Abortion: A Sad Reality

[g5000]

What do you think about exceptions for rape or incest?

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

Have you bothered to read the thread? What is it with this board and you holier than thou blowhards loving to comment on shit you don't even read?

If you had bothered to read what I had said before you jumped in with your little "contribution", you would have known that I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying that abortion is murder but at the same time wanting to have exceptions for rape and incest.

Try to have just a tiny bit of a clue before you comment.

You wanted to divert attention away from the million-plus abortions each year and focus on victims of rape and incest, using them as a human shield in your exercise.

Smoke and mirrors. Let's catch the pro-lifers in a contradiction and use these rape and incest victims to do it! Then we can carry on aborting a million babies a year!

And you thought you had gotten away with it.

You didn't.

It's a sick little tactic.

 

[lakeview]

1. I'm an American, a supporter of the Constitution.

My view of abortion is political....so if my state votes in favor....so be it.

I would oppose the killing of any innocent, and would vote accordingly.



2. Be clear as to the necessity of exceptions for rape and incest....

First.....all proposals that I am aware of take same into consideration.

But....these are the statistics:

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries



b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Is the mother's convenience enough reason to take a life?

The reason I asked you about rape and incest is because the post from Joe you picked out to take issue with was part of an ongoing exchange about exceptions for rape and incest. Considering what you had to say I thought it was odd that only Joe got called to task because TK was just as deserving of that response.

I agree with you for the most part. Abortion is legal and as long as it's never mandatory I think we'll all be alright and I also think of it as legalized murder for the sake of convenience. I don't think it's the same thing as killing someone who has already been born and interacted with the world.

ErroneousJoe said 'her body.'

The baby is a separate individual.



Further....post #175

Yes, I know what Joe said and I've been following the thread so I'm familiar with your post 175. Your earlier comment about 2 sets of fingerprints should have also been used against the rape/incest exception which was at the core of the exchanges between Joe and TK that you quoted but you chose to only focus on what Joe said, I was curious about that.

I now know that you weren't chiming in on those exchanges, you merely wanted to call out Joe for that one comment and that's OK.

 

[clevergirl]

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

Have you bothered to read the thread? What is it with this board and you holier than thou blowhards loving to comment on shit you don't even read?

If you had bothered to read what I had said before you jumped in with your little "contribution", you would have known that I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying that abortion is murder but at the same time wanting to have exceptions for rape and incest.

Try to have just a tiny bit of a clue before you comment.

You wanted to divert attention away from the million-plus abortions each year and focus on victims of rape and incest, using them as a human shield in your exercise.

Smoke and mirrors. Let's catch the pro-lifers in a contradiction and use these rape and incest victims to do it! Then we can carry on aborting a million babies a year!

And you thought you had gotten away with it.

You didn't.

It's a sick little tactic.

It is a tactic- and likely based around inflated statistics to boot. Though I will say that pro-lifers who use "murder" (a legal term in the abortion debate) do open the door. Pro-life people need to answer the contradiction with regards to rape, just as has been done in this thread.

 

[lakeview]

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

Have you bothered to read the thread? What is it with this board and you holier than thou blowhards loving to comment on shit you don't even read?

If you had bothered to read what I had said before you jumped in with your little "contribution", you would have known that I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying that abortion is murder but at the same time wanting to have exceptions for rape and incest.

Try to have just a tiny bit of a clue before you comment.

You wanted to divert attention away from the million-plus abortions each year and focus on victims of rape and incest, using them as a human shield in your exercise.

And you thought you had gotten away with it.

You didn't.

It's a sick little tactic.

I did no such thing. If you want to talk about a sick little tactic let's talk about what you're doing. You have just accused me, more than once, of doing something which I have not been doing but you're so eager to make your point that you won't back off from the obvious falsehood that I'm using rape/incest as a smokescreen for even more abortions for matters of convenience.

For the last time...If someone says that abortion is murder and should be banned but then makes exceptions for rape and incest then their position is not consistent. I've just said it yet again...and I bet you still will come back with another post saying that I advocate exceptions for rape and incest and that is just flat-out intellectually dishonest. In fact forget about "intellectually", it's just plain old dishonest.

 

[Jughead]

As a pro-Life'er, in my opinion the only time we should consider terminating the life of an unborn baby is when the life of the mother would be in danger.

These babies are God's creation and deserve an opportunity to life just like the rest of us have had. Why should we deny them something which we all have?

In our society, the unborn child is the most vulnerable as he cannot defend himself, thus we must ensure that we do everything in our power to ensure his safety. If that means shutting down abortion clinics, so be it.

To those who would contemplate having an abortion, may I suggest that they instead allow the baby a chance to live, and give him up for adoption afterwards. Many folks cannot conceive children of their own, and usually wind up looking overseas to adopt a child. What better way to a happy ending. A couple gets to adopt a child without the need to go overseas, and a child is spared his life.

Everyone is pro-life.

Which is why if one is opposed to abortion, he should also be opposed to ‘shutting down abortion clinics,’ as this will in no way bring the practice to an end, and abortions would continue at current levels.

Rather than advocating for a ‘solution’ that is not a solution, that also violates Americans’ civil liberties, why not come up with an actual solution that will realize the desired goal.

Well, reiterating what I mentioned on my earlier post up above, a solution would be to set up an adoption system for babies that would otherwise have been aborted. For those couples who cannot conceive children of their own, this would be far more convenient than having to adopt a child overseas. This way, the childless couple gets an opportunity to adopt locally, and best of all the baby gets a chance to live.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The reason I asked you about rape and incest is because the post from Joe you picked out to take issue with was part of an ongoing exchange about exceptions for rape and incest. Considering what you had to say I thought it was odd that only Joe got called to task because TK was just as deserving of that response.

I agree with you for the most part. Abortion is legal and as long as it's never mandatory I think we'll all be alright and I also think of it as legalized murder for the sake of convenience. I don't think it's the same thing as killing someone who has already been born and interacted with the world.

ErroneousJoe said 'her body.'

The baby is a separate individual.



Further....post #175

Yes, I know what Joe said and I've been following the thread so I'm familiar with your post 175. Your earlier comment about 2 sets of fingerprints should have also been used against the rape/incest exception which was at the core of the exchanges between Joe and TK that you quoted but you chose to only focus on what Joe said, I was curious about that.

I now know that you weren't chiming in on those exchanges, you merely wanted to call out Joe for that one comment and that's OK.

It is a fact.

You may use same in any post you wish.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If abortion is murder then women should get the death penalty for having an abortion.

That is the logic you won't accept, but it's irrefutable logic nonetheless.

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

Allow me to add a political argument:

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.


2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.
On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.

From “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

Abortion was legal in the colonies at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is absurd to somehow assume that none of the founders knew that.

That fact is btw taken into account in Roe v. Wade.

 

[JoeB131]

[

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

Why is that relevent in the least?

 

[JoeB131]

What's the "Scientific Basis" for letting a rape victim abort her baby but not letting a girl who just had a one-night stand not do so?

There isn't one.

Either a fetus is a person or it isn't.

All that "Its a life" jazz goes out the window depending on HOW the life is conceived. Why? They cant tell you

It;s a fair accusation- There is no scientific difference. Life begins at conception; viability of the fetus at implantation (3-7 days). The morning after pill prevents implantation by sloughing off the lining of the uterus- it is not dissimilar to what taking the pill monthly also effects.

But let's look at abortion for those who have been raped. It represents less than 1% of all abortions (some say even much lower), and it is a fairly accurate statement to say this is a case of two victims. Like the scenario where a woman's life is at risk to continue with pregnancy, rape creates a conundrum- a real choice due to no ones negligence or fault. In that way and for this reason, some states in the past had laws allowing abortion for rape.

THat's a slightly more artful dodge than Templar tried to come up with, but you are dancing around the main point.

If you want to make the basis of the law "A fetus from the moment of conception is human being with fingerprints and stuff," then why is the fetus from the One Night Stand deserving of more protection than the fetus from the sex at knifepoint?

Because we feel more sympathy of the woman's plight? Okay. Absolutely.

But in a moral sense, that really shouldn't change.

 

[JoeB131]

The "rape and incest" gambit is an old anti-life tactic which takes victims of rape and incest and uses them as human shields to protect the million-plus abortions each year which have nothing to do with crime victims.

It is a disgusting tactic. And the aim is to get into our wallets and pay for the irresponsible behavior of others rather than address that behavior.

"Pay for my baby or I will kill it."

It's all hostage taking. I honestly don't know how they hold their heads up in public.

It's no less disgusting than the anti-choice tactic of taking a picture of a late term abortion that was completely medically necessary to save the mother's life, and then try to claim all abortions are performed on fetuses at that level of development.

So let's be honest, rape/incest abortions and late term abortions probably make up less than 1% of all abortions performed.

The question is, should we compell a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she got from a consensual encounter with a man she decided wasn't good father material. Should we compell a woman who is already out of a job and struggling to make ends meet to have a baby she can't afford to feed or take care of.

And the answer is, no one would seriously ask someone to do that. Even if you tried, you'd fail.

The Anti-Choice movement is based on a lot of wishful and dubious thinking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If murder as a legal definition were before us, then you might have a point- but it seems pretty obvious the poster was referring to a moral definition- But even still manslaughter charges do not always warrant capital murder charges.

Indeed Scott Peterson was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for killing of his unborn son in CA- he did not receive the death penalty for the child, but for his wife even though he knew and planned the child's death. But the important point was that the courts recognized the unborn child as a human being deserving of protection and justice under the law.

Allow me to add a political argument:

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.


2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.
On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.

From “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

Abortion was legal in the colonies at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is absurd to somehow assume that none of the founders knew that.

That fact is btw taken into account in Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.

The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652. Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify. A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby. Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder. Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children." "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History


Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America by Marvin Olasky

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think asking that question is using victims of tragedy as human shields to protect the million-plus annual abortions by irresponsible people. It's an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors to avoid addressing the much, much, much larger problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting rape and incest victims to achieve more than a million murders a year.

Have you bothered to read the thread? What is it with this board and you holier than thou blowhards loving to comment on shit you don't even read?

If you had bothered to read what I had said before you jumped in with your little "contribution", you would have known that I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying that abortion is murder but at the same time wanting to have exceptions for rape and incest.

Try to have just a tiny bit of a clue before you comment.

You wanted to divert attention away from the million-plus abortions each year and focus on victims of rape and incest, using them as a human shield in your exercise.

Smoke and mirrors. Let's catch the pro-lifers in a contradiction and use these rape and incest victims to do it! Then we can carry on aborting a million babies a year!

And you thought you had gotten away with it.

You didn't.

It's a sick little tactic.

So let’s put the million-plus abortions each year on center stage, under the bright lights, no smoke, no mirrors.

Abortion is horrible and terrible and the fault of irresponsible people – it’s also Constitutional.

What, then, is your solution to end abortion that comports with the Constitutional and its case law?

Or do you advocate ‘banning’ abortion, which is just as irresponsible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a pro-Life'er, in my opinion the only time we should consider terminating the life of an unborn baby is when the life of the mother would be in danger.

These babies are God's creation and deserve an opportunity to life just like the rest of us have had. Why should we deny them something which we all have?

In our society, the unborn child is the most vulnerable as he cannot defend himself, thus we must ensure that we do everything in our power to ensure his safety. If that means shutting down abortion clinics, so be it.

To those who would contemplate having an abortion, may I suggest that they instead allow the baby a chance to live, and give him up for adoption afterwards. Many folks cannot conceive children of their own, and usually wind up looking overseas to adopt a child. What better way to a happy ending. A couple gets to adopt a child without the need to go overseas, and a child is spared his life.

Everyone is pro-life.

Which is why if one is opposed to abortion, he should also be opposed to ‘shutting down abortion clinics,’ as this will in no way bring the practice to an end, and abortions would continue at current levels.

Rather than advocating for a ‘solution’ that is not a solution, that also violates Americans’ civil liberties, why not come up with an actual solution that will realize the desired goal.

Well, reiterating what I mentioned on my earlier post up above, a solution would be to set up an adoption system for babies that would otherwise have been aborted. For those couples who cannot conceive children of their own, this would be far more convenient than having to adopt a child overseas. This way, the childless couple gets an opportunity to adopt locally, and best of all the baby gets a chance to live.

A solution.

Which is a good start.

But now that you’ve picked the lowest hanging fruit, what is your comprehensive solution to end abortion, for women who don’t wish to take their pregnancy to term, that is Constitutional?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

Guess what, she throws it out of her body in the first two trimesters-

IT DIES!!!!!!!

Which makes it her body, her choice. Period.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

Guess what, she throws it out of her body in the first two trimesters-

IT DIES!!!!!!!

Which makes it her body, her choice. Period.

By avoiding the question, I'll assume you have no way to dispute the fact that the baby is clearly not.....as you claimed....'her body.'


This is not about when or if the separate individual can survive. We'll leave up to medical science.

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.





At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.



My work here is done.

 

[Dragonlady]

At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.

Right wingers like to pretend that women who have abortions are all liberal, immoral and killing babies for convenience. All of these assumptions ignore the facts which are that most of the women having abortions are not immoral teenagers, but in fact mature adults, the majority of whom are married or in a committed relationship and poor.

They are not "killing babies" out of convenience, they are terminating unintended pregnancies for reasons because their families cannot, under the current economic conditions for the poor in the USA today, afford to carry, bear or raise that child. Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly in any way and there are no plans for changing that situation anytime soon.

Since most right-wingers are not in favour of mandated maternity leave and guarantees that workers can return to their jobs, and believe that employers should have the right to fire a pregnant worker, it is disingenuous of you to claim to care about the children who are lost due to abortion.

I'm tired of this phony, holier than thou attitude on the part of people who don't support family friendly employment practices. Your insincere moral outrage is disgusting.

 

[JoeB131]

[

By avoiding the question, I'll assume you have no way to dispute the fact that the baby is clearly not.....as you claimed....'her body.'

This is not about when or if the separate individual can survive. We'll leave up to medical science.

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

And COMPLETELY irrelevent to my point.

Unless you are going to say that the fetus has MORE rights than the woman it is in, that you are willing to use the POWER of the state to compell her to have a baby she doesn't want, it is at the end of the day HER choice to continue the pregnancy.

At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.

My work here is done.

Oh, please. Conservativism is one long excuse for selfishness.

Here's where I come from on abortion.

Abortion is how the rich got stupid people like you and Templar to go along with them dismantling your middle class lifestyle and making you like it.

Even though in 40 years since Roe, the needle on Abortion has not moved one inch.

 

[American4Americ]

On a side note, has anyone ever seen an atheist/agnostic rejoin the flock of Christianity? Because personally I haven't, as such I am inclined to believe that they cannot be saved.

Here's a good one, and a former abortion doctor and founder of NARAL(pro-abortion group that funds Democrats):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

That doesn't really count, since he was Jewish, and Catholicism is screwy anyway (Look at their Marxist Pope).

 

[Noomi]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?