I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

[Cecilie1200]

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions

Get back to us when you have mandated paid maternity leave and job protection for pregnant women, along with universal health care for mother and child. When you have viable and affordable child care options for the working poor, and a minimum wage that approaches the cost of living for the working poor - you know, like the REST OF THE FIRST WORLD NATIONS HAVE.

Do those things, and watch your abortion rate plummett like a stone.

Well another way of making 44% of abortions be eliminated... sterilization of women who have 2 or more abortions.
Not one of the above comments have made that distinction. Why are dumb, insensitive women still having sex, getting pregnant and then aborting?
Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!

Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers...
but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions
These women should be sterilized as they are in all likelihood also a social services recipient. At least reduce the option for multiple abortions.

Again, BARBARIC.

You seek to punish women. How about the forced sterilization of any MAN who impregnates two or more women. A man can cause a woman to have an abortion each time he ejaculates. A woman can, at most, have 12 abortions per year, whereas a man can impregnate hundreds of women. Let's go after the MEN who have unprotected sex. They're the REAL CAUSE of abortions.

One, you support legalized abortion, so you have forfeited your right to call anyone else "barbaric", let alone in any sort of moral outrage.

Two, do NOT try to deflect onto men, or socialized medicine, or whatever other debate topic obsession you'd much rather discuss than the fact that you're excusing hundreds of thousands of dead babies every year.

 

[healthmyths]

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions

Get back to us when you have mandated paid maternity leave and job protection for pregnant women, along with universal health care for mother and child. When you have viable and affordable child care options for the working poor, and a minimum wage that approaches the cost of living for the working poor - you know, like the REST OF THE FIRST WORLD NATIONS HAVE.

Do those things, and watch your abortion rate plummett like a stone.

Well another way of making 44% of abortions be eliminated... sterilization of women who have 2 or more abortions.
Not one of the above comments have made that distinction. Why are dumb, insensitive women still having sex, getting pregnant and then aborting?
Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!

Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers...
but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions
These women should be sterilized as they are in all likelihood also a social services recipient. At least reduce the option for multiple abortions.

A woman has more than two abortions, she's probably sterilized herself without realizing it. Her body will think that's what it's supposed to do when it gets pregnant, and start spontaneously miscarrying on its own.

That sounds like an old wives tale. Maybe you should read this link as I found the answer in less than a minute using... oh that marvel new invention!

Some evidence suggests that elective abortion could mean an increased risk of miscarriage in a future pregnancy, but no proof of a causal link has been found.
Does an Abortion Increase the Risk of Pregnancy Complications?

 

[Grumblenuts]

And I might accept that argument the day the left applies it to anything other than "don't like killing babies? Don't kill any."

"Don't like guns? Don't buy one."
"Don't like billionaires? Don't become one."
"Don't like Christian-owned businesses? Don't shop there."
"Don't like right-wing TV/radio/podcasts/posts on the Internet? Don't listen to/read them."

But somehow, THAT isn't possible.

Picked the wrong leftist. Accept it. I have no problem with any of those. You've met someone who liked killing babies?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You [Coyote] want to preach morals and instruct people on how to practice beliefs you don't share, and you think you can make a fetus not a life simply by declaring him "property"?

Where else, in this nation's history, were human beings treated as property?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Y'know describing legal abortion as

Murdering innocent human beings in cold blood

is a a mighty convenient choice for those who will never need one. Support for the knuckledragging patriarchy has long been in decline, but never let that slow you down. Keep imposing your silly beliefs on others! After all, that's what being an "innocent", "decent", "human being" is all about!

Do NOT take on like you're defending women against "eeeevil" pro-life men, Chuckles.

Don't take on like you're shielding men from the effects of their own folly, Fool.

 

[healthmyths]

You [Coyote] want to preach morals and instruct people on how to practice beliefs you don't share, and you think you can make a fetus not a life simply by declaring him "property"?

Where else, in this nation's history, were human beings treated as property?

Oh I bet you were thinking about this period in USA history.

and in the famous words of Obama...
(Oh by the way in the famous words of Obama...
"And did I mention he's black?")
23 Obama Quotes That Turned Out To Be Broken Promises Or Cold-Hearted Lies - Activist Post

Did Black People Own Slaves?

 

[Coyote]

You [Coyote] want to preach morals and instruct people on how to practice beliefs you don't share, and you think you can make a fetus not a life simply by declaring him "property"?

Where else, in this nation's history, were human beings treated as property?

Pregnant women.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

"Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."

 

[Cecilie1200]

They think that a 16 year old dropout having a baby is a good idea…

i don't know of anyone who thinks that. Neither do you.

Decent people, however, think that needlessly murdering an innocent child in cold blood is an even worse idea.

There's a big difference between "I think it's a great idea for a 16-year-old to have a baby" and "I think it's a better idea than a 16-year-old killing her baby", but it requires both intelligence and morality to recognize it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Foster care for unwanted children is all but non-existent ... unless we include brothels in Nevada ... if you're against abortion, then you should be for massive increases in orphan care ... raise taxes ... otherwise you're turning toddlers out on the street to make their own way ... very humane ...

Alternately, we could make sex outside of marriage a felony ... the Bible gives the death penalty for such ... very Christian of you ...

The OP is spot-on correct ... abortions to save the mother's life are rare ... far more common are cases of rape and incest ... papa likes being first in ...

So let me see if I understand what passes for logic in your vast, empty skull.

You and I are walking along the canal (Phoenix doesn't have rivers). We see a man drowning and calling for help. I start to jump in and save him, and by your "logic", you stop me and say, "Are you going to adopt him? Huh? So you're in favor of massive tax increases to support him and every other person who might drown for the rest of their lives, right? You're going to pay his medical bills and send him to college. No? Then you don't REALLY care about him, and you should just let him drown!"

Am I apprehending your viewpoint correctly, there, Twinkles?

 

[Cecilie1200]

i don't know of anyone who thinks that. Neither do you.
Decent people, however, think that needlessly murdering an innocent child in cold blood is an even worse idea.

Pick one or the other ... you can't have it both ways ... she's 16 and pregnant, is high school a good place for her to be? ... how about nursing every two hours, whip that boob out in history class ... great idea ...

. . . Or she could use a bottle and expressed breast milk, assuming she even breastfeeds (which most women don't right now). She's most likely in a program to help young mothers graduate in the first place, if she has the baby with her. Or maybe she gets a GED, which can be easily studied for online or in the evenings. Or maybe she puts the baby up for adoption. Or any of a number of other options available out there for teenaged mothers.

Or maybe you really don't know fuck-all about it, and don't think it's necessary to because you have the great cure-all of just killing inconvenient people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.
That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Okay, let's do this.. I mean explore the concepts "human", "life", and "being", see what DNA can really do to help us, and dispose of the trailing irrelevant leaps of logic.

Humans (Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina. Together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, they are part of the family Hominidae (the great apes, or hominids).

Definition of life
1a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see METABOLISM sense 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

So, since humans are a species that currently exists, the fertilized eggs of which generally being considered "animate" and not described as "inorganic" or "dead", and can also be expected to metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and possibly reproduce eventually.. Yeah, one could definitely say hominid life begins at conception. No joke. Perhaps sooner.. Seems to depend upon whether eggs (or sperm) metabolize.. I'm no biologist, but I would venture they technically do. Anyway, I could go on but the point should already be clear. Arguing with choice deniers about human life is misguided so a real waste of time. It only serves to fuel their frenzy. However, I find this bit fascinating:

The closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees (genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla).[39] With the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[39][40][41] By using the technique called a molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and orangutans (genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas (genus Gorilla) followed by the chimpanzees (genus Pan). The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4–8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.[42][43] During this split, chromosome 2 was formed from two other chromosomes, leaving humans with only 23 pairs of chromosomes, compared to 24 for the other apes.[44]

See, if you could manage to swab some DNA from the cheek of a fetus.. you could tell if it was human or not. No other input necessary. That's not really at issue.

It's not yet, however, technically or legally, a "child", "person", nor the myriad bullshit that commonly flows from those leaps of illogic. ..eta: "innocent", "baby",.. add "defenseless",..

Arguing over legal or moral concerns prior to legal viability just seems like nonsense. There exists no legal "person" in any sense prior. Between there and actually being capable of surviving independent of the mother without modern medical interventions may exist logical ground for debate.. as was done in Roe..

I can see why you chose Bernie as your avatar, since you're babbling nonsense just like an octogenarian supporter of murderous tyrants.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

"Let's start with my first assertion that everything I disagree with is a lie, and my perception is reality. Unborn babies aren't alive, because I say so and that makes it fact. Also, unborn babies die on their own, so that makes it okay to kill them. And sperm aren't sacred, which no one has said, but which I really want to believe you think, because it's much easier for me to argue against than your real words, and how DARE you talk sense at me instead of babbling like a welfare leech the way I do!"

 

[Dragonlady]

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

Precisely! And the problem all along was the economically destructive and oppressive policies of Marxism. Now China faces the the duel crises of too few women to men in its population and the disaster of an aging population that can't replace itself fast enough.

Don't like abortion? Simples. Don't have one.

And I might accept that argument the day the left applies it to anything other than "don't like killing babies? Don't kill any."

"Don't like guns? Don't buy one."
"Don't like billionaires? Don't become one."
"Don't like Christian-owned businesses? Don't shop there."
"Don't like right-wing TV/radio/podcasts/posts on the Internet? Don't listen to/read them."

But somehow, THAT isn't possible. It's only infanticide we're supposed to be "live and let live" about.

The anti-abortion crowd needs to learn to use their words correctly. "Infanticide" is the intentional murder of a living, breathing, infant. Not the termination of an early pregnancy. As long as the anti-abortion crowd keeps crowing about "murdering babies", I'm going to talk about the utter lack of social responsibility that the anti-abortion crowd shows for the living breathing children of the poor.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"I can see why you chose Bernie" blah, blah, blah..
Says some idiot who quotes Dennis Miller.. Wtf?

 

[Cecilie1200]

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

Maybe you weren't aware that around 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage ... sometimes as soon as the woman is due for her flowers ... she won't even know she was pregnant ... an important evolutionary trait for species that use the "few offspring, heavy investment" strategy ...

Maybe YOU weren't aware that everyone dies eventually, but that doesn't make it okay to kill them. And maybe you weren't aware that you were making "brilliant, devastating" points of painfully obvious things which are irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

"Never mind your point. THIS is what I wish you had said, because it's as dumb as I am, so it's the only debate I can manage!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

Precisely! And the problem all along was the economically destructive and oppressive policies of Marxism. Now China faces the the duel crises of too few women to men in its population and the disaster of an aging population that can't replace itself fast enough.

Don't like abortion? Simples. Don't have one.

And I might accept that argument the day the left applies it to anything other than "don't like killing babies? Don't kill any."

"Don't like guns? Don't buy one."
"Don't like billionaires? Don't become one."
"Don't like Christian-owned businesses? Don't shop there."
"Don't like right-wing TV/radio/podcasts/posts on the Internet? Don't listen to/read them."

But somehow, THAT isn't possible. It's only infanticide we're supposed to be "live and let live" about.

The anti-abortion crowd needs to learn to use their words correctly. "Infanticide" is the intentional murder of a living, breathing, infant. Not the termination of an early pregnancy. As long as the anti-abortion crowd keeps crowing about "murdering babies", I'm going to talk about the utter lack of social responsibility that the anti-abortion crowd shows for the living breathing children of the poor.

The left needs to learn that we ARE choosing our words correctly, and the fact that you don't like what it says about you and how it debunks your cherished belief that you're a good person without ever once doing anything to BE one doesn't make our word choice wrong. It makes your actions wrong, and you a coward.

Even taking into account that I'm talking to someone who's never made an intelligent, coherent point in her entire, worthless, government-stooge life, this tactic of "You can't argue against my worldview without first accepting my worldview as correct" is blitheringly stupid.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

"Never mind your point. THIS is what I wish you had said, because it's as dumb as I am, so it's the only debate I can manage!"

Actually, I just posted the video.. which was pertinent, smart, and funny. You just wish you could compete.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The left needs to learn that we ARE choosing our words correctly, and the fact that

each instance of us doing so causes George Orwell to roll over in his grave? Well, just you NEVER MIND THAT!