were dead than grow up at all.  But how about this.  A compromise.   We permit women to have abortions and if they do, start prosecuting the fathers for murder.  After all, it was their act that ended up with a dead baby.
> ...



So basically you're saying that the children that are not loved and wanted are better off dead, never having existed?


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



You're saying they won't be adopted because of their race, that's racism.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, that's reality.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> What is the downside?  You're a parent and you have to ask that question?  Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives?   You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant?  You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age?  Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay?  Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal.  We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.



Teenagers are afraid to ask for contraception.  I want my daughter to have protection first and foremost.  Other issues can be dealt with but a baby is forever.  Basically, we want our kids to get through high school without doing anything to irrevocably screw up their lives.  My daughter's emotional well-being is going to be messed with a whole lot more if she becomes pregnant while in school.

Teenage sex, by and large, is not that big a deal.  I had sex as a teenager, in the age before legal abortions.  I used precautions but it was scary.  My life would have been a whole lot less stressful if I had had access to birth control.  I made sure my daughter had access to birth control at an early age.  She is now 23, and has never really had to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

One of the unintended consequences of the abstinence movement is that young girls who have taken the virginity pledge, are now having annal sex and performing oral sex because, as long as their hymen is still intact, the girls are technically virgins.  I would rather my daughter have a normal sexual relationship with her boyfriend that engage in high risk annal sex.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Delia said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Delia said:
> ...



And that is a responsible action to take and I support you entirely in that decision.  Those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to be parents are no more worthy of contempt than are those who are unable to be parents and those who, for whatever reason, should not be parents and take measures to prevent that.  We are blessed to live in a society in which prevention of pregancy is fairly simple to accomplish.

As for unwanted children or those for whom the parent is unable to provide, pre Roe v Wade the responsible - and loving - choices was to give the child to somebody who was prepared to love, nurture, and give that child every advantage.   And pre Roe v Wade, there were far more parents who wanted such children than there were children available to adopt.   There still are now, but now the reason isn't because most people waited until marriage to become pregnant, but because since Roe v Wade, we have killed more than 56 million babies.

I can't imagine how anybody could see that as a good thing.


----------



## Newby (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What is the downside?  You're a parent and you have to ask that question?  Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives?   You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant?  You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age?  Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay?  Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal.  We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.
> ...



As far as teenage pregnancy, I think the problem with our society is that it is overwhelmingly lazy.  Parents don't want to be parents any longer, they don't want to do the hard work and make the hard decisions where their kids are concerned.  We didn't have this issue a generation or two ago, why is that?  What's changed?  Tell me why or how life is better this way?   You're talking about teenage girls having anal and oral sex, when my grandmother's generation would have never even known what those things were in their teens.  We're a depraved society, and all everyone does is applaud it and say how great it is.  The path we're on is not a good one.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want?  Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't.  And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.

And when having a kid is the way to get out of the house, get subsidized housing, get a government check every month, etc. etc. etc., how can that not be seen as an attractive option to the undereducated and disadvantaged among teen girls?   And what opportunistic guy , who will never be held accountable for the 'deed' even if he is named, is going to say no the girl willing to be 'serviced'?

Such is our world since Roe v Wade.

Unfortunately most of the statistics from the pre Roe v Wade era don't differentiate between those who got married as teens and those who got pregnant without benefit of marriage.  If they had kept better records of teenage pregnancy among unmarried teens, I am almost certain the pregnancy rates would be a small fraction of what they are now.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want?  Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't.  And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.



Ah, nostalgia for things that never were.  Anybody who thinks that teenagers didn't have sex in the days before abortion is dreaming in technicolor.  Why do you think there were back alley abortions? 

The difference is back in the 50's and 60's, if a girl became pregnant, she was sent to a home for unwed mothers to have her baby and put it up for adoption.  Or there was a hurried marriage.  In any case she was expelled from school.  The boys did not face expulsion if their girlfriend got pregnant.

Of course girls and their mothers often disappeared for three mongths and when they returned, the girl had a new baby brother or sister.  Happened all of the time.

There is no shortage of children available for adoption today.  There is a shortage of healthy white babies available for adoption, and contrary to what you've been told, that's not because of the number of abortions.  It's because white girls keep their babies today.  There is no stigma to having a child out of wedlock as there was when I was growing up, any with the advances in paternity testing, guys can't just claim the girl was loose and it's not their kid.  White girls keep their babies today because they can.  When I was a teenager, you didn't have that option.


----------



## Delia (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want?  Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't.  And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.
> ...



In addition, there were lots. And lots. AND LOTS of housewives having abortions. This isn't all about teens.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want?  Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't.  And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.
> ...



I was a virgin when I graduated highschool.  Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them.  My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool.  He also believes most of his friends were too.  The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture.   Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool.  There are degrees of everything.

Yes more young single parents--race has nothing to do with it--keep their babies now.  Some did 'back then' too.  They had as much option as they do now, but it was not as socially acceptable then as it is now.  Thus, the vast majority of kids in school had two parents in the home.  Now, most kids in many schools are being raised by single parents.  A large percentage of those are single parents who have never been married.

Now you might see that as enlightened compared to the way things used to be.  I'm sorry but I don't.  I think the fact that so many these days don't have two loving parents in the home--parents who are married and committed to each other for the long haul--is a huge reason for many of the problems we now have.  Problems that were much more rare 'back then'.  Back pre Roe v Wade.

Don't give me the lecture about how 'backward' things were back then.  There are things, attitudes, concepts now that are an improvement.  But not all change is good.  And everything 'back then' was not bad.

The truly enlightened are able to recognize the unintended negative consequences of good intentions in all eras.

Twenty five percent of children being raised by single parents--that number is 72 percent of black children--is not something any society should be proud of.   A majority of Fifty six million aborted babies is not something any society should be proud of.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Delia said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Liberals need racism.  That way they can forget about thousands of Chinese and Indian children.  It is very difficult for white families to adopt a black child in the US.  It requires a detailed parenting plan and continuing monitoring by social services to make sure the child gows up culturally black.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I was a virgin when I graduated highschool.  Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them.  My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool.  He also believes most of his friends were too.  The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture.   Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool.  There are degrees of everything.



I told everyone that I was a virgin too.  Nobody I knew ever admitted to having sex.  It would destroy your reputation.  Some of my friends I know were virgins, some were not, but if anybody asked, we were all virgins.



Foxfyre said:


> Yes more young single parents--race has nothing to do with it--keep their babies now.  Some did 'back then' too.  They had as much option as they do now, but it was not as socially acceptable then as it is now.  Thus, the vast majority of kids in school had two parents in the home.  Now, most kids in many schools are being raised by single parents.  A large percentage of those are single parents who have never been married.



My daughter went all through public school as the only kid in her class whose parents are still together.  I was both appalled and saddened by this but wishing it were different is not going to make it so, and sorry but few of these kids came from single parent homes.  Most are children of divorce.



Foxfyre said:


> Now you might see that as enlightened compared to the way things used to be.  I'm sorry but I don't.  I think the fact that so many these days don't have two loving parents in the home--parents who are married and committed to each other for the long haul--is a huge reason for many of the problems we now have.  Problems that were much more rare 'back then'.  Back pre Roe v Wade.



I disagree.  I saw a lot of people staying in bad marriages and the kids suffer for it, more than if they divorced.  Further, those with bad marriages as examples, tend to repeat their parents mistakes.  I know of people who stayed in loveless marriages for the sake of the children.  What sort of an example does that set for their son.  How will he ever know what a healthy loving relationship is.  I know my friend feels she did the right thing by her child, but when he marries, how will he know how to be a loving man to his wife?

I raised two children as a single mother, and one in a committed relationship.  Being married is easier, but in terms of raising healthy, well-adjusted adults, one good parent is better than two unhappy ones.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Maybe so, but that is not primarily thanks to parents, it's our society.    Like it or not.   But you are welcome to join the Amish I suppose.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I was a virgin when I graduated highschool.  Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them.  My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool.  He also believes most of his friends were too.  The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture.   Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool.  There are degrees of everything.
> ...



Please understand I am not judging you or anybody else.  Sure some lied about whether they were having sex, but most didn't.  The fact that it would 'ruin your reputation' if you had what the boys called 'round heels' in that earlier time is a reflection of the culture.  Promiscuity was not accepted as 'normal' or 'okay' back then.   And men were most attracted to women with similar values they could respect and they were expected to treat them with respect rather than just viewing women as a warm place to put it. 

Nor am I saying that single parents cannot be wonderful parents.  I know many who are.   I am saying that children benefit from having a loving mother and father in the home.  I am saying that most child poverty is due to single parenthood and most children who get into serious trouble, do poorly in school, etc. etc. etc. are children of single parents.  That is NOT sayng that ALL children of single parents are unlikely to succeed or that MOST single parents do a crappy job of parenting.

Nor am I saying that all traditional marriages are good marriages.  I grew up in probably the most dysfunctional family among all myr peers.  I was abused by my father and endured the alcoholism of my mother.  Would I have been better off under different circumstances?  Of course I would.   But neither was my situation the norm of families back then.  The fact that there were some dysfunctional or bad parents does not extrapolate to the traditional family, on average,not  being the best circumstance for rearing children.

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.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Of course I care about these things.   And I know from experience with my oldest that she did come and talk to us about these things.    But I also know from a lifetime of experience (and you know I am right about this if you are honest) that most teens will not go to their parents.    Some may scrounge some condoms but rarely do they get anything more.   

And again I ask, what is the downside?   When you get down off your high horse you might see that I am more concerned about my kids well being than I am my personal pride and inability to personally deal with every situation my kids run into.

I know plenty of parents as a scoutmaster, who will tell me all day long they know exactly what their boys are doing.   And I can tell most of them they have no clue.    I'm sure there are plenty of things my own kids do that I never hear about.

So when I say this I don't mean it personally but it boils down to arrogance.   The arrogance to think your kids will always come to mommy or daddy.   The arrogance to think that you always will know when is the right time to give them a good talk.   

What we are talking about is help in time of need.   But because it is tied into that most intimate of topics, parents immediately think it is their domain and theirs alone.   But that is a dangerous approach.   As any 35 year old grandmother will tell you. 

I would tell any parent to always assume the worst and hope for the best.   As we teach in scouts, prepare them for the worst.   And I couldn't care less where that preparedness or aid comes from so long as they get it.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jan 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Delia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Delia said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



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&#8217;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.
> 
> ...



FactCheck.org: Abortion Distortions


----------



## sealadaigh (Jan 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Delia said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2013)

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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> 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.



Katzndogz said:


> 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.



Katzndogz said:


> 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.



Katzndogz said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*



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.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

There are more reasons for The ideals or lack of morality in todays young adults than the discussion can go into but back to the topic of the real world before Roe v Wade:
There were abortions - many of them. Before medical practice there was the old woman who lived alone that knew which herbs to mix and how to administer them to cause a miscarriage. She was then replaced by medical doctors who had less knoledge but were the accepted "experts in the field. After many years the medical field found ways to cause the miscarriages that they were trying to prevent. An abortion does not require that the uterine wall be scraped unless it has gone beyond a certain point. Before that time it can be performed with a flushing of the uterine cavity a solution of chemicals that can be found in every household. The flush does not injure (permanently damage) the uterus but denies the ability of the zygot to survive. Beyond that point the fetus can only be aborted by mechanical intervention. Fast forward to the modern age (after WW II). The rich could get an abortion that was safe and properly performed either through their own doctor illegally or by going to a place where it was legal. The middle class and poor were less able to make choices due only to their financial position. They could go away to have the baby out of their neighbors eyes and adopt it out which was quite common (there are "unwed" mother homes all over the USA that have been closed now) or there was the "Dr." that some knew and the fact that he wasn't really a doctor didn't matter because he was very good at what he did. If you were less connected there wasn't even that choice. There was a guy (or woman) who would do the scraping for less money but there was nothing about him that anyone knew. Raising a "bastard" child was even less of a choice. The stigma would follow not only the mother but the child into adulthood. Just before the case was brought to the attention of the supreme court there was a year of finding women, of all ages and ethnicity, lying in alleys bleeding to death or  with infections so severe that they were life threatening. Thousands of women were killed by the "back alley butchers" for a few dollars each. This was the reality of the time before Roe v Wade.
Wives, sisters, daughter and friends dying or horribly mutilated because they were too ashamed to admit that they had gotten pregnant. 
If abortion were banned those slaughters would return - even though it may be more acceptable today to have sex out of wedlock and maybe a bit more acceptable to have a child out of wedlock the "abortionist" would return by "popular demand". The rich could still get abortions outside the country but the rest would have to find another way.
Birth control is great... for those who can use it and it is 99.9% effective as long as it is used properly. Condomes should be used in any casual "hook-up" if for no other reason than to prevent STDs. The problem with condoms is that some people don't like them - mostly men but women too - because they reduce sensation. There is also the "unplanned" sexual encounter where the passion (lust) of the moment over-rides good judgement. This even happens in on-going relationships.
In a perfect world, with perfect people, under perfect circumstances there would be no need for alternatives to lasting, heathy, relationships that bring happy children into loving homes but we don't live in a perfect world and we aren't all perfect people (those of us who are detest those who think they are  ) and the circumstances that we put ourselves in are rarely perfect. What we have to deal with are that the morals we have (or hope we have) cannot and should not be forced upon those with different moral attitudes. We have laws in place to prevent the taking of recognizable human life. In the grey areas (the beginnings of a human life) we have to make our own moral decisions. It MUST be a personal choice however abhorant it may be to those of us with different moral standards. No one but the woman in the situation knows what her abilities and circumstances might be, so the decision has to be left in her hands. We don't force doctors to perform the procedures but we allow those, whose morals allow them to perform the medical procedure, the freedom to help women under the limitations of the law. In most religions there is a tenant that precludes us from judging the moral decisions of others and some believe that leaves us the right to judge people by their actions - it does not. We simply have neither the understanding nor the compassion of G_d. 
Treasure your own morals and make your decisions whithin that structure and in good conscience. Allow others to do the same. Trust that if punishment is due, it will be given by the supreme Judge. when you are free of all transgressions, only then can you say that others are not. 
This entire argument is one of faith. No matter what evidence is produced the faith of the individual will not be swayed. Faith neither requires proof nor is it affected by proof. Allowing people to be who they are is sometimes the only path.


----------



## Delia (Jan 26, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> There are more reasons for The ideals or lack of morality in todays young adults than the discussion can go into but back to the topic of the real world before Roe v Wade:
> 
> There were abortions - many of them. Before medical practice there was the old woman who lived alone that knew which herbs to mix and how to administer them to cause a miscarriage. She was then replaced by medical doctors who had less knowledge but were the accepted "experts in the field. After many years the medical field found ways to cause the miscarriages that they were trying to prevent. An abortion does not require that the uterine wall be scraped unless it has gone beyond a certain point. Before that time it can be performed with a flushing of the uterine cavity a solution of chemicals that can be found in every household. The flush does not injure (permanently damage) the uterus but denies the ability of the zygot to survive. Beyond that point the fetus can only be aborted by mechanical intervention. Fast forward to the modern age (after WW II). The rich could get an abortion that was safe and properly performed either through their own doctor illegally or by going to a place where it was legal. The middle class and poor were less able to make choices due only to their financial position. They could go away to have the baby out of their neighbors eyes and adopt it out which was quite common (there are "unwed" mother homes all over the USA that have been closed now) or there was the "Dr." that some knew and the fact that he wasn't really a doctor didn't matter because he was very good at what he did. If you were less connected there wasn't even that choice. There was a guy (or woman) who would do the scraping for less money but there was nothing about him that anyone knew. Raising a "bastard" child was even less of a choice. The stigma would follow not only the mother but the child into adulthood. Just before the case was brought to the attention of the supreme court there was a year of finding women, of all ages and ethnicity, lying in alleys bleeding to death or  with infections so severe that they were life threatening. Thousands of women were killed by the "back alley butchers" for a few dollars each. This was the reality of the time before Roe v Wade.
> 
> ...



Sorry, my eyes rebelled. It's a good post - I just added a double-space for paragraphs.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

Pretending that a different culture never existed, pointing to 'irrisistible passion' or failure of contraceptives, or preferring no contraceptives, or that illegal abortions happened in the past, or that people value life any less now than what was once the norm--all can be supported by one's personal experience or anecdotal evidence or justify immorality on the basis that everybody didn't have a perfect marriage, or any other argument you want to make . . . .

. . . .All that does not change the fact that 54+ million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade and continue to be aborted at a steady average of 1.2 million babies every single year.

Anybody who wants to make an argument that we were anywhere close to that sorry and depressing figure prior to Roe v Wade go for it.  But you'll have to look far and wide for any evidence to back it up.

We currently live in an infanticide culture and if you think that is okay, well that's what you think.

I will still pray for and argue for a return to a strong sense of value for human life and a time when women are not judged on how much the guys want to get into her pants, but is judged on her character and self respect.  And our young girls were taught and appreciated that concept that was reinforced at home, at school, by their peers, in the media, and the American culture in general.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Pretending that a different culture never existed, pointing to 'irrisistible passion' or failure of contraceptives, or preferring no contraceptives, or that illegal abortions happened in the past, or that people value life any less now than what was once the norm--all can be supported by one's personal experience or anecdotal evidence or justify immorality on the basis that everybody didn't have a perfect marriage, or any other argument you want to make . . . .
> 
> . . . .All that does not change the fact that 54+ million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade and continue to be aborted at a steady average of 1.2 million babies every single year.
> 
> ...



I will pray with you for a strong sense of value and a return to a morality that I feel is correct but I will also continue to say that only the woman involved can make a moral decision for herself. 

I raised my children to respect themselves and authority and the four of them turned out very well. It was they who learned what they did from my instructions - I just supported them along the way. That is all parents can do is to show the difference between right and wrong and support the good decisions their children make while correcting them when they choose unwisely. I was deeply involved with my children - even after a divorce and we are very close. My children honor me for the way they turned out and all I can say is "I am proud of what they have done with their lives."


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Jan 26, 2013)

Abortion "should be" a personal issue, not a legal issue at all. 

But I digress...

Someone posted that only male DNA should be taken at birth. That seems a little bit segregationist in our great and diverse salad bowl. Why would a rational policy exclude women? My understanding is that women have value as well.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Pretending that a different culture never existed, pointing to 'irrisistible passion' or failure of contraceptives, or preferring no contraceptives, or that illegal abortions happened in the past, or that people value life any less now than what was once the norm--all can be supported by one's personal experience or anecdotal evidence or justify immorality on the basis that everybody didn't have a perfect marriage, or any other argument you want to make . . . .
> ...



All of us have to make our own choices.  A society with shared values and reverence for life, respect, dignity, and a positive sense of self worth makes it much easier to make the best choices, however.

A society that thinks 54+ million aborted babies is okay will not be a society that encourages anybody to make the best choices.

But I notice that some of those arguing that those 54+ million aborted babies are a good thing are now resorting to personally insulting those who don't.  That's a pretty good indication they're out of ammo.

So I declare this debate a win for the pro life crowd.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

I declare you unsuited to make such a declaration. There have not been 54 million babies aborted there have been 54 million pregnancies artificially aborted. 
What you still fail to see is that, whether we like it or not, the definition of when human life begins has not and is likely never to be agreed upon. Hence I would suggest that the debate is still awash in controversy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I declare you unsuited to make such a declaration. There have not been 54 million babies aborted there have been 54 million pregnancies artificially aborted.
> What you still fail to see is that, whether we like it or not, the definition of when human life begins has not and is likely never to be agreed upon. Hence I would suggest that the debate is still awash in controversy.



I submit that I made an excellent case that an abortion ends a human life.  We call a very young human a baby.  Trust me, having gone through pregnancies, those were babies I was bringing to full term.  And the one I lost, was no less a human life.

Nobody on the more unlimited pro choice side has been willing to even address, much less discuss, the point that there is no stage of human life from conception and the fertilized egg attaching itself to the uterine wall that is any less critical or important to a human life. than any other  You simply cannot realistically separate the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus from the process and still arrive with a full term living, breathing baby.   And if you want 'viability' to be the standard for who deserves to live and who doesn't, that newborn baby is no more viable without complete and total care from another human than he or she was when still developing in the womb.

But evenso,  as an old debate judge, any debater who can't make his case without insulting his/her opponent, automatically loses the debate.  Passion simply isn't a sufficient argument.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Jan 26, 2013)

There is no case, let alone an "excellent" case that abortion ends a human life. Life begins with the first breath. End of that story. 

The real story here is religious zealots attempting to inflict a particular persuasion's beliefs on others. Hilariously even the Bible doesn't back them, and of course the Constitution is silent on the issue, so all of the mumbo jumbo is made up. 

Next.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> There is no case, let alone an "excellent" case that abortion ends a human life. Life begins with the first breath. End of that story.
> 
> The real story here is religious zealots attempting to inflict a particular persuasion's beliefs on others. Hilariously even the Bible doesn't back them, and of course the Constitution is silent on the issue, so all of the mumbo jumbo is made up.
> 
> Next.



Sorry, but that baby in my womb was very much the same person he or she was an hour later when he or she was officially born.  And every component of that baby was present in the fertilized egg that attached itself to the uterine wall.   You cannot point to any stage of the entire process that was not part of a human life or necessary to it.

If you want to make this a diatribe against religious zealots, I suggest you find a different thread.  I don't believe anybody who is seriously debating the topic on this thread has made religion in any form the basis for defending the unborn.  I know I haven't.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> *Abortion "should be" a personal issue, not a legal issue at all.*
> 
> But I digress...
> 
> Someone posted that only male DNA should be taken at birth. That seems a little bit segregationist in our great and diverse salad bowl. Why would a rational policy exclude women? My understanding is that women have value as well.



Agreed. 

Nor should it be a political issue. 

Unfortunately it is. 

Unfortunately there are lawmakers who for whatever reason, either an ignorance of, or contempt for, privacy rights jurisprudence, attempt to enact restrictive abortion measures offensive to the Constitution. 

And sadly many lawmakers pursue such legislation fully aware that the proposed law is un-Constitutional, seeking to provoke a court challenge only to realize some perceived political advantage. 

In theory, and ideally, this should rarely, if ever, become a legal matter, where its incumbent upon lawmakers to seek legislation only in good faith, and propose laws that comport with the Founding Document.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> All of us have to make our own choices.  A society with shared values and reverence for life, respect, dignity, and a positive sense of self worth makes it much easier to make the best choices, however.



How can the US be a society of "shared values" when it is ethnically and religiously diverse, and in general, people are required to take individual responsibility?  Your idea that we must get back to these shared values assumes that Americans EVER shared these values.  They don't and they never did.  There were always various religions, races, and ethnic backgrounds with different traditions and values, right from the beginning.



Foxfyre said:


> A society that thinks 54+ million aborted babies is okay will not be a society that encourages anybody to make the best choices.



As has been pointed out, in countries with abortion on demand, birth control and sex education for teenagers with no opting out, has substantially fewer abortions than the US.  As long as you continue to put roadblocks in the way of teenagers behaving responsibly and preach abstinence only, you will continue to see these high numbers.

Unless you are prepared to provide real financial support for pregnant women, including medical care, it will continue to be necessary for poor women to abort children they cannot afford to give birth to or raise.  Abortion is cheaper than childbirth.

Conservative policies and practices are responsible for the high abortion rate in the US.  Social democracies with government funded health care and strong social safety nets, are aborting fetuses in far fewer numbers than American women are.  

As long as conservatives oppose the notion of a social democracy, you're going to have to live with the idea that women will continue to abort fetuses in large numbers.  You can have abortion or you can have a strong social safety net which encourages women to carry their babies to term, but you cannot have both.  As long as women cannot financially afford to have and raise babies, whether married or single, abortion numbers will be high. 



Foxfyre said:


> So I declare this debate a win for the pro life crowd.



Delusional.  You have demonstrated a distinct hatred of women.  You want to punish women for having sex and making what YOU consider to be poor choices.  And you want their children to suffer for it with the stigma of being unwanted.  That's not pro-life, that's anti-women.  Misogny, pure and simple.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > I declare you unsuited to make such a declaration. There have not been 54 million babies aborted there have been 54 million pregnancies artificially aborted.
> ...



You did make an excellent case that abortion ends a pregnancy but you have not proven or offered anything, other than your opinion, that a human life is extinguished. You have made it abundantly clear that you believe life begins at conception and whether I agree or not it is just a matter of faith until you can prove when the "breath of G_d" enters that life.

I am sorry about your loss of a child - that is a tramatic event to live through. You must have felt an enormous loss. Were you able to have a funeral? Sincerely, I empathize with your loss. My daughter shared your experience but was unable to bury the remains. It has left us all .... a bit wanting for the closure that is "normal".


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 26, 2013)

Those of us who suffer miscarriages never forget the loss.  I was fortunate when I miscarried because I was able to get pregnant again right and was about 6 months pregnant with my daughter, at the time the child I lost would have been born.  I still have the first ultra sound picture of the little zygot.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



Thank you.  I was not far along when I miscarried, but I had no doubt that it was a human life that was ended and I did feel a profound sense of loss.  My living children were not planned, and were definitely inconvenient at the time they were conceived, but they were welcomed with much love and are remarkable people and I can't imagine a world without them in it.

It is not a matter of faith that infants have surved outside the womb with a fairly good survival rate at six months.  A German premie born in November, 2010,  survived at 21 weeks, 5 days.    For the math challenged, that would be just under five months in the womb.   She went home four months later as a healthy seven pounder with an excellent prognosis to live a perfectly normal life.  If you have ever spent any time in a hospital with the preemies, you can see how hard they fight for life.

By eight weeks the baby has a brain and a heartbeat and can respond to pleasure and pain.

So for me, that life in the womb is a human life and no human lives without going through that process.

And the fact that we aren't privy to know when God breathes life into any person is not a good argument for me to approve aborting 54+ million babies since Roe v Wade.  I just can't understand how anybody would see that as a good thing.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Thank you.  I was not far along when I miscarried, but I had no doubt that it was a human life that was ended and I did feel a profound sense of loss.  My living children were not planned, and were definitely inconvenient at the time they were conceived, but they were welcomed with much love and are remarkable people and I can't imagine a world without them in it.



Our personal experiences are quite similar.  I experienced two miscarriages, one pregnancy was planned, the other was not.  My loss and my grief were the same for both.  My son was conceived at the worst possible time, my marriage was hanging by a thread, and ended before his second birthday.  There was no question as to whether or not I would have this baby and being a Canadian, that choice was mine to make.



Foxfyre said:


> It is not a matter of faith that infants have surved outside the womb with a fairly good survival rate at six months.  A German premie born in November, 2010,  survived at 21 weeks, 5 days.    For the math challenged, that would be just under five months in the womb.   She went home four months later as a healthy seven pounder with an excellent prognosis to live a perfectly normal life.  If you have ever spent any time in a hospital with the preemies, you can see how hard they fight for life.



This is a rare outcome.  What is more common is the children are left with physical or mental disabilities which require a lifelong care and treatment.  In the US, parents often abandon such children to the state in the hopes they are able to provide for the needs of the child, which the parents can't, and the parents are saddled with the debt of the child's medical expenses.  Hardly a good start for anyone.



Foxfyre said:


> By eight weeks the baby has a brain and a heartbeat and can respond to pleasure and pain.
> 
> So for me, that life in the womb is a human life and no human lives without going through that process.
> 
> And the fact that we aren't privy to know when God breathes life into any person is not a good argument for me to approve aborting 54+ million babies since Roe v Wade.  I just can't understand how anybody would see that as a good thing.



I believe all of this as well and as a result, I have never had an abortion, nor would I ever had had an abortion.  For me, this is my choice.  I am personally opposed to abortion, so I never had one.  My oldest daughter became pregnant at age 16.  She doesn't believe in abortion either, so I have a grandson who is one year older than my youngest daughter.  

My youngest daughter is 23, and she doesn't believe in abortion either so she is very careful about birth control.  

This is how the women in my family honour OUR beliefs.  But we don't try to impose them on others or try to prevent people from doing what they believe is right.  I don't have the right to tell others how to live their lives or what they should believe, and neither do you.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

I have a grandson that was born at 29 weeks. He was born the size of a "Ken" doll and had a tough time. Now he is grown to adolescence and is unstoppable. He was born after my daughter's miscarriage. His birth almost killed them both but her faith was strong - stronger than mine. 

Now you all know a part of me that I rarely show to others. It is faith that tells you that a child is alive in you. On the other side of this is that legal abortion apply mostly to the first trimester  -  12 weeks not a viable life outside the womb. That is not meant to try to justify anything - just a fact. Even with that it still remains a personal choice for each woman - her faith - her choice - her life. No one else could tell you what to believe - you can't either. I admire your stand and even agree but I don't believe I have the right to make a decision for others.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 26, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I have a grandson that was born at 29 weeks. He was born the size of a "Ken" doll and had a tough time. Now he is grown to adolescence and is unstoppable. He was born after my daughter's miscarriage. His birth almost killed them both but her faith was strong - stronger than mine.
> 
> Now you all know a part of me that I rarely show to others. It is faith that tells you that a child is alive in you. On the other side of this is that legal abortion apply mostly to the first trimester  -  12 weeks not a viable life outside the womb. That is not meant to try to justify anything - just a fact. Even with that it still remains a personal choice for each woman - her faith - her choice - her life. No one else could tell you what to believe - you can't either. I admire your stand and even agree but I don't believe I have the right to make a decision for others.



Nor do I have a right to make a decision for others.  But I have every right to mourn the death of 54+ million babies since Roe v Wade.  I have every right to try to change hearts and minds to see those as human beings and not just clumps of cells.  I have every right to speak on behalf of the most helpless among us who cannot yet speak for themselves.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 26, 2013)

I wish you strength, courage and above all love in your crusade.
I have only love and courage left and I seek the peace of G_d now. I will not try to change the minds of others on matters of faith - that crusade is over for me. I am no longer that warrior.
So, all I can do is wish you the peace that is His alone to give and hope for a better tomorrow.
blessings, 
Paul


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Nor do I have a right to make a decision for others.  But I have every right to mourn the death of 54+ million babies since Roe v Wade.  I have every right to try to change hearts and minds to see those as human beings and not just clumps of cells.  I have every right to speak on behalf of the most helpless among us who cannot yet speak for themselves.



In other words, you insist upon your right to inflict your views on others and try to intervene in decisions that are none of your business.  Because you're right and we're not.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> 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.



So, what is your point?    I'm not arguing when life begins.    Of course it does.

I'm saying it is not murder early on.    That bunch of cells is a potential human, but so is a unused sperm and egg.   



> 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.



And it often meant a lot of miserable marriages.   The divorce rate was lower, not because people were happier, but because divorce was right up there on the list of cardinal sins. 



> 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.



Right.  I think your view of America never existed anywhere on TV.   Yes kids were taught those things.   But men often would beat their wives and the wives had no options.   Children were molested and it was shoved under the carpet.  

It was a society that pretended everything was okay and ignored the deep problems under the surface.



> That was pre Roe v Wade.



Yes it was.  



> 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.



Except that it isn't in some red states right now.  



> 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.



I understand.   And it is a lovely picture you paint.    

But I think we need a culture that looks at reality and deals with the real issues people face.    There are things I don't like about our current culture.    But I would much rather have an open and honest society where people express their real wants and needs rather than hide them.

And there are dozens of ways our current culture is so much better than the stepford wives world of the 50's.


----------



## Newby (Jan 28, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



You seem to hate men, hate the traditional family, and you can't see past your hatred and bitterness. Why do you hate a traitional, stable, and loving family with both a mother and a father?  You pretty much go to the point of disparaging that traditional family?  You keep saying that 'it wasn't that way', perhaps for your own life it wasn't, but I don't see you posting any statistics to back up your claims either.  There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer.  You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up.  What is the single parent home rate?  What's the abortion rate?  What's the teen pregnancy rate?  How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today?  How many single mothers are living in poverty?  How many kids are dropping out of high school?  How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today?   You call that 'progress'?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Newby said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I don't see that.   People have a tendency to paint a rosey picture of the past.   You ask for statistics?   How many statistics are there likely to be for unreported child and spousal abuse?

But everyone knows it happened.   



> There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer.  You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up.  What is the single parent home rate?



What is wrong with that?   The real problem is poverty in single parent homes, which is a seperate issue.



> What's the teen pregnancy rate?



Unchanged in decades. 



> How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today?



Unchanged in decades.



> How many single mothers are living in poverty?



I agree this is a problem.  



> How many kids are dropping out of high school?



This is improving.



> How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today?



Again, a problem but it is improving.



> You call that 'progress'?



I think you misunderstand the problem as do most people.   There have been a great deal of positive changes.    But the shift in societal norms, any shift, creates problems that we have not worked out yet.   That does not make the shift wrong just different.

Here is an example.   

Woman given equality under the law.   Generally a good thing most people support.

But it means more people in the workplace, driving down wages.    It also means more kids home alone.  It means more divorce because woman aren't subject to their husbands any more.  

Do we revert back to the way it was?    I don't think so.

And there are a dozen more examples.   The internet has huge positives and massive negatives.   But the reality is it isn't going anywhere.  

And the list goes on and on and on.    But this is the world we live in.   So we deal with the real issues.   Pining for another time will not accomplish anything.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:

It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.'  Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?

It is tragic that we have become a culture with so many who close their eyes to 54+ million aborted babies and use all manner of anecdotal or unsuppportable numbers to approve a steady rate of well over a million aborted babies year after year.

It is sad that those who are advocates for the unborn;/ those who appeal for the value of human life; those who see the traditional family as the best situation for most children and also a deterrant to most abortion. . . .it is these being accused of 'hating women' or designated by other unattractive, and mostly ridiculous negative adjectives..

It is an indication of an increasingly selfish, me too, and  effectively heartless culture that those who speak for the unborn and who value human life in all its stages of devleopment are being assigned the role of villain by some.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 28, 2013)

Newby said:


> You seem to hate men, hate the traditional family, and you can't see past your hatred and bitterness. Why do you hate a traitional, stable, and loving family with both a mother and a father?  You pretty much go to the point of disparaging that traditional family?  You keep saying that 'it wasn't that way', perhaps for your own life it wasn't, but I don't see you posting any statistics to back up your claims either.



Well there are the Kinsey Reports on Human Sexuality which were very ground breaking:

Kinsey Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been happily married to the same wonderful man for nearly 29 years and I believe in strong families.  But I also know that 50% of all marriages fail, so to suggest if we just go back to strong united two-parent families, everything will be fine is ridiculous because it's not going to happen.  Your whole solution for the abortion "problem" is to go back to the way things were in the 1950's.  That is simply not possible.

You may think things were wonderful back then.  I didn't and I don't think any modern woman wants to go back there.  I grew up in a small town with one movie screen that was only open on weekends.  I grew up in the exactly the kind of home you describe with 5 brothers and sisters.  TV was black & white and we had two channels.  Our neighbours had a big roof antennae and they could get 5 channels.  We envied them.

Your desire to return to a simpler time when things were less complicated is understandable, but the reality is that the world we grew up in is gone and we can't get it back, even if we wanted to.



Newby said:


> There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer.  You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up.  What is the single parent home rate?  What's the abortion rate?  What's the teen pregnancy rate?  How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today?  How many single mothers are living in poverty?  How many kids are dropping out of high school?  How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today?   You call that 'progress'?



I don't see single parent families as a big problem.  I raised two strong, healthy, productive children as a single parent.  I know lots of wonderful people who grew up in single parents homes and they turned out just fine.

Today's culture is hardly a mess.  The problems you speak of are AMERICAN PROBLEMS.  We don't have many of these problems in Canada because of our social safety net and access to medical care.  We teach our children about sexual health without all of the voodoo morality attached to it so they have accurate biological information.  Teaching abstinence only is a sure-fire way to arouse curiosity.  

I've already told you how you can cut abortions, but you reject the ideas because they don't support your notion of returning to the 1950's.  Try reading this:

How I Lost My Fear of Universal Health Care | RH Reality Check

In order to make changes, you can't expect things to go back to the way they were.  You have to start where things really are and work with that.  Right now, American teenagers need hard facts and access to birth control in order to cut the abortion rate.  If you are unwilling to push for that, they I have nothing further to say to you.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:
> 
> It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.'  Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?
> 
> ...



It's not a role of villain.    It's a role of someone looking for a time that didn't exist.   

I don't know if you were responding to me or others, but the problem with most that are pro life is their position is often inflexible and based upon a morality they imagined existed but really didn't.    I understand why.   They firmly believe in their position that abortion is murder.    I get that.

What I don't get is their insistence that if only we went back to the way things were in the 50's all our problems would be solved. 

There is a reason things changed.   An awful lot of people were not happy with the status quot.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:
> ...



I was directing my comments in the interest of general discussion and was not targeting anybody in particular.  But the content was specific to comments that have been made here in the last day or two.

I disagree that I refer to a time that never existed.  I am old enough to have lived in both cultures.  And I can assure you, that earlier time did exist as much as the pro choice with no restrictions group wants to believe that it did not.  Was it universal?  Of course not, nor have I made any effort to suggest that it was.  But was it the norm for the culture of that time?  Yes it was.

I don't believe a single one of us pro-lifers has even hinted that going back to that previous culture would solve all our problems.  I certainly haven't, and don't recall a single other person making that argument.  Building such straw men in an effort to discredit the opposition is not helpful to the debate.

And yes, there is a reason that things changed.  But the question remains.  Was the change to benefit women?   If it was, in my opinion it did not.  Roughly half of those 54+ milllion aborted babies were female.   Was the change to benefit kids?   If it was, in my opinion it did not as the ratio of children living with single parents is unprecedented in the American culture.  And those kids are far more likely to be school dropouts, live in poverty, get involved with gangs, experiment with controlled substances, get in trouble with the law, and get pregnant or cause a pregnancy than was ever the case in that culture you say never existed.

And since Roe v Wade, 54+ milllion kids were never allowed to live at all.  That is a number that in my opinion should be apalling to everybody.

Disclaimer:  I have not even hinted that ALL kids raised by single parents have been disadvantaged or that single parents are not capable of being strong, competent parents.   I have made a very strong point that I know single parents who have done a great job raising their kids.   But that does not change the fact that within the big picture and all of society, a home with a loving mom and dad is the very best circumstance for any child.  Building a straw man that an argument for the traditional family is somehow putting down the single parent is not useful for the debate.

Disclaimer:  I have not even hinted that there weren't negatives in that former culture or that some things are not better now.  But building an unsupportable straw man that it was all negatives back then is also not useful for the debate.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 28, 2013)

'The Rise of DIY Abortions'  *'An Idaho woman could change the course of American abortion law'*   By Ada Calhoun

The Rise of DIY Abortions | New Republic

"Techniques for terminating a pregnancy can be found in the Bible, on Egyptian papyrus, and in Chinese records dating to around 500 B.C. There are too many to list, but women have attempted home abortions with mercury, quinine, pennyroyal, iron sulfates, and a mixture of camel saliva and deer hair; Hippocrates once advised a prostitute to jump up and down.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, American women inserted knitting needles and other sharp objects into their cervixes to end unwanted pregnancies. They put dangerous drugs like the tissue-destroying potassium permanganate into their vaginas, which typically failed to terminate pregnancy but sometimes caused hemorrhage. Elihu Sussman, a retired New York City pediatrician who was working as a medical student at Boston City Hospital in the 1960s, says, There were thirty beds, and some of them were always filled with women who came in because of septic abortionsfour, five, six at any given time. His wife, Geraldine Sussman, was a student nurse at Bellevue in New York during the same period. Theyd use coat hangers, laundry detergent products, she says. A lot of them would rupture their uteruses and end up with hysterectomies. People now dont realize what it was like. It was awful.""


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> 'The Rise of DIY Abortions'  *'An Idaho woman could change the course of American abortion law'*   By Ada Calhoun
> 
> The Rise of DIY Abortions | New Republic
> 
> ...



But most women did not.  Most women took precautions against getting pregnant or got married and looked forward to their babies joining them in their world.  The fact that there were terrible things that happened back then is NOT a reason to celebrate 54+ million aborted babies now.   We can do better than we did back then.  And we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It isn't a straw man if you look at post from others here on this forum.   Perhaps that doesn't apply to you.   I never said it applied to everyone.   But it does apply to many who hold the pro life position.   

And of course the argument for a traditional family demeans those outside the traditional family.   How else can someone take it when the traditional family is vaunted as superior to what we have today?

I have nothing against the traditional family (I am part of one with my wife and 3 kids) but I do not see it as any better or worse than other family structures.   I have gay friends with perfectly normal kids.   I know single mothers and fathers who hold it together well and have raised normal kids.  

Personally I think our culture needs to stop picking winners and losers and accepting every choice (within the law) and move beyond them to finding solutions to root problems. 

And since you are fond of pointing out straw men, I would like to point out that many times in this thread I have said I would like to see the number of abortions reduced dramatically.   I've even proposed ways to accomplish this goal.   So alluding to my supposed indifference to the number of abortions is no less correct than those who would label your position as historically ignorant.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't believe that anyone celebrates 54 million abortions. I could be wrong but I don't believe even the woman who has the abortion celebrates it. It is a difficult decision to make and very difficult to live with after the fact. I would be willing to wager that some percentage of those who fight against abortion have had one and their anguish is their reason to fight so hard against it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions?   I don't believe I have accused you of that.  Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it.  Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem?  No, most haven't.  Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store.  Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them.  Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby.  I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all?   Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home.  Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids.  I have said that several times already in this thread.  So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings?   You really have to be kidding.   We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 29, 2013)

Your focus of the millions of people who never were.  My focus on the people who are here and now.  The greater tragedy is that these pregnancies happened in the first place in a day and an age where preventing pregnancy is relatively easy.  That in the richest nation on earth, low income women struggle to obtain medical care and contraception to prevent pregnancy.  That in the information age, teenagers are blocked from getting accurate information on how their bodies function and what they need to do to protect themselves is unconscionable.

You described today's young women as seeing themselves as the sum of their genitalia, a description I find disgusting and misogynistic.  In the 1950's, people believed that women didn't get aroused as easily as men, and women were always to blame if things "got out of hand".  The boys treated this a free license to try and get all they could, after all, they couldn't help it that they got aroused more quickly.  So if things did get out of hand, the girl was always to blame - the boys couldn't help themselves.  This is what we were taught in health class.  If things got out of hand, and we got in trouble, we had no one but ourselves to blame.

Kinsey's research in the late 40's and early 50's was the first time the doctors and lay people were introduced to the idea that women became just as aroused as men and were every bit as much sexual beings as men.  Initially the medical establishment said that these conclusions were false and that Kinsey's sampling included too many "deviants" and sex trade workers to be accurate.  Regular women weren't like that.  But subsequent research proved that Kinsey sampling and his research were valid.  Women are just as sexual as men, but that societal expectations had been so thoroughly imposed and ingrained that women had become sexually repressed from fighting urges that were perfectly natural. It's hardly surprising that once the birth control pill freed women from the fear of pregnancy, they were able to relax and enjoy sex with their partners for the first time.  

Marriages benefited from that too.  Couples could plan the size and spacing of their families, or postpone having children until they finished school, or established their careers.  Professional school were now taking more women, because they didn't drop out due to pregnancy, and they started entering the professions in droves.  I remember starting a new firm where I was introduced to the female partner (the one and only).  She was one of only two women who had ever been elected to the executive of the Law Society of Upper Canada.  She later became one of the first women in Canada to be appointed a judge.  I cannot fathom how she had managed to do all of this given the times and circumstances.  I am in awe of her.

As a child, I looked around at the narrow lives of the adult women around me.  I wanted travel and adventure, and I was called silly for it.  I was told I wanted to get married and raise children.  My mother suggested I train to be a nurse.  I had worked as a candy striper at the hospital and the nurses had the crap job.  If I was going to work at the hospital, I wanted to be a doctor.  I was told that only boys could be doctors.

As one of the first women bank managers in Canada, and the only one in my district, I attended a lot of management meetings were I was the first and only woman who had attended.  Men in these meetings would tell me I should never have been given that job.  I was blocking a good training position for some bright young man on his way up.  Today we call this "sexual harassment".

Yes, women are much better off today in nearly every way.  So are their children.  When I was trying to take out a second mortgage to pay out my ex-husband on the house, I was declined for a loan, not because I didn't make enough money, I didn't have equity, or because I had a bad credit history, but simply because I was a woman.  The mortgage officer said if I defaulted, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to put a woman and her children out on the street.  And that was all well and legal back then.  Today, he would be fired for doing that, and the company he worked for sued for discrimination.

I remember after my divorce wanting to join the local curling club (don't ask - it's a Canadian thing), primarily for business reasons and I was told I couldn't join.  The only way I could join the curling club would be if my husband joined.  It was suggested to me that if I could get the guy I was dating to join, the board might let me join as his spouse, but since we weren't living together, there were no guarantees.  The local golf club had similar stipulations.

Yes, women are much better off today in nearly every way.  So are their children.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

DL, you are attributing posts to me that I never made.  And you have ignored that I agree there were inequities in the 50's and 60's and 70's that needed to be corrected and have been corrected.  And you have ignored the argument I have made that there were definitely some positives in the 50's, 60's, and 70's too.    The fact that you were a single mother, and no doubt a very strong, capable, and effective parent, does not in any way diminish the value to children of having it best when there is a loving mother and father in the home.  It does not change the fact that an unacceptable number of children of single parents are disadvantaged in important ways and many wind up in trouble with the law, running with gangs, dropping out of school, getting pregnant, and are far more likely to live in poverty.

And it in no way changes or justifies 54+ million aborted babies that nobody should ever see as a good thing.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions?   I don't believe I have accused you of that.  Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it.  Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem?  No, most haven't.  Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.



No, of course you didn't.     You simply responded to my post and implied it. 



> Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store.  Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them.  Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby.  I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.
> 
> If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all?   Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home.  Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.
> 
> Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids.  I have said that several times already in this thread.  So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings?   You really have to be kidding.   We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.



So now it sounds like you basically agree with me.   Okay then.    That was informative.

Of course there are negatives to single parent households, but many of those are cultural.   Lack of child care for example.    

But I would agree with most of what you are saying.   But, the government already promotes 2 parent households in every way I know how and look where we are?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions?   I don't believe I have accused you of that.  Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it.  Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem?  No, most haven't.  Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.
> ...



No.  The government does NOT promote two parent families.  Other than a tax break for joint filers, the government has been promoting single parenthood ever since the so-called "Great Society" initiatives.    Single parents are eligible for all manner of government subsidies that most two parent homes are not.  Agencies that support single parent households get government funding while those promoting traditional families do not.   Alternate lifetstyles have been promoted and applauded while you never hear of the virtues of the traditional family from the bully pulpit.  It is considered politically incorrect and old fashioned to push getting married before you get pregnant and have kids.   Nobody even blinks anymore when yet another single celebrity announces a pregnancy--it is considered fashionable.   And it is a rare classroom in which any teacher will applaud the traditional family lest it hurt somebody's feelings who doesn't enjoy that.  And kids are being programmed to see the father as unnecessary and unimportant and the school is so approving of them having as much sex as they want that they get free condoms, no questions asked.   And, if those who get pregnant didn't plan it or change their mind, then have an abortion and all is well.

And I think that is a huge reason we have 54+ million aborted babies with more than a million additional every single year.

P.S.  I try very hard not to imply something.  I try to say my intent straight out.  When I say that 54+ million aborted babies should bother everybody, it is not an indictment of you until you say you don't have a problem with it.   When I say the traditional two-parent family is the very best circumstance for most kids, that is not saying that all single parents are bad parents and/or are incapable of successfully parenting their children nor is it saying that all traditional two-parent families are great.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Care to offer examples?   Because I have no idea what you are talking about.   

In our area (Western NY), a couple can get all the aid a single person can.   Aid is determined by income level and has nothing to do with marital status.  



> Alternate lifetstyles have been promoted and applauded while you never hear of the virtues of the traditional family from the bully pulpit.



By whom?   I hear it every time I listen to a mid west republican give a speech.   Alternative lifestyles are applauded simply because it wasn't that long ago that they were shunned.   

As is usually the case our culture over reacts.   Give it 20 years and things will normalize.  



> It is considered politically incorrect and old fashioned to push getting married before you get pregnant and have kids.   Nobody even blinks anymore when yet another single celebrity announces a pregnancy--it is considered fashionable.   And it is a rare classroom in which any teacher will applaud the traditional family lest it hurt somebody's feelings who doesn't enjoy that.  And kids are being programmed to see the father as unnecessary and unimportant and the school is so approving of them having as much sex as they want that they get free condoms, no questions asked.   And, if those who get pregnant didn't plan it or change their mind, then have an abortion and all is well.



I don't know if I buy all that.   Sure fathers are ridiculed on TV, have been since the TV was invented but I don't see it having any meaningful impression on kids.    And I'm not sure I want a teacher singling out a kid because he has two parents living with him.   How does that have anything to do with teaching?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> P.S.  I try very hard not to imply something.  I try to say my intent straight out.  When I say that 54+ million aborted babies should bother everybody, it is not an indictment of you until you say you don't have a problem with it.   When I say the traditional two-parent family is the very best circumstance for most kids, that is not saying that all single parents are bad parents and/or are incapable of successfully parenting their children.



No one has said they don't have a problem with the number of abortions performed in the US, but instead of focusing on the outcome, why are you not focusing on prevention?  As soon as anyone suggests measures that have reduced the number of abortions around the world, you wring your hands and say "it's wrong, women should respect themselves and abstain".  Or people should take more responsibility, and I agree, they should, but they're not.  So if you want to prevent millions of abortions, you have to find a way to help people to become more responsible so you make access to birth control easy and cheap, meaning FREE.

You give lip service to single parents and then say we should be promoting marriages so children have two parents.  There are multiple ways in which marriage is promoted constantly as the ideal.  Churches certainly promote it, TV, movies, government gives numberous tax advantages to married couples that single people never get.  You say how awful the poverty of single parenthood can be, and yet your solution is not to provide support for single parents, but rather to make sure every child has two parents.  It's not going to happen, so let's deal with reality instead.

If you don't want women to have abortions, give them birth control and teach them to use it.  You don't want children in single family homes growing up in poverty, provide supports for those families.

You cannot change the way things are without meeting the people where they live.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



You can look up the benefits as easily as I can.  Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.   As for the rest, I acknowledge that you disagree with me and that you seem to mostly miss the point I have been attempting to make.   I believe over the course of this thread I have already argued all those points, however, and that part of the discussion has become too "Is too - is not" circular to be helpful.

My opinion remains unchanged.

I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit.  And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home.  And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids.  Mine wasn't.

I believe a large majority--not all, but a majority--of kids doing poorly in school, who drop out of school, who get in trouble with controlled substances and otherwise with the law, who run with gangs, and who live in poverty correlate to their living with a single parent.  (Again this is not true of ALL kids living with single parents.)

I believe we have a culture that promotes instant gratification and in order to have that, the baby in the womb must be downgraded to a clump of cells and a non person.

I believe the demise in the cultural preference for a two parent traditional family has resulted in far more negatives than positives.  And that has been amplified by putting emphasis on sex as recreational and socially expected rather than an expression of closeness and love.

And I believe all of the above is why we have 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade with an additional average 1.3 million added to that every year.   And only the pro lifers on this thread seem to have a serious problem with that number.  And again being pro life is not the same thing as wanting to make all abortion illegal.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> You can look up the benefits as easily as I can.  Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.



Yes, and I get very little.   A few grants.   Some tax sites.   

Perhaps what you are talking about is a state issue as I know states handle the details of their benefits.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > You can look up the benefits as easily as I can.  Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.
> ...



Or maybe you need a new browser?  Because I get pages and pages of hits providing that information.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that.  And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less  'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit.  And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home.  And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids.  Mine wasn't.
> 
> I believe a large majority--not all, but a majority--of kids doing poorly in school, who drop out of school, who get in trouble with controlled substances and otherwise with the law, who run with gangs, and who live in poverty correlate to their living with a single parent.  (Again this is not true of ALL kids living with single parents.)
> 
> ...



You offer no suggestions or solutions to the situation other than to return to two parent families (which don't always work).

As long you maintain these beliefs, and continue to promote a way of life that existed for very few people, as the 'cultural norm', nothing will change and you will continue to wring your hands over the number of "lives" lost, with little concern for the impact on the real lives which are changed and impacted by the toll taken on women who have no real option of carrying their babies to term with no medical insurance, no means of supporting the child when it gets here.  

I know of many married women who have found themselves pregnant in circumstances that were less than ideal (the kindest way to state it), who chose to terminate their pregnancies.  All would say they had no other option, one in an abusive marriage which endangered her life and that of her two children, became pregnant with a third child, just as she was about to pack and their bags and flee.  He had beaten her repeatedly through her second pregnancy, hoping to induce a miscarriage.  She could not leave him and get a job if she was pregnant.

With one noteable exception, every woman I know who had an abortion did not discard an inconvenience blob of flesh.  This was a major decision.  The exception was a woman who had her first abortion when she was 13, and several thereafter.  She lived in Japan for 5 years when birth control was illegal, and the Japanese used abortion for birth control.  Fetuses were inconvenient and ended, no muss, no fuss, no packdrill.  She had at least two more after she came back from Japan and thought nothing more of any of them than she did about flossing her teeth.  

This was not the case for anyone else I've talked about this with.  None of the women regretted the decision they had made - not one, but many wished things could have been different, that they could have been in the position of being happy about having a baby.  When they had a child, or another child, they wanted to be in a much better place in their lives to give that child a good home and a good life.  

You dismiss these thought, caring women, as selfish and lazy in their birth control.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit.  And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home.  And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids.  Mine wasn't.
> ...



Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have said, or dismiss it as irrelevent or untrue, and tell me what I dismiss etc. in a way that I certainly never did, and continue to rely on anecdotal incidents as your primary argument, we can't really have a constructive conversation, can we.  But do have a nice day.


----------



## 1Templar (Jan 30, 2013)

Coat hangers.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jan 31, 2013)

Underhill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



fetal human life is human life.

i really have no position other than i do try to respect human life and do not believe in killing it for reasons beyond the control of that life.

all the other lines after conception are arbitrary line. that is fine, but it should be understood.

i am sure people, for instance, can make very good and substantial arguments for killing people with alzheimers. i could argue that they have less utility and potential than a fetal life.

i am just opposed to the arbitrary line.

a lot of things seem silly.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jan 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.

i said "easy way out", not "easy". there is a difference.

yes, children should be loved but they always aren't. they are a hard job.

a lot of the arguments i hear people make for abortion can be made for killing a three year old or an elderly person.

why arre you bringing god into this. i don't think god should be brought into it at all and i do not do so.

however, LOl, i imagine there is some threshold level for high cholesterol where 1/3 of those who exceed that level die.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



My internet does get routed through France (at work) but I've never had a problem before...

But yes, there are pages and pages of sites talking about a few grants and taxes.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.



Your comparisons don't even make sense.  Having an abortion endangers no one but the woman making the choice herself.  Driving drunk endangers everyone on the road.  



reabhloideach said:


> yes, children should be loved but they always aren't. they are a hard job.



This is poorly expressed but what I think you are trying to say is that children aren't always loveable because they are hard work, but that's not the same thing as growing up unwanted and unloved.  There is a vast difference between a child who has a rough day and Mom is relieved when the child settles down for the night, and child who never receives and sort of affection or validation and is truly unwanted.



reabhloideach said:


> a lot of the arguments i hear people make for abortion can be made for killing a three year old or an elderly person.



Really???  Well I would like to hear these because I can't think of a single argument I can make that would be remotely applicable for killing either.



reabhloideach said:


> why arre you bringing god into this. i don't think god should be brought into it at all and i do not do so.
> 
> however, LOl, i imagine there is some threshold level for high cholesterol where 1/3 of those who exceed that level die.



I was not in any way responding to your posts, so it's really irrelevant to me whether you think I should bring God into this discussion or not.  If you don't wish to discuss religious reasons for opposing abortion, then don't respond to the posts, but please don't try to tell others what they can or cannot discuss.

And then you attempt to compare high cholesteral to miscarriage????


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that.  And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less  'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.



New App Lets Users ?Bang? Facebook Friends | Business | RIA Novosti

WASHINGTON, January 30 (RIA Novosti) - A controversial new sex app called Bang With Friends claims to facilitate sexual encounters with users and their Facebook friends without the embarrassment of rejection.
Anonymously find friends who are down for the night, the company website said. Your friends will never know you're interested unless they are too!
The Bang With Friends app, aimed at 20-somethings, was created by three college-aged men from California, who are withholding their identities, according to US media reports.
The app, launched a week ago, only alerts users of a potential hookup if both parties express interest by selecting what is called the Down to Bang button.

But critics of Bang With Friends told RIA Novosti, putting the physical first is the reason for the demise of the majority of marriages and relationships in the United States.
Back in the day people would court, they would go out with different people without exploring the sexual relationship because it allowed you to get to know what you may or may not have in common, said Kristen Crockett, a Washington based relationship coach.
And while some who use the app may be more interested in sex than building a relationship, Crockett cautions users with the potential drawbacks of getting physical with a Facebook friend.

Skip the dating and jump straight to the sex, one of the creators said.

We are moving into a coarse and ugly culture.  Breakdown in values?   We are looking toward their end.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 31, 2013)

There is hope.   The recent March for Life had far more young attendees than older ones.  Perhaps young people have reached a point where they are finally starting to disgust themselves.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 31, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> New App Lets Users ?Bang? Facebook Friends | Business | RIA Novosti
> 
> WASHINGTON, January 30 (RIA Novosti) - A controversial new sex app called &#8220;Bang With Friends&#8221; claims to facilitate sexual encounters with users and their Facebook friends without the embarrassment of rejection.
> &#8220;Anonymously find friends who are down for the night,&#8221; the company website said. &#8220;Your friends will never know you're interested unless they are too!&#8221;
> ...



People said the same thing when personal adds first started to appear looking for hook ups or sex.  

There will always be (and have always been) people interested in sex only.   It's just much easier for them to find each other now.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that.  And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less  'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.



An appreciation of those values is a goal not a strategy, and would take generations to accomplish, if in fact it could be accomplished at all.  We cannot go backwards, even if we wanted to because I don't think that society in general, every lived by these values, even if they did espouse them.

In order for a society to retain or adopt values or standards, they have to first want to do so, and there is no indication that the majority of people want to do this.  Do you think broadcast television is going to go back to showing married couples in their PJ's kissing goodnight and getting into twin beds?  And if promiscuous sex is shown every hour of the night and day on TV, how are you going to convince young people that they shouldn't be doing it?  Do you think the networks are going to broadcast TV shows about happily married families in loving relationships and teens who remain virgins until they married?

You offer no indication whatsoever as to how you would go about instilling these value.  Who would teach these values to children?  Today's parents don't have them and can't pass them on, and today's grandparents certainly didn't teach their children to honour these traditions.  So how do we get children to understand that they way their parents live, and the way society lives is wrong and this is how we need you to live from now on?

I want a point by point plan to turn the nation away from this path of destruction and on to a more moral nation, because I can see no possible way of doing so with the cooperation and consent of the people.  There is no moral will in the nation to do what you suggest.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that.  And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less  'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.
> ...



There is no point by point plan to be had.  But the one who knows that there is a better way lives that better way.  And by example and, when opportunity offers itself, by persuasion he or she converts another.  And that person another, until the mindset of the culture itself is changed.

We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc.  We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it.  And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world.  Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.

Without dragging God into the discussion, the Bible offers us some excellent advice.  "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things." (Phillipians 4:8)   THAT is how we change our culture.  We can't do it by defending the indefensible.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc.  We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it.  And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world.  Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.



You cannot persuade those who will not listen and there are far too many of us who know the truth of the time.  It was not the golden Utopia you remember, and we will continue to expose your lies and tell the true story of the times.

The problem isn't that families aren't respected in your culture.  The resistance to publically funded healthcare is overwhelming, and yet nothing does more to provide financial and emotion stability for families than to ensure that everyone, regarding of income level, is assured of quality health care for your families, especially for mothers and children.

If children mattered to Americans, nutrious school lunch programs would be available in low income neighbourhoods, all schools would have quality facilities and good teachers, and all neighbourhoods would have recreational facilities with good coaches.

Instead of providing a village to raise your children, the poor are relegated to crime infested ghettos where children have little to do after schools but run the streets, where schools are poorly maintained, ill equipped, and children get a third rate education, which they probably won't complete.

When children matter enough that substantial resources are devoted to their care, education and well-being, regardless of whether their parents are rich or poor, then maybe women won't feel the need to abort babies they can't afford to carry to term, much less feed, clothe and educate for the next 20 years.

That will prove to women that babies matter.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc.  We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it.  And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world.  Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.
> ...



No, in order for most of the unintended negative consequences you list to be remedied, it is first necessary for babies and children to matter.   The ones committed to providing substantial resources for the child should be the parents.  Preferably both parents who care enough about the child to get married before the child is born and who are committed to loving each other and that child and giving it a loving home.  When THAT becomes the cultural norm, you see much MUCH less of the negatives you listed.

The enormous majority of abortions are performed  because the mother is not willing to be inconvenienced by the child nor is she willing to give it life and then allow someone else to raise it and provide the child all he or she needs.  The cultural change that needs to happen is also a return to a concept of sex being an expression of love between two people who care about each other and are committed to each other rather than casual recreation.  

The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

And again, I am not going to judge any woman who has had an abortion because I don't KNOW why she chose to have an abortion.  Nor am I saying that abortions are never necessary or that those that are should not be legal and safe.

But 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade should not be an acceptable number to anybody.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
> Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics
> 
> And again, I am not going to judge any woman who has had an abortion because I don't KNOW why she chose to have an abortion.  Nor am I saying that abortions are never necessary or that those that are should not be legal and safe.
> ...



I read the report.  I guess you missed the No. 1 reason why women have abortions:



> &#8226;On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; *about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; *and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).



Or this little tidbit:



> &#8226;The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).



3/4 of the women say that they cannot afford a child.  2/3 of the women who receive abortions, are on Medicaid.



> &#8226;Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 40.2% had no prior live births; 46.3% had one or two prior live births, and 13.6% had three or more prior live births (CDC).



Over 46% of the women who obtained an abortion are married or living with their partner, and over 60% of these women already had one of more children.  So much for the notion that women in loving relationships don't abort.  That women wouldn't kill they babies if they really understood they were destroying a life.  Or that they abort babies simply because they are inconvenient.

What emerges in reading this report is a picture of the women who get abortions.  Adults more than teenagers, married or in a relationship, but desperate poor and unable to raise any more children.

Hardly the careless vapid fun seeker the anti-abortion crowd in this thread portray.  Everything in the articles confirms what I have been saying throughout this thread.

And please Foxfire, don't insult my intelligence and say that raising the child is the parents' responsibility, because these parents are saying they are too poor to do it.  So if you want to stop abortions, try giving the poor some family supports, because they're having all the kids they can at the moment.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
> ...



Pre Roe v Wade, most women who could not afford to raise a child, and that would be a lot of the unmarried ones, gave the child life and then handed it over to a loving couple who desperately wanted a baby and could give it everything he or she needed.  The mother was far less likely to see it as an option just to kill the child she didn't want or couldn't care for.   She was far more likely to revere the life and demonstrate love in its highest form.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> re Roe v Wade, most women who could not afford to raise a child, and that would be a lot of the unmarried ones, gave the child life and then handed it over to a loving couple who desperately wanted a baby and could give it everything he or she needed.  The mother was far less likely to see it as an option just to kill the child she didn't want or couldn't care for.   She was far more likely to revere the life and demonstrate love in its highest form.



And you're still ignoring that over 60% of the abortions are performed on women who already have living children.  These women will not give up their babies, and they cannot afford to even carry the child to term, because the US has no maternity leave for them to do so.  I hasten to add, yet another family support available in every other first world nation.

Your arguments won't fly, and your solution won't work until the US addresses the poverty that drives women to abort their children.

That's how society shows that children matter.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.
> ...



having an abortion kills human life. i would call killing something endangering it.

so. you are only for first trimester abortions, right?

i wasn't comparing high cholesterol to miscarriage per se. i was comparing the arguments.

maybe you should define human life...when it begins and what exactly makes it human?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 2, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



The phrase human life means nothing to me.    Because at conception it is alive.   And it is human in that the dna is human.   But it's certainly not a baby.  

And I still know too many pro lifers who simply refuse to acknowledge anything outside of "baby at conception" or "murder at conception".     It is pointless to even discuss this topic with those people as I think they are living a fantasy.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Your arguments won't fly, and your solution won't work until the US addresses the poverty that drives women to abort their children.




Yes having unprotected sex is not their fault.   Someone drove them to do it.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 2, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Your arguments won't fly, and your solution won't work until the US addresses the poverty that drives women to abort their children.
> ...



People can, and often do, get pregnant protected or not.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 2, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> having an abortion kills human life. i would call killing something endangering it.
> 
> so. you are only for first trimester abortions, right?



Let me be clear.  The choice to end a pregnancy rests with the woman and her doctor, no matter what point she is in her pregnancy.  Regardless of what kinds of lies the anti-abortion faction likes to tell, late term abortions are extremely rare, and nearly alway done to save the life of the mother.  Amnio-centisis can't be done during the first tri-mester, and that's the test to determine genetic abnormalities, so no I don't believe abortion should be restricted to first trimester only.

Most of the women having abortions are poor women who cannot afford to have more children.  What part of that are you missing?  No mother's allowance, no subsidized day care, no maternity leave - no wonder poor women are having abortions in high numbers.

Why not address the scandal and outrage that every other first world country gives support to pregnant women and their children except the USA?  You talk about women taking responsibility, aborting a child you cannot afford is most definitely taking responsibility.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 2, 2013)

Underhill said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



i have never called fetal human life as a "baby" and i have never said "murder."

what i am saying is that you, and others, are making a decision to kill a human life because you have arbitrarily decided at some point that one life is more important because it had attained a certain age.

i just want you to embrace that concept because that is what you are doing. you are deciding to kill a human life for an arbitrary reason.

personally, i don't see tue "baby" and "murder" argument either.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > having an abortion kills human life. i would call killing something endangering it.
> ...



i have always been a very strong advocate for social programs for parents and children.

i have always said both parents should take care of the child, and because of that, i disagree with your statement that the decision is between a woman and her doctor. you argue that the mother shouldn't be burdened with caring for that child if she doesn't want to. do you think a man should be burdened with the financial care of a child he does not want? i think he should. your argument suggest otherwise.

i don't think it is fair for you that none of the things that you've mentioned concern me. they do very much and i have worked tirelessly most of my life on social issue causes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Underhill said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Yes they do.  I was using protection when my children were conceived.  And they were most definitely unplanned and most inconvenvient and presented a serious financial hardship for us at the time.  But we chose to welcome them into the world, they have both been productive and beneficial citizens that have made their own positive contributions to society, and the world is a better place for them being in it.  I cannot imagine my life without them in it.

And both of them were that 'meaningless unviable etc.' clump of cells which is necessary for ALL humans to become people who walk the Earth.   It never occurred to me at any stage of those pregnancies that I was carrying anything other than a human life.

And I am sure there would have been many more children if I had not used contraceptives because usually they are successful in preventing pregnancies.

It is THAT concept I wish to return to culturally.  A culture in which human life is valued and not seen as throwaway because it is inconvenient or an unwanted hardship.   When most Americans saw life that way, there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.  Certainly had we not changed to a culture in which throwing away a life is seen as acceptable purely for convenience, we would not see 54+ million abortions as the legacy of Roe v Wade.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> It is THAT concept I wish to return to culturally.  A culture in which human life is valued and not seen as throwaway because it is inconvenient or an unwanted hardship.   When most Americans saw life that way, there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.  Certainly had we not changed to a culture in which throwing away a life is seen as acceptable purely for convenience, we would not see 54+ million abortions as the legacy of Roe v Wade.



You pay lip service to valuing life, yet you oppose maternity leave, government funded health care, subsidized day care, and other social supports that would raise the cost of goods and services.  You have chosen to value things over people.  That is why poor women must abort their babies.

You have to teach people to value lives ahead of cheap goods and to provide a better social safety net for poor families.  Until you do, the abortion rate isn't going to change.  Every country that provides a strong social safety net, sex education in the schools, easy access to birth control, and paid maternity leave, has low rates of abortion.  The US provides none of these things and a high rate of abortion.  

These are you options - pick one.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is THAT concept I wish to return to culturally.  A culture in which human life is valued and not seen as throwaway because it is inconvenient or an unwanted hardship.   When most Americans saw life that way, there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.  Certainly had we not changed to a culture in which throwing away a life is seen as acceptable purely for convenience, we would not see 54+ million abortions as the legacy of Roe v Wade.
> ...



In all due respect DragonLady, you have no idea what I oppose and what I support other than what I have volunteered on this thread.  You know little or nothing about me.  When you have walked a few decades in my shoes, you might have some standing to judge my point of view based on the life I have led and based on what I do and do not support and believe.

However, that you now focus on accusing me and judging me suggests that you are totally out of ammo to support your point of view on this subject.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In all due respect DragonLady, you have no idea what I oppose and what I support other than what I have volunteered on this thread.  You know little or nothing about me.  When you have walked a few decades in my shoes, you might have some standing to judge my point of view based on the life I have led and based on what I do and do not support and believe.



You have been very clear that the costs of raising children are the sole responsibility of the parents.  You have been very judgemental about women aborting children for "convenience" even though the information you posted showed that overwhelmingly, poverty was the reason for the abortions.

Not once have you advocated ANYTHING in terms of social programs, family supports, or even better sex education on avoiding unwanted pregancies.  I can only judge you by your words, which have been very judgemental towards women who choose abortion.  I based my responses on YOUR WORDS.

You may chose to think that I haven't made my point, but the only point you've made is to show how out of touch you are with the realities that most women face in their lives today.  The fact that you haven't offered a single solution to the problem and your only suggestion is to turn back the clock to 1950's values, shows how bankrupt you are of practical ideas, and all the while you blame the poor for their choices.

You take real offence at me judging you, well, I find your judgement on the women having abortions to be repugnant and disgusting.  You have no right to criticize these women for their choices until you have to chose between the roof over your head for you and your children, and giving birth to another child you can't afford to feed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > In all due respect DragonLady, you have no idea what I oppose and what I support other than what I have volunteered on this thread.  You know little or nothing about me.  When you have walked a few decades in my shoes, you might have some standing to judge my point of view based on the life I have led and based on what I do and do not support and believe.
> ...



If you can show me a post anywhere in this thread or anywhere else in which I have judged anybody, go for it.

Otherwise I accept that you are out of ammunition to support your point of view  and therefore are resorting to attacking me.  And for me, that ends all constructive debate because you don[t have a clue what you are talking about in what I do and do not support, do, or believe, or who you are talking to.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 2, 2013)

There are none so blind as those who will not see.  If you refuse to acknowledge that your society must FIRST provide family-friendly social programs, child care and medical care and assistance to low income families, then you are being wilfully ignorant.  

You blame the number of abortions on societies attitudes towards children, then misplace the blame for this on mores instead of a poor parents instead on self people who have never had to truly struggle in their lives society which blames the poor for their situation.

I've pointed out the fallacies of your arguments time and time again, with facts, figures and studies and still you say no no that's not right, only a change in attitude will help.  No amount of fact and logic will get in the way of what you know is right.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Refer to post #271


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Feb 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > There is no case, let alone an "excellent" case that abortion ends a human life. Life begins with the first breath. End of that story.
> ...



Religion, not science is the basis for anti-abortion nonsense. The upside is that abortion can't be stopped, even if people pretending there is no religious basis pass nutter laws trying to stop it. 

Last but not least, obviously what you believe is different than the Constitution and the Bible inform us about freedom and life. Unfortunately the norm today has become examples of the failures of public education in America, so you have plenty of company.


----------



## JenT (Feb 2, 2013)

Delia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



From the article: "Be assured that it's not just "partial-birth" abortion they're so happy about passing a law against. It's all the law heralds."

What the heck??? Ya don't think maybe they were happy that a fully formed viable infant coming out of the womb didn't have it's skull crushed, might make them happy? Or that his or her body parts weren't farmed out for cash?  This is choosing to murder but then again, it's murder of newly conceived as well, when early abortion is done.


----------



## JenT (Feb 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And it's also a lot healthier for her. I have friends that had so many abortions that chances to carry full term are not good. We also get higher chance of cancers from abortion and/or not nursing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Dugdale_Jukes said:
> ...



Sorry but if you want to make this a discussion of religion, you'll have to do that without me.  I am not interested in arguing for life based on religious beliefs.  Nor am I willing to change it to a discussion of women's rights, social services, inequities, hardships, etc. etc. etc. as some would like to make it.

My focus is on cultural attitudes re 54+ million and counting abortions since Roe v Wade and what would greatly reduce that number.  If I thought throwing money, equal rights, social services , and 'it takes a Village' at the problem would solve it I'd be all for it.  But the fact is we have had a culture devoted to all that and we have 54+ million abortions. 

So, I would like for us to focus on a culture that wasn't producing 54+ mllion abortions in the 40 years prior to the Great Society initiatives or in the 40 years prior to Roe v Wade.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Feb 2, 2013)

That is pretty funny. 

The only rational arguments against abortion are religious and legal, and neither the Bible nor the Constitution supports your meddling in my family's rights. 

We are through here.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> That is pretty funny.
> 
> The only rational arguments against abortion are religious and legal, and neither the Bible nor the Constitution supports your meddling in my family's rights.
> 
> We are through here.



Well good, because I have not been arguing for or against anybody's rights anywhere in this entire discussion.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 3, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> There are none so blind as those who will not see.  If you refuse to acknowledge that your society must FIRST provide family-friendly social programs, child care and medical care and assistance to low income families, then you are being wilfully ignorant.
> 
> You blame the number of abortions on societies attitudes towards children, then misplace the blame for this on mores instead of a poor parents instead on self people who have never had to truly struggle in their lives society which blames the poor for their situation.
> 
> I've pointed out the fallacies of your arguments time and time again, with facts, figures and studies and still you say no no that's not right, only a change in attitude will help.  No amount of fact and logic will get in the way of what you know is right.



i don't know. i have been a strong advocate for all the social programs and child care services, have not brought religion into it.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Feb 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Here is the thing: this is the United States, a nation founded in the bright light of Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" and continued by prudent expenditures of blood and steel to ensure each citizen's  "right to be let alone" is preserved. 

Having communist meddlers try to force their whimsical personal will including religious values about ANYTHING on me, my family and others who disagree with these sick, twisted cultures of meddlers, doesn't work for me. And that is not ever going to change. 

That is the bottom line. While scum support adding misery to the world including killing doctors trying to prevent more misery in the world, heroes continue to support women controlling their own reproductive functions by every necessary means. 

People like me want abortion and we are prepared to do what it takes to keep it available. There is another bottom line for you meddlers to consider.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 3, 2013)

Do you consider expressing your opinion or 'forcing it on us' to be 'meddling' DJ?  What makes you expressing your opinion, i.e. 'forcing it on us' different from anybody else expressing an opinion?  I'll give you some time to come up with an answer for that.

Meanwhile I wil continue to focus on my personal concerns here that do not involve religion or restriction of anybody's rights or denial of basic necessary services to anybody.   The rest of you of course will continue to focus on whatever point of view you hold.

Thank you for understanding.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 3, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Dugdale_Jukes said:
> ...



here is something for you to consider. this is the clean debate zone.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 3, 2013)

Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 3, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.



If men got pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.
> ...





With the proceedure performed by topless technitians!


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion would never have been illegal if men got pregnant.
> ...



well, those were cruel things to say.

i could say something equally cruel about "meal tickets" but this is, after all, the clean debate zone.

so you two think the abortion issue is some sort of battle between the sexes?


----------



## Noomi (Feb 4, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I think the majority of pro life leaders are men, who would insist they'd never have an abortion. Yet if men could get pregnant and were expected to push a watermelon out of their anus, you can bet that the abortion clinics would make a fortune.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



i think the reason a majority of pro-life leaders are men (if that is the case and i am not sure it is) is because a lot of the pro-life zealots are religious leaders and, generally, religions institutions are sexist in their choices of hierarchy. 

i really couldn't speculate as to what would happen if the roles were reversed. i do think your argument, in this particular case, is based upon the woman's ability to withstand a "pain threshold" of varying degrees for up to 48 hours and i really have a hard time believeing that women have abortions to avoid the pain of childbirth. i do not think men would either.

there are a lot of cultural aspects to the pain of childbirth also, but  that really is beside the point. do you think men have a markedly lower ability to resist pain?

lol...i am not sure i like being called "pro-life". people really do have to try to stop tricking out the language to saalve some moral confusion. i am "against abortion".

they are growing square watermelons now for shipping purposes so, we may need a genetically modified sphincter.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

I think women have a higher pain threshold because they have children.

And I don't think women have abortions to avoid the pain either.   

In fact, they have found that there is a hormone that causes women to diminish the memories of the pain some months after childbirth. 

Kind of makes sense.   My wife 30 minutes after having our first said never again.

A year later she was ready for more...


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 6, 2013)

Underhill said:


> I think women have a higher pain threshold because they have children.
> 
> And I don't think women have abortions to avoid the pain either.
> 
> ...



almost all the studies about pain threshold differences between men and women have been inconclusive or flawed. there are also different kinds on pain.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 6, 2013)

Though pregnancy definitely has its uncomfortable side, and the pain of the birth process is real, that has not been a factor for me in my pro life stance.  Nor are my religious beliefs really a factor since I believe in eternal life for all souls however long or limited is their time as human beings here on Earth.   Only God knows how much He has influenced the convictions that I hold.

But for me the issue is twofold.

1.  What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.  

2.  The lost potential in all those people who were never allowed to live.  Yes, we may have prevented another Hitler or Attila from walking the Earth, but we may have also lost the brilliant mind that would have been the next Mozart or the person who figured out the physics to allow us to achieve warp speeds or the physician who solved the mysteries of cancer and found the prevention or cure once and for all.

For me, I think we lose a portion of our greatness, our own potential, and a bit of our character that makes us remarkable people when we lose our reverance for life and see it as a throwaway.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> 1.  What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.



You continue to project the idea that women are aborting children for selfish reasons and completely ignore the fact that the the majority of women aborting fetuses are poor women who already have children, who simply cannot afford to have another child.

You value children by making them important.  Poor children need to be just as important to society as the children of the rich.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.
> ...



Yup.  Even those who are on the way but not yet born.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Yup.  Even those who are on the way but not yet born.



You START by valuing the ones that are here.  Making sure they have the tools which will help them grow up strong:  good health care, proper nutrition, and a good education.  You give them opportunities, not run down schools with shared textbooks, proper school lunch programs where ketchup is not a vegetable, after school programs to enrich and educate, and supports for the parents.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.  Even those who are on the way but not yet born.
> ...



Oh really?  Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives.  These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

The result?  54+ million aborted babies.

Funny how in the days of an American value system in which the parents of children thought THEY had to responsiblity to raise those children, there were far far fewer abortions, legal or illegal.

I don't think increasing the nanny state has done much to discourage abortions.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Oh really?  Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives.  These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.



No they don't.  If they did, you wouldn't have homelessness.  Children wouldn't be suing their schools because of the quality of education they are receiving in ghetto schools.  

The US spends the lowest number of $$$ per capita on social programs than any country in the first world.  It is the ONLY COUNTRY in the first world without government mandated maternity leave, vacation or family leave.  How about subsidized day care programs?

If a woman in the US takes time off to have a baby, she can be fired.  Only in America.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Oh really?  Well let's say we started that in the 1960's with LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives.  These days EVERY American who can show sufficient economic disadvantage has housing, groceries, healthcare, education, etc. provided free of charge, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
> ...



You must not have heard about the 12-week emergency leave program initiated during the Clinton administration.  And homelessness has absolutely nothing to do with lack of social spending.  Perhaps you could read up on that?  I managed to work pretty much full time all the time I was raising my kids and never received a penny from the taxpayer to help me do that including subsidized health care or even a tax break for child care.  You do what you do and I chose to arrange my life so that I could be a competent mother who was available to her kids when she needed to be, and also a competent career woman.  (And by the way, quite a bit of that career has been devoted to working with low income families.)

But setting all that aside, DL, it is quite obvious that more social spending, whatever the percentages, has done absolutely nothing to even slow down the number of abortions.  Now at 54+ million and counting since Roe v Wade.


----------



## sealadaigh (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  What it does to our society as a whole--how it affects us in negative ways to alter our values; to cheapen life and see it as a throwaway in favor of selfish pursuits.
> ...



well, that is a rather elitest and, if you come from a diverse society which has an entrenched institutional racism, it certainly smacks of racism as well.

shall we talk about inserting IUDs in the uteri of 10 year old girls whose parent/s fail to attain a certain income level? i have a feeling you would oppose that.

by the way, i have worked with poor and disabled children.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But setting all that aside, DL, it is quite obvious that more social spending, whatever the percentages, has done absolutely nothing to even slow down the number of abortions.  Now at 54+ million and counting since Roe v Wade.



By all means, continue to ignore the facts and figures.  You've done that throughout this thread.  Everything I point out to you which would go to reduce the abortions, and which are currently not done in the US, you deny, ignore or refuse to consider.  You go back time and time again to matters of public morality.

Morality always starts with practical matters.  People talk about doing the "right thing", but when faced with difficult choices, morality comes second to practicality.  Poor women might want to have more children, but can't afford them.  Make it easier for them to keep their jobs, find affordable day care and housing, and fewer women will have abortions.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But setting all that aside, DL, it is quite obvious that more social spending, whatever the percentages, has done absolutely nothing to even slow down the number of abortions.  Now at 54+ million and counting since Roe v Wade.
> ...



I don't seem to be the one ignoring the facts and figures.  I have spent a good deal of my life working hands on with those facts and figures.  Have you?   Perhaps if you had spent even a year in my shoes, you might have a very different perspective on all this.

And I also am quite aware of the fact and figure of 54+ million babies that were killed and never given a chance to live at all.  My interest is in bringing that number waaaaaaay down and I'm pretty damn sure that throwing more money at it won't accomplish that.   And I base that on the fact that it hasn't brought down the number in any country in which there are a lot of social services and abortion is unquestioned and legal.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And I also am quite aware of the fact and figure of 54+ million babies that were killed and never given a chance to live at all.  My interest is in bringing that number waaaaaaay down and I'm pretty damn sure that throwing more money at it won't accomplish that.   And I base that on the fact that it hasn't brought down the number in any country in which there are a lot of social services and abortion is unquestioned and legal.



The US has NEVER had the support programs available in other countries to help women and families so how do you know that sex education in the schools, and availability of cheap birth control wouldn't work?


----------

