Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[koshergrl]

all that stuff was put into place without our support, and the result is that there are more abortions, more unplanned pregnancies, and more and more virulent strains of stds circulating among ever younger groups of people.

NONE of those things are in place. There is no mandatory sex education in public schools, parents can opt their kid out. Parents fear that learning about sex will encourage the kids to satisfy their curiosity. Studies have shown that just the opposite is true.

Christian schools teach abstinence only, and girls are expected to make chastity pledges. A friend of mine who teaches in one of these schools tells me that these sweet Christian girls are engaging in oral and annal sex in such numbers that their parents would be shocked, but not vaginal sex because they have to remain virgins.

So in an effort to not break their pledges, these girls are engaging in dangerous forms of sex which could lead to injury or infection. Since these kids haven't had proper education on how their bodies function sexually, they have no idea how dangerous some of these practices may be. Call it the law of unintended consequences.

What a ridiculous load of garbage.

You maintain we have more stds and unplanned pregnancies because girls at Christian schools are giving blow jobs and having anal sex?

 

[rdean]

Foster care has absolutely zip to do with abortion.
...

^ there you have it folks.

___ the children who are here now and need loving parents. Ze have to protect ze zygotes!

There is always adoption.

Number of children available for adoption in the US.

USA | Children's House International Adoptions

 

[koshergrl]

Unrelated to abortion. Sorry.

 

[rdean]

^ there you have it folks.

___ the children who are here now and need loving parents. Ze have to protect ze zygotes!

There is always adoption.

I agree. If lifers are going to force women to give birth, it is only fair that we force the lifers to adopt the babies. Seeing they care about children and all.

Care about children? Hilarious.

They need cannon fodder and target practice.

 

[koshergrl]

Better let the ghouls kill them before they can fight back, then..

 

[JoeB131]

Roe just legalized what everyone was already doing.

False. To claim as much is to (A) be ignorant of how legalization affects an action's incidence and to (B) assume that Roe v. Wade actually lowered the abortion rate. When you make something legal whereas it was illegal in the past, its incidence goes up. This is true with everything, as making something illegal creates a deterrent where people who would otherwise engage in said action won't. To assume that Roe just legalized what everyone was doing, you would have to believe that Roe caused the incidence of abortion to decrease from (the oft quoted by pro-choicers ) 1.2M illegal abortions per year down to about 800K legal abortions the year after abortion was legalized. But who would believe that?

?

Actually, there were just as many illegal abortions performed before Roe as there were legal abortions performed after Roe.

How do we know this?

The birth rate didn't drop in 1973. Or 1974. It actually started increasing in 1975.

In short, just as many women were chosing to end their unwanted pregnancies before Roe as after. Roe Just let them do it in the open.

 

[JoeB131]

Exodus 21:22–23

22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that 1she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband 2may demand of him, and he shall apay 3as the judges decide.

23 “But if there is any further injury, athen you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,"

Exodus 21:22?23 (NASB95) - " If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely ..." - Biblia.com

You really think babies survived premature births in the Bronze Age?

That's actually the most generous translation. Most translations state it as "Miscarriage".

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, if the fetus is born prematurely, its chance of survival in Biblical times would have been almost NIL. So the man pays a small fine to the husband, if there is no further injury, but if the WIFE is killed or injured, then there is a punishment.

Another passage from the Bible which indicates that God is OK with the death of a fetus, but not the death of a living being.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, if the fetus is born prematurely, its chance of survival in Biblical times would have been almost NIL. So the man pays a small fine to the husband, if there is no further injury, but if the WIFE is killed or injured, then there is a punishment.

Another passage from the Bible which indicates that God is OK with the death of a fetus, but not the death of a living being.

There's a lot more to it than that.

YOu have to put it in the perspective of the time they lived in, where the infant mortality rate was probably something like 50%.

A child less than a month old was not counted within the census of the tribes of Israel. It was just that iffy a proposition.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Further evidence the bible didn't consider fetuses to be people Women convicted of adultery were STONED ON THE SPOT. This includes women who found themselves pregnant out of wedlock. WHich means the fetus was pretty much boned.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

 

[Caroljo]

Actually I think what you are against is manslaughter or murder. But right now abortion is neither so the argument is an argument of morality, unless laws change. It is a sad state of affairs that we have convinced the minorities that abortion is the answer, but that has been the goal of Planned Parenthood from the beginning.

The good thing is that the number of abortions are decreasing. Maybe because of better access by minorities to birth control. Maybue through education. Maybe because women are finding out the truth. At any rate here are the reasons for abortion from 2004.

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[44]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

 

[rdean]

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

Republicans want to let them starve. Seems cruel.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Actually, there were just as many illegal abortions performed before Roe as there were legal abortions performed after Roe.

How do we know this?

The birth rate didn't drop in 1973. Or 1974. It actually started increasing in 1975.

In short, just as many women were chosing to end their unwanted pregnancies before Roe as after. Roe Just let them do it in the open.

I swear I went over this in another thread.

That ain't how it works. There are three ways to achieve any desired fertility level. Abstain from sex, use contraception or abort any pregnancy. Whereas pre-Roe, women would either abstain from sex or use contraception to prevent pregnancy, post-Roe they use abortion should they become pregnant to achieve roughly the same fertility level (speaking only of the effect on the fertility rate, there is no difference between never becoming pregnant and becoming pregnant and having an abortion). There are studies upon studies which prove this. Much to the consternation of liberals, as much as they don't want to admit it, women do use abortion as a form of birth control in place of contraception. And they use it often.

You'd think with right wing conservatives being so adamantly against abortion, they'd be the first ones pushing for massive sex ed at an earlier age, bowls of condoms and birth control pills everywhere, funding for Planned Parenthood etc.... basically fighting for everything and anything they can in order to prevent an abortion. What's the only thing they actually promote: abstinence.

FAIL

Why do "blue" states have higher abortion rates than "red" states it "blue" states are so enlightened? If you were to look at the abortion rate by state, you'd see where the biggest failure is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

Likely because you’re still confusing civil law with criminal law.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, if the fetus is born prematurely, its chance of survival in Biblical times would have been almost NIL. So the man pays a small fine to the husband, if there is no further injury, but if the WIFE is killed or injured, then there is a punishment.

Another passage from the Bible which indicates that God is OK with the death of a fetus, but not the death of a living being.

Uh, no, that's not what the passage says. There is no scholarly debate over this one, nitwit. You don't get to re-translate the bible to collaborate your own misinterpretation.

 

[JohnA]

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

its about *rights and freedon of choice*

A women not wanting a child and having a abortion is exercizing her *right* to choose
not illegal
a person killing a pregnant mother who wanted to birth is taking away the women,s *right* to choose to live and her *right *to give birth illegal .

 

[Noomi]

Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

The difference is easy - abortion is a choice. Being hit in the stomach and suffering a miscarriage is not. It's really quite obvious.

 

[NoNukes]

Because the person committed murder. Abortion is not murder.

No..........
A woman aborts (kills) a fetus. It's not considered murder. A person murders a woman that is carrying a child (fetus), at the same age as the woman that aborts. But the woman that kills the fetus has broken now law. She gets away with murder. WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't see how crazy this is, i don't know what else to think. I'm worried for this world.....

The difference is easy - abortion is a choice. Being hit in the stomach and suffering a miscarriage is not. It's really quite obvious.

Careful Noomi, you are going to be called a ghoul and crazy again.

 

[Esmeralda]

all that stuff was put into place without our support, and the result is that there are more abortions, more unplanned pregnancies, and more and more virulent strains of stds circulating among ever younger groups of people.

NONE of those things are in place. There is no mandatory sex education in public schools, parents can opt their kid out. Parents fear that learning about sex will encourage the kids to satisfy their curiosity. Studies have shown that just the opposite is true.

Christian schools teach abstinence only, and girls are expected to make chastity pledges. A friend of mine who teaches in one of these schools tells me that these sweet Christian girls are engaging in oral and annal sex in such numbers that their parents would be shocked, but not vaginal sex because they have to remain virgins.

So in an effort to not break their pledges, these girls are engaging in dangerous forms of sex which could lead to injury or infection. Since these kids haven't had proper education on how their bodies function sexually, they have no idea how dangerous some of these practices may be. Call it the law of unintended consequences.

What a ridiculous load of garbage.

You maintain we have more stds and unplanned pregnancies because girls at Christian schools are giving blow jobs and having anal sex?

I wouldn't be surprised at all about what he says about the girls in Christian schools. I lived in a foreign country where girls are supposed to be virgins when they marry, and it was true there that the young women engaged in anal sex and oral sex but not vaginal sex so they would still be a virgin when they got married. It was very common knowledge among the younger generation there. The parents may not have had a clue, however.

I have an idea. We could make abortion illegal again and bring all these fetuses to term, then we'd have a whole lot of babies no one wants. Then we could institute the ideas in Swift's "A Modest Proposal," sell the flesh to millionaires at very high prices and pay off the national debt. American ingenuity in a nutshell! Not to mention capitalism at peak performance.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, there were just as many illegal abortions performed before Roe as there were legal abortions performed after Roe.

How do we know this?

The birth rate didn't drop in 1973. Or 1974. It actually started increasing in 1975.

In short, just as many women were chosing to end their unwanted pregnancies before Roe as after. Roe Just let them do it in the open.

I swear I went over this in another thread.

That ain't how it works. There are three ways to achieve any desired fertility level. Abstain from sex, use contraception or abort any pregnancy. Whereas pre-Roe, women would either abstain from sex or use contraception to prevent pregnancy, post-Roe they use abortion should they become pregnant to achieve roughly the same fertility level (speaking only of the effect on the fertility rate, there is no difference between never becoming pregnant and becoming pregnant and having an abortion). There are studies upon studies which prove this. Much to the consternation of liberals, as much as they don't want to admit it, women do use abortion as a form of birth control in place of contraception. And they use it often.

You really think these hippy chicks in 1971 were abstaining from sex? really?

Now I know you conservatards think that women were beaten dogs back pre-Roe, but the reality, people knew "someone who could take care of that".

If you think there's a woman who thinks, "I'm gonna have an abortion for fun", I think it just exposes your misogyny.

[
Why do "blue" states have higher abortion rates than "red" states it "blue" states are so enlightened? If you were to look at the abortion rate by state, you'd see where the biggest failure is.

You act like the abortion rate is a sign of failure. It isn't.

The blue states are more advanced.

But really, the fact is, Texas has 16 abortions per 1000 women and Kansas has 19. That's just as high or higher than Blue states.

Abortion Rate - Kaiser State Health Facts

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, if the fetus is born prematurely, its chance of survival in Biblical times would have been almost NIL. So the man pays a small fine to the husband, if there is no further injury, but if the WIFE is killed or injured, then there is a punishment.

Another passage from the Bible which indicates that God is OK with the death of a fetus, but not the death of a living being.

Uh, no, that's not what the passage says. There is no scholarly debate over this one, nitwit. You don't get to re-translate the bible to collaborate your own misinterpretation.

There's a HUGE amount of scholarly debate on this one.

Note: The words ילדיה ויצאוּ are rendered by the lxx καὶ ἐξέλθη τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον and the corresponding clause יהיה אסון ואם by ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ; consequently the translators have understood the words as meaning that the fruit, the premature birth of which was caused by the blow, if not yet developed into a human form, was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation, - as Philo expresses it, "on account of the injury done to the woman, and because he prevented nature, which forms and shapes a man into the most beautiful being, from bringing him forth alive."

http://bible.cc/exodus/21-22.htm