Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[elephant]

Here are some good numbers

From the CDC approx. 32 million legal abortions have been performed since 1970.

The per 1000 U.S. population numbers look like this:

0.918562093 1970
2.286959146 1971
2.737767645 1972
2.84668188 1973
3.498748154 1974
3.878909 1975
4.444204541 1976
4.805786541 1977
5.101748352 1978
5.460712119 1979
5.604334826 1980
5.560307956 1981
5.516324595 1982
5.313487374 1983
5.529583062 1984
5.454157152 1985
5.502751376 1986
5.5224584 1987
5.569230401 1988
5.645186777 1989
5.427981479 1990
5.259247219 1991
5.092039572 1992
4.798061083 1993
4.53198797 1994
4.537961437 1995
4.34553209 1996
3.203734308 1997
3.086596785 1998

Calculated as CDC reported # of legal abortions divided by the the population actuals and estimates (the Census' estimates) in thousands for the US from the Census.

So they went up like we both expected. Ans then they went down as I had suspected. Changing people's minds will work. Stick with that plan - see you are winning. They are down 45% since the peak in 1989.

I like these numbers better. The sources are reputable.

Now let's work on the cause and effect part of the argument.

 

[Annie]

If one assumes a fetus is a baby, way too many. Actually one is too many.

 

[Gem]

Another interesting opinion on rights of unborn children and their mothers...while I find the title to be a bit heavy-handed...the letter itself raises some interesting questions.

An Open Letter to the Open Minded
by Eugene F. Diamond
Every abortion decision involves a conflict of values. The rights of the developing unborn child are in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman. Every physician who cares for pregnant women is caring for two patients—the pregnant woman herself and the unborn child. The pregnant woman frequently is called upon to act in a way that primarily is oriented toward the welfare of her unborn child. She may be asked to optimize her diet, abstain from smoking, or drink alcohol in moderation to protect her fetus. She may even be called upon to submit to procedures such as intrauterine transfusion or various fetal surgical measures to improve the condition of the infant without producing any direct benefit to herself. There is some disagreement about the ethical obligations of the mother in each instance, but few would claim that a mother may act with callous discard for the welfare of the fetus. No one would claim for example, that a woman is free to take Thalidomide during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The long tradition of legal constraints against the practice of abortion in the United States was derivative of English common law, operative in colonial times during the framing of the Constitution, and codified into laws of every state for over a century. This tradition was interrupted in 1973 by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. The legalization of abortion was based on a constitutional right to privacy, but it was contingent on a declaration by the Court that the pre-viable fetus lacked personhood. It should be emphasized that the Court was discussing “personhood” in the legal sense of standing before the Court. It was not considering personhood in a broader philosophical or metaphysical sense and, in fact, specifically refrained from a decision as to when life begins.

The existence of biologically independent life in the unborn from the time of conception is supported by the following observations:

Human life can be made to begin under in-vitro conditions by the fertilization of an ovum by sperm.

The zygote and embryo thus produced are independently viable and not “part-of” the Petri dish or the uterus into which they will be eventually implanted.

Criteria widely recognized as characteristic of “life” rather than “death” (e.g., heartbeat. electroencephalographic activity) are present early in the first trimester.

Unborn children have a unique dependency on their mothers, and they will continue to be totally dependent on others long after they are born.

The existence of life is intrinsic and demonstrable. The existence of “personhood” is extrinsic and conferred by consensus, at times arbitrarily (the Supreme Court, for example, in the Dred Scott decision declared black slaves to be non-persons or chattel for purposes of the law). The Harvard Conference on Abortion, in both its ethical and medical committees, concluded unanimously that life begins at fertilization. Expert testimony before the East Committee in the senate regarding the beginning of life fell into two categories: 1) life begins at conception (majority view) or 2) when life begins is uncertain (minority view).

If we conclude that when life begins is uncertain, we have a serious quandary. If we conclude that a human life or a human person does not exist until some arbitrary stage of life after conception (e.g., implantation, nervous system development, viability, or birth) we may feel free to carry out lethal measures against pre-born individuals against whom we have passed this judgment. If we are incorrect, there is no remedy for the individual who has thus suffered wrongful death. If, on the other hand, we extend protection to all stages in the human continuum, we avoid the wrongful death without causing any injustice to the unborn individual in the process. It has been customary in other contexts in the American experience to act in favor of life where the existence of life is uncertain. When there is a coalmine cave-in, for example, we do not board up the shaft but rather we dig for survivors. In almost every instance, we continue to dig even when we are morally convinced that the oxygen supply has been long exhausted. It would seem reasonable to act similarly with regard to unborn children. That is, presume that they qualify for protection unless and until we can be certain that they are not live human persons.

Recently, in San Francisco, an unborn child was partially removed from the womb in order to have a renal tract obstruction repaired. After the surgery, the child was replaced in the womb to continue the pregnancy. Was this a person while out of the womb and then a non-person again when back inside? Or, since the procedure involves the removal of the lower half of the body from the womb, did the child achieve personhood for its buttocks but not for its brain? These are the scientific anomalies of the Supreme Court's decision. No wonder Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said that Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself.

 

[manu1959]

can you imagine the job market and the number of people on welfare if all 40 million of these babies had been born....

 

[Gem]

I wonder if a few of those 40 million would have done anything worthwhile with their lives, other than get on wellfare....good thing that ghandi's mom decided not to abort him...or jfk, fdr, martin luther king, jr., beethovan's mom, pick your top 10 most respected influential people on earth today right now...do you think that in the 40 million aborted babies there might possibly have been one that would have done something remarkable??? guess we'll never know now...but good thing that all those women who had abortions because they didn't really like the guy they f*cked had the freedom to do so...

 

[KarlMarx]

In order to have "choice", we have......

1. Taken away the right of voters in all states to decide whether or not abortion should be legal in their state .
2. Taken away the right of parents to be informed of their daughters' decision to have an abortion and their right to consent
3. Taken away the right of fathers to have a say in whether their unborn children live or die
4. Taken away the right of people to freely practice their religion without fear of being taken to court
5. Denied people the decency of a proper burial
6. Denied people the right to life without due process of law
7. Trashed the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution
8. Weakened the foundation of our freedoms and eroded the moral fabric of western civilization and of common decency

..... in short, for the convenience of a few, we've taken away the rights of many........... some choice!

P.S. "Dead Reckoning - Roe vs Wade at 25" - a flashback piece on National Review Online

 

[CivilLiberty]

"Originally Posted by KarlMarx
Here's an interesting piece. A church holds a funeral for aborted fetuses and cremates the remains."

Yes of course because the best way to further the baby killing agenda and make it more acceptable is to make those that oppose it look moronic and extreme. The truth really kills liberals!!

What is moronic and extreme is a church stealing other people's terminated embryos and performing this ceremony. If the church were doing this WITH PERMISSION from the woman involved, it would be a different matter.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Here are some good numbers

...Snippage of abortion stats...

So they went up like we both expected. Ans then they went down as I had suspected. Changing people's minds will work. Stick with that plan - see you are winning. They are down 45% since the peak in 1989.

I like these numbers better. The sources are reputable.

Now let's work on the cause and effect part of the argument.

Don't know what the "number" of legal abortions per capita has to do with anything, but:

I'd attribute the DECREASE in the 90s due to the fact that more people are practicing safe sex due to the AIDS scare, thus fewer accidents.


Regards,

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

can you imagine the job market and the number of people on welfare if all 40 million of these babies had been born....

No doubt. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy before that zygote or embryo becomes a person - before it develops into a thinking, feeling human, destined to live a life of poverty and suffering, is choice every woman has the right to make.


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

No doubt. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy before that zygote or embryo becomes a person - before it develops into a thinking, feeling human, destined to live a life of poverty and suffering, is choice every woman has the right to make.


Andy

Why just the woman?

 

[CivilLiberty]

...good thing that ghandi's mom decided not to abort him...or jfk, fdr, martin luther king, jr., beethovan's mom...........but good thing that all those women who had abortions because they didn't really like the guy they f*cked had the freedom to do so...

Or because they already had children and knew they would not be able to care for more. Or could not care for the one, or were focused on "being remarkable" themselves.

Please, your argument holds no water! JFK, FDR - Ghandi, Beethoven, even King - were all born into privilege, not poverty.

Welfare weakens the human spirit - name a famous, heroic, former welfare recipient (not including Rap artists).


Regards,

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Why just the woman?

Obviously, because it's *her* body.

That it's her body gives her more than 50% say. Let's say the man get 49% say - that still gives the woman 51%, which is controlling interest.



Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Obviously, because it's *her* body.

That it's her body gives her more than 50% say. Let's say the man get 49% say - that still gives the woman 51%, which is controlling interest.



Andy

LMAO--thats like "finders keepers"----so you "obviously" are in favor of women having 100% control over who lives to be born ?

 

[no1tovote4]

What is moronic and extreme is a church stealing other people's terminated embryos and performing this ceremony. If the church were doing this WITH PERMISSION from the woman involved, it would be a different matter.


A

If it is a bunch of cells and not a living being then why would it matter what the Church had done with those cells? If people really believed in the bunch of cells argument all it would be is a giggle as they are praying over tissue and not human life. This belies the argument that all aborted offspring are only a bunch of cells.

 

[no1tovote4]

No doubt. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy before that zygote or embryo becomes a person - before it develops into a thinking, feeling human, destined to live a life of poverty and suffering, is choice every woman has the right to make.


Andy

At what point does that happen? Most abortions, in fact over 99 percent take place after brain function begins at 40 days. Almost no abortion other than spontaneous abortion takes place at the zygote level. At 40 days there is brain function and a heartbeat the life is no longer undifferentiated cells.

Almost all abortions take place in the second trimester when the fetus actually attempts to move away from the devices used to terminate their life, ineffectual defense but a defense nonetheless.

Have you ever watched the video at silentscream.org? It may give you some interesting things on which to think at the least.

 

[Bonnie]

I wonder if a few of those 40 million would have done anything worthwhile with their lives, other than get on wellfare....good thing that ghandi's mom decided not to abort him...or jfk, fdr, martin luther king, jr., beethovan's mom, pick your top 10 most respected influential people on earth today right now...do you think that in the 40 million aborted babies there might possibly have been one that would have done something remarkable??? guess we'll never know now...but good thing that all those women who had abortions because they didn't really like the guy they f*cked had the freedom to do so...

Found a cure for Cancer and AIDS maybe, but your right we will never know.

 

[Bonnie]

Here are some good numbers

From the CDC approx. 32 million legal abortions have been performed since 1970.

The per 1000 U.S. population numbers look like this:

0.918562093 1970
2.286959146 1971
2.737767645 1972
2.84668188 1973
3.498748154 1974
3.878909 1975
4.444204541 1976
4.805786541 1977
5.101748352 1978
5.460712119 1979
5.604334826 1980
5.560307956 1981
5.516324595 1982
5.313487374 1983
5.529583062 1984
5.454157152 1985
5.502751376 1986
5.5224584 1987
5.569230401 1988
5.645186777 1989
5.427981479 1990
5.259247219 1991
5.092039572 1992
4.798061083 1993
4.53198797 1994
4.537961437 1995
4.34553209 1996
3.203734308 1997
3.086596785 1998

Calculated as CDC reported # of legal abortions divided by the the population actuals and estimates (the Census' estimates) in thousands for the US from the Census.

So they went up like we both expected. Ans then they went down as I had suspected. Changing people's minds will work. Stick with that plan - see you are winning. They are down 45% since the peak in 1989.

I like these numbers better. The sources are reputable.

Now let's work on the cause and effect part of the argument.

Certainly if that 45% down since 1990 is accurate then yes that is good news in one way, and I would add that part of the reason for that is due to many things, more parental and religious involvement, addressing the problem before it becomes a problem.

Im curious to hear what your thoughts and ideas are on addressing cause and effect?? In what way other than what's being done now, would be effective in your opinion?

 

[Bonnie]

What is moronic and extreme is a church stealing other people's terminated embryos and performing this ceremony. If the church were doing this WITH PERMISSION from the woman involved, it would be a different matter.


A

Andy you know as well as I do that just about every columnists or spokesperson from NOW and NARAL that speaks about the opposition does so in an extremely degrading and insulting way, and they do this precisely to make pro-lifers look extreme, closed minded, stupid, fanatical, wanting to wreck everyone's "good time" taking away any credibility of people that just want to save babies lives.........It's really a very simple idea. The pro-chioce movement is very good at PR and they make a lot of money from abortions............

By the way most pro-lifers don't even spend time on trying to change the law, they spend their time changing minds one potential mother at a time by giving them viable alternatives to abortion, and praying to change minds and hearts.

 

[Bonnie]

Or because they already had children and knew they would not be able to care for more. Or could not care for the one, or were focused on "being remarkable" themselves.

LOL Andy you are really REACHING here!!! Come on you know better than to try that here!!!???

Please, your argument holds no water! JFK, FDR - Ghandi, Beethoven, even King - were all born into privilege, not poverty.

True they were born into wealth or middelclass families, but so what , just as many grew up poor, and did extremely well for themsleves.

Besides, today very few people are not taken care of by societies safety net, including medical treatment, so there really is no excuse for abortion based on economic reasons

Welfare weakens the human spirit - name a famous, heroic, former welfare recipient (not including Rap artists).

Colin Powell grew up in Harlem, dont' know if his parents were on welfare but he was dirt poor came from very humble beginnings, and managed okay!! Yes Welfare weakens the human spirit and Im glad Clinton was talked into signing the Welfare Reform Act

 

[dmp]

Holy crap!

Look people...

Poverty STRENGTHENS the human spirit. Living an easy life is what causes suicides.

ABUSING Welfare will weaking the spirit, because nobody can 'live' (figuratively) if they are lazy.