Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[NYcarbineer]

Planned Parenthood makes money off abortions, and reports only voluntarily, in some states. So why should we believe anything they say again?

I was responding to the people who claim that illegal abortions were killing/maiming people "left and right" prior to Roe v. Wade. It's a lie, and there's no credible statistic to back it up, which is why you only ever see pro-choicers come out with anecdotal evidence. They never seem to have any hospital/physician records, death records or anything of the sort to prove their position, whereas there are numerous records which show just the opposite of what pro-choicers like to claim. Hell, I just gave a quote from the then director of Planned Parenthood saying that abortions-- both legal and illegal-- were safe. Are pro-choicers going to now claim she was a pro-life (the term which didn't exist then) demagogue and/or a liar? Probably not, because they'll just gloss over my post and continue to believe what they so desperately want to be true, even though it isn't.

Should women go to prison for murdering their unborn children?

What does that have to do with planned parenthood, troll?

He's trying to play "Gotcha!". Notice he won't respond to my post when he asked me the same question and I responded

If you don't want to make abortion a crime, then you are pro-choice.

If you don't want to punish women for having abortions, then you are pro-choice.

If you think abortion is murder, but don't want anyone punished as a murderer when they have an abortion, you are irrational.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Planned Parenthood makes money off abortions, and reports only voluntarily, in some states. So why should we believe anything they say again?

I was responding to the people who claim that illegal abortions were killing/maiming people "left and right" prior to Roe v. Wade. It's a lie, and there's no credible statistic to back it up, which is why you only ever see pro-choicers come out with anecdotal evidence. They never seem to have any hospital/physician records, death records or anything of the sort to prove their position, whereas there are numerous records which show just the opposite of what pro-choicers like to claim. Hell, I just gave a quote from the then director of Planned Parenthood saying that abortions-- both legal and illegal-- were safe. Are pro-choicers going to now claim she was a pro-life (the term which didn't exist then) demagogue and/or a liar? Probably not, because they'll just gloss over my post and continue to believe what they so desperately want to be true, even though it isn't.

What does that have to do with planned parenthood, troll?

He's trying to play "Gotcha!". Notice he won't respond to my post when he asked me the same question and I responded

If you don't want to make abortion a crime, then you are pro-choice.

If you don't want to punish women for having abortions, then you are pro-choice.

If you think abortion is murder, but don't want anyone punished as a murderer when they have an abortion, you are irrational.

So what you're saying is everyone prior to around the 1960's would have been considered pro-choice? You're making a lot of assumptions here. Therefore, I'll just restate what I said earlier in this thread when the exact same question came up.

This country had over a hundred years of abortion criminalization laws on record. You act like there isn't a framework already in place that we can follow, or that we'd be in uncharted waters, so to speak.

Continually asking this question when there is already a set of guidelines which we can follow-- as they had been followed for around 150 years-- doesn't make much sense. But, for shits and giggles, let's say that no one could give you an adequate response as to what should be done. So what? It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to expect one to have all the answers to a problem before attempting to correct that problem. That's why the law is flexible; it allows us to tackle any and all issues as they come about.

 

[paperview]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS-BzFDOmq0"]Dad Confronts Abortion Protesters At Clinic - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragonlady]

Facts and figures on deaths and injuries before and after Roe v. Wade.

Before and After Roe

 

[WUN]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

"the baby was never consulted with"

What are you going to do, tap on the woman's belly in morse code?
Oh wait, the baby doesn't know morse code (yet).

1. No form of birth control is infallible
2. Rape happens
3. Incest happens
4. Some women will die from a pregancy or from giving birth, which sometimes they know ahead of time
5. What if the woman has terminal cancer and/or needs to take chemo to survive?

Bottom line, often it's not the woman's choice to get pregnant. Are you willing to pay more taxes for every child that is not aborted?

 

[kaz]

Now, you may argue about instances of rape where women really have no choice.

This is a very valid argument. Rapes are terribly unfortunate events, and in those cases the possibility of adoption exists. Although it must be a horrible experience for the mother, she may be the blessing a family that can't have children has been waiting for.

Rapes, incest, abusive relationships, defective condoms, ...

I agree with your view on a personal level. But politically, who should decide? The woman? Or a politician? You know, the politicians who are driving our economy into the ground and paying people to not work? Things like that? Easy choice, frankly.

Government can tell you what not to do, like kill someone, steal their stuff, etc. But what other law compels a person to do something? Government owns your body, and we are compelling you to carry a baby to term. It's sick. Your going out and stating your views and giving women options isn't sick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was responding to the people who claim that illegal abortions were killing/maiming people "left and right" prior to Roe v. Wade. It's a lie, and there's no credible statistic to back it up, which is why you only ever see pro-choicers come out with anecdotal evidence. They never seem to have any hospital/physician records, death records or anything of the sort to prove their position, whereas there are numerous records which show just the opposite of what pro-choicers like to claim. Hell, I just gave a quote from the then director of Planned Parenthood saying that abortions-- both legal and illegal-- were safe. Are pro-choicers going to now claim she was a pro-life (the term which didn't exist then) demagogue and/or a liar? Probably not, because they'll just gloss over my post and continue to believe what they so desperately want to be true, even though it isn't.



He's trying to play "Gotcha!". Notice he won't respond to my post when he asked me the same question and I responded

If you don't want to make abortion a crime, then you are pro-choice.

If you don't want to punish women for having abortions, then you are pro-choice.

If you think abortion is murder, but don't want anyone punished as a murderer when they have an abortion, you are irrational.

So what you're saying is everyone prior to around the 1960's would have been considered pro-choice? You're making a lot of assumptions here. Therefore, I'll just restate what I said earlier in this thread when the exact same question came up.

This country had over a hundred years of abortion criminalization laws on record. You act like there isn't a framework already in place that we can follow, or that we'd be in uncharted waters, so to speak.

Continually asking this question when there is already a set of guidelines which we can follow-- as they had been followed for around 150 years-- doesn't make much sense. But, for shits and giggles, let's say that no one could give you an adequate response as to what should be done. So what? It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to expect one to have all the answers to a problem before attempting to correct that problem. That's why the law is flexible; it allows us to tackle any and all issues as they come about.

It is the height of irrationality to base one's argument against abortion on the claim that life begins at conception,

that the fetus is a person just like you and me,

and that abortion is murder,

and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that the woman who has the abortion is the murderer and ought to be treated like any other murderer of children in this country, under this country's laws.

When you refuse to acknowledge the above, you are in fact conceding that you don't really believe the claims as they are stated above.

Once you concede, tacitly or otherwise, that you really don't believe a fetus is a person no different than you or me,

you have conceded that we need not treat a fetus the same as we would treat you or me, under the law.

The anti-abortion argument is self-defeating.

btw, the last execution of a woman for having an illegal abortion in France occurred in the 1940's,

so yes, we have a history that does in fact, with intellectual and legal honesty, treat abortion as murder.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you tards obsess about that? What does it have to do with anything?

If you are referring to our questions about enforcement, then yeah, it's a valid question.

If you make the abortion laws like the prostitution laws or Prohibition a century ago (Technicallly illegal, but no enforcement) then you are accomplishing nothing.

You still end up having just as many abortions, but there's no standard on the conditions. So instead of a Gosnell or a Bickman being an abberation, they become the standard. The wealthy get nice safe abortions, and the poor basically get whatever.

Conversely, if you have a harsh regime of enforcement, scrap HIPPA, track who buys an EPT or better yet, put GPS monitors on the EPT's so they signal a national registry as to who is pregnant, you really don't have freedom anymore.

Here's the thing. There actually was a regime once that tried to do what you guys dream of. It was Romania under Nicolea Ceasascu (forgive the spelling). Before his own people shot him, he not only outlawed abortion but birth control as well. And for a short time, there was a spike in the birth rate. But after that, the birth rate bottomed out after people found ways to beat the system.

 

[mamooth]

I was responding to the people who claim that illegal abortions were killing/maiming people "left and right" prior to Roe v. Wade. It's a lie,

Given the amount of blood you'd need to wash of your hands, of course you have to tell yourself that.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/158/4/528.full.pdf
---
He served his internship and obstetrics/gynecology
residency at Cook County Hospital in Chicago in the
mid-1960s. In those days a ward was dedicated exclu-
sively to septic complications of pregnancy. Each day 10
to 30 septic-abortion patients were admitted to the 40-
bed ward; stretchers often lined the halls. Each morning,
the 2 incoming interns mixed up 40 to 60 litres of IV
fluid containing tetracycline, oxytocin and ergometrine
to prepare for the day’s influx

There was a maternal death about once a month, usu-
ally from septic shock associated with hemorrhage. “I
will never forget a 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher,
with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina.
She survived. I will never forget the jaundiced woman
with liver and kidney failure who was in endotoxic shock
and had a hematocrit of 4. We were unable to save her.”
---
JustSomeGuy, of course, will claim it's all a fabrication. How else can he sleep at night? He needs to somehow convince himself that the evil he clamors for really isn't all that evil.

 

[Dragonlady]

You wouldn't know a Christian value if it sat on your face and wiggled. Your perceptions have nothing to do with reality, any more than your comments do.

As an elder in my congregation, I do have a pretty good idea of Christian values. I know that Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And also "Judge not lest you be judge". Apparently if you had to make the difficult choice of having an abortion, you would want someone outside the clinic screaming "Murderer!!!" at you.

In Canada, you wouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of an abortion clinic, and you'd be facing charges of harassment if you tried to intimidate women going into clinics. We take women's right to privacy very seriously in this country. But then in Canada, women are constitutionally equal to men.

 

[kaz]

I know that Jesus said ... "Judge not lest you be judge"

I like it, let's see how this one turns out.

Apparently if you had to make the difficult choice of having an abortion, you would want someone outside the clinic screaming "Murderer!!!" at you

Let's be honest here, who didn't see that one coming?

 

[MostJadedGamer]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

Yea they should have the right to choose what to do with there OWN bodies, but they shouldn't be allowed to KILL the BABY's body that is inside of them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Der de der der der.

 

[Dragonlady]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

Yea they should have the right to choose what to do with there OWN bodies, but they shouldn't be allowed to KILL the BABY's body that is inside of them.

As long as the fetus is gestating, it is NOT a baby. When a child is born and is able breathe on it's own, then it's a baby, an individual, a person. At that point, to kill the baby is a crime, punishable in a court of law.

 

[koshergrl]

Ho hum.

"Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California in 2002."

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baby never drew a breath. Scotty was convicted of murdering him.

 

[bodecea]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

Yes. If you think the women of this country are going back to illegal abortions....you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Dragonlady]

80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, to one extent or another. Some believe in an unfettered right, others with limitations, but 80% think that abortion should be a choice for women, to one extent or another.

The anti-abortion faction is a minority of the people of the United States. Yet these people who supposedly believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility, in fact are adament about it, would deny others those very things they claim for themselves. And then they claim they are doing it for reasons of moral superiority. Hubris!

 

[koshergrl]

The only thing that RvW did was make the butchery of illegal abortions...legal. No medical oversight...abortion hacks don't even have to have standing to function in hospitals, and the abortion clinics don't have to tell anyone what exactly it is they do..to whom.

 

[koshergrl]

80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, to one extent or another. Some believe in an unfettered right, others with limitations, but 80% think that abortion should be a choice for women, to one extent or another.

The anti-abortion faction is a minority of the people of the United States. Yet these people who supposedly believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility, in fact are adament about it, would deny others those very things they claim for themselves. And then they claim they are doing it for reasons of moral superiority. Hubris!

Actually, the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal ONLY in certain, very specific circumstances.

Rape, and medical necessity. That's it. Per usual, the pro-abortion lobby lies about this.

As they lie about abortion being for the benefit of women. It isn't for the benefit of women. It's for the benefit of men and to make exploitation of women easier for them. Which is why so many more men support abortion, than women.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, to one extent or another. Some believe in an unfettered right, others with limitations, but 80% think that abortion should be a choice for women, to one extent or another.

The anti-abortion faction is a minority of the people of the United States. Yet these people who supposedly believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility, in fact are adament about it, would deny others those very things they claim for themselves. And then they claim they are doing it for reasons of moral superiority. Hubris!

The ‘anti-abortion’ faction is nothing more than partisan rightists interested only in perpetuating a political wedge issue, having little to do with ‘babies,’ if anything at all.