Both stories were touching and frankly I found your story more heart wrenching.
What a sweet story. A little scripture seems appropriate; "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose". (Romans 8:2
That baby is in heaven and many lives were touched by the experience. And as the very wise RWS says, "life sometimes gives us harder, but infinitely better choices."
Darn smileys! Citation is Romans 8:28
Friends of my parents experienced a similar situation and despite the pressure from the doctors they choose to carry the baby to term. It had a very brief life that was chronicled in photos.
Like you said, life sometimes gives us harder, but infinitely better choices. Had they chosen the quiet, sterile abortion they could have ended it all right there and be left only with the sadness. Choosing life gave their suffering meaning and buoyed them in the times of sadness.
I'm glad the opportunity is given to those who choose life. I wish those who believed that was the right choice had as much respect for those who believe otherwise. There are some who may not be emotionally strong enough to deal with giving birth to a tragically deformed and soon to die baby, and would not receive the comfort from going through the same ordeal.
Let us hope that the choice is left to the individual, and not the state, as the individual is in a much better position to decide what is best than the state.
Do you really think the best policy is to legally mandate that all women and their families faced with this impending tradgedy suffer through it?
Imagine a world where abortion is illegal and a crack addicted hooker becomes pregnant... she knows she's an addict, and she knows she won't be able to go 9 months without using drugs, and she know's that she wont have her life together enough to care for the baby after it's born.
What options are availabe to her other than jail time in this world?
Imagine a world where abortion is illegal? How about our world before 1973?
Brewfan,
That is my favorite verse in the Bible!
I have seen it's truth more times than I can count.
More "crap" from our spiritual guide, BrewFan?
There are some who may not be emotionally strong enough to deal with giving birth to a tragically deformed and soon to die baby, and would not receive the comfort from going through the same ordeal.
Herein lies the rub. Left leaning people tend to believe that we are weak. (This is where their statism comes from though they will deny it). Many people who think they are weak, but when faced with a great challenge rise to the occasion.
Don't project your fears and weaknesses on to others. It's a false empathy.
Also, why do you think that giving birth and giving a child a proper burial would be more emotionally wrenching than having your baby sliced and diced and sucked out of your body or burned to death with saline solution or God knows what else. Oh, wait, they likely don't tell the women that is what is happening.
I am astounded by the ease with which pro-abortion people dismiss stories like this and quickly go into talking points mode. "I am happy that she had the freedom to choose this route..." What a bunch of b.s. Again, enough with your false empathy. Spare us and just come out and say what you really believe.
You would rather not have to deal with the problems that arise from physically and mentally handicapped children or addicted children. It's all too messy and why not just let people choose to abort, because then at least we'll not have to deal with all of it. (I could tell you a story of a white family I know who adopted a crack addicted black baby, you know, the ones the pro-abortion fanatics are always saying are “unwanted?” but you wouldn’t care.)
Pro-choice? Finish the sentence. What are you choosing?
Death.
Sparkle,
I too, think about what our society will look like when there is no abortion. This is where I feel like a Republican because I admit that I'm thinking about the economic and social costs of demanding women to carry to term.
I think about accessible, affordable health care for poor women. I think about the choices of obstetritians that will be available for women on Medicaid. In my city, there is currently a shortage of OB/GYNs for those who DO have insurance. I think about how many unadopted children are currently in the care of youth services today. I wonder if our medicaid programs will be able to sustain possibly 4000 new cases every few days. I think about children with mouths full of cavities who are currently on a one year waiting list to receive dental care from one of the rare dentists who accept Medicaid. I think about drug addicted newborns, babies with horrific birth defects and those who suffer complications for premature delivery who will become part of a system that we cannot currently pay for.
Will child abuse and neglect begin to increase? Will we care BEFORE it's too late, or only after yet another child is victimized? Will our states be willing to offer even more special needs services to our schools and single moms? Will we come up with more affordable childcare services that are licensed? Will the dropout rate increase? Will we have to build even more prisons?
I'll be thrilled if we become a country that is still willing/able to absorb the costs of all pro-life considerations. But the current direction that many social programs are headed leads me to believe that we will become even more antagonist to the poor.
I just hope the pro-lifers will still be on fire to "live the dream." We'll need you to help hold the safety net.
I think about how many unadopted children are currently in the care of youth services today
So, your solution is to kill them.
I think about children with mouths full of cavities who are currently on a one year waiting list to receive dental care from one of the rare dentists who accept Medicaid
So, your solution is to kill them.
I think about drug addicted newborns, babies with horrific birth defects and those who suffer complications for premature delivery who will become part of a system that we cannot currently pay for
So, your solution is to kill them.
Your compassion is touching [extreme sarcasm].
Well CrapFan how many unwanted children is your church taking care of? If there are 4000 abortions a day as Sparkle claims, prohibiting abortion would produce 1,460,000 unwanted children each year. There are approximately 15,000 churches in the US, so each church will need to care for about 100 additional unwanted children each year. So again I ask CrapFan, how many unwanted children is your church caring for?
No Brew,
Not the ones who are already out on the street.
I think it's sometimes more humane to abort early as opposed to dumping children into the system and out on the streets.
Sorry. I plead guilty. If we, as a society, are either unwilling or unable to care for the poor and medically needy, what are we doing? And if we demand that every Terri Schiavo be kept on endless life support, how are we going to pay for this?
I need to see a game plan from the Right.
Cold, baby.
PatrickP:
Don't get yourself all worked up into a lather here. You indicate that if I show any type of empathy toward the suffering of others it is simply false and that I get some pleasure from the abortions that are performed with as little risk to the mother as possible.
It is becuase you make implications such as this that your movement will never be universally accepted. There are those who will either eventually get tired of your hysterical rantings and concede to you, and there are those that will be affected by your hysterical rantings, and will fiegn agreement with you if you agree to stop going on about it, but this is not real support.
I could be anti-abortion if you would tell me what you thought should be done to those that receive "illegal" abortions, but you refuse to do so....
If I was to let you have your way, what would happen to people that get abortions?
Do you believe they would simply cease to exist?
And PatrickP:
In order to "choose death" as you imply I do, I would have to really be a scientific anomly. To my knowledge, one of the things that separates males from females is the ability to become pregnant (and to be faced with a "choice".)
To equate the fact that I am unwilling to make that choice for all of my neighbors in this country with my personal choice for the sake of making me seem somehow more wrong in your mind says a lot about the mindset of those involved on your side of this issue.
There 35 million people living in poverty in the US today. 12 million of those people are children. If 4000 unwanted children were born every day, in ten years the poverty rate for children would more than double and rival the todays total poverty rate. Don't plan on any more tax cuts.
Well CrapFan how many unwanted children is your church taking care of? If there are 4000 abortions a day as Sparkle claims, prohibiting abortion would produce 1,460,000 unwanted children each year. There are approximately 15,000 churches in the US, blah blah blah
Because your whole pathetic argument is based on an extremely bad
premise I'll allow you to reframe your question. BTW, you really shouldn't be so arrogant, you've got nothing to back it up.
No, jandrew, the choice starts with the decision by the male and female to have sex and potentially conceive a baby, a human being.
Sorry. I plead guilty. If we, as a society, are either unwilling or unable to care for the poor and medically needy, what are we doing? And if we demand that every Terri Schiavo be kept on endless life support, how are we going to pay for this?
Can anybody say eugenics? Shame on you, citizenkan!
Brew,
Apples and oranges.
If 4000 unwanted children were born every day, in ten years the poverty rate for children would more than double and rival the todays total poverty rate
You have a bad habit of making things up. Please post a link to the statistics you're citing or go away. You bring nothing to the discussion.
Apples and oranges.
Nice rebuttal. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote and then read the article I linked to and then contrast and compare.
jandrew, how did the nation survive up to 1973?
Percentage-wise, how many healthy babies have been aborted? It's interesting how the pro-abortion proponents ignore that statistic. I suspect the number of babies with serious health issues or due to rape is very small. The statistics are not that important, though, since the nation did just fine before 1973.
I'll accept your number of churches. It's still 4 unwanted children per church per year, (that would be 72 children age 18 or younger). So answer the question CrapFan. How many unwanted children is your church supporting? It'd better be at least 4.
By the way CrapFan, if the 4000 is bad, you'd better talk to your mentor Sparkle. It's her number. The rest is from the census.
Brew,
The answer is simple. It's a woman's choice. Not the government.
When the government tells me how to run my body, now that's eugenics.
Oh, and hasn't the Right preached to us enough to know that abortion is used as a means of birth control? Eugenics?
First of all let's do away with a few misconceptions (pardon the pun) By far of the 4000 unplanned pregnancies would not be poor or neglected children. The majority of those aborting of white women in their 20's and they are not poor. Only scared and unsure. There is literally a 5 yr waiting list for white babies. So there are plenty of homes for those babies that aren't welcome into their their mother's home.
The hard to place children are the older ones and of color. Which is a problem within the black community regarding adopting their own race. Not that many white couples don't adopt other races, they do.
As far as OB services, every crisis pregnancy organizations I know (inclucing the Catholic Church) has services available for those who cannot afford it or do not wish to have theirs in a county hospital.
But as Brewfan wisely points out, no matter what reasons you give, killing the child should never be the answer.
In the same way the govt tells businesses that they have to serve black people, it can tell you that you cannot kill your child.
In both cases, it may be your business or your body, but there is another person's dignity and rights involved.
I'll accept your number of churches
How very big of you. Its hard to admit you were spectacularly wrong though, isn't it?
So answer the question CrapFan. How many unwanted children is your church supporting?
See for yourself.
By the way CrapFan, if the 4000 is bad, you'd better talk to your mentor Sparkle. It's her number.
Why don't you think for yourself? Its really not that hard.
If CrapFan is so "wise" why don't you follow his wisdom and back up your assertions from Wikipedia, Encarta etc.
I also notice that like CrapFan, you remain silent on the fundamental question of how many unwanted children is your church supporting and I don't mean giving them moral support and Christmas baskets.
Since when did the government start making women have sex? As long as a woman chooses to have sex, the woman and the man should be responsible enough to accept the fact that they could conceive a child.
When the government tells me how to run my body, now that's eugenics.
No. Eugenics is a philosophy. A philosophy you yourself ascribe to. Or are you recanting this:
Sorry. I plead guilty. If we, as a society, are either unwilling or unable to care for the poor and medically needy, what are we doing? And if we demand that every Terri Schiavo be kept on endless life support, how are we going to pay for this?
Oh, and hasn't the Right preached to us enough to know that abortion is used as a means of birth control? Eugenics?
This doesn't make sense. Using abortion as birth control to ameliorate society is eugenics. This is not what the 'Right' is preaching. It's what the 'compassionate progressives' are trying to shove down the throat of the American people through the courts. The reason you guys are fighting tooth and nail to keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned is because you know most people don't support your world view. God forbid if a state should be able to make its own abortion laws!
Sparkle,
The white baby waiting list sounds more like the eugenics that BrewFan was showing me. So what happens when we have too many of one color and not enough white to go around? What do we do with all the undesireables? And on any given day 100,000 plus foster children are waiting to be adopted.
And now that the government wants to govern womens bodies, it's dictated that they shall carry all babies to term.
And when the government then reverses its law and tells you that you are now only allowed two children, will that be enough government intrusion for you?
I also notice that like CrapFan, you remain silent on the fundamental question of how many unwanted children is your church supporting and I don't mean giving them moral support and Christmas baskets.
Stop being a jerk. Once I exposed your argument as fallacious you should have dropped it. It's not the churches responsibility to take care of anybody (although they do). Why is it that I suspect in a different time and place you'd be howling about separation of church and state?
You are the one who refers to the comments of others as "crap" jerk. If it's not the churches' responsibility, whose responsibility is it CrapFan? From your dodging one thing is certain. You don't think it's yours.
You are the one who refers to the comments of others as "crap" jerk
Not true, I only refer to yours that way.
If it's not the churches' responsibility, whose responsibility is it CrapFan
If you get pregnant, it's you and your partner's responsibility. Nobody elses.
Fortunately, the church/society is there to help those who can't help themselves. One thing's for sure, Du Monde, killing babies doesn't solve anything.
GE,
How morally correct you are. But the government should not be legislating laws that control a woman's birthing capabilities. Otherwise, we'd better starting hiring morality police because the taxpayers will soon be calling for penalties against those who drain our system. You know, like welfare mothers, smokers...and fat people are next.
If the mother won't take the responsibility, and she views it as her right to control the fetus inside her own body, then do us all a favor.
And Brew, I believe leaving it to the states to decide is perfectly acceptable. It will discriminate against poor women, but what else is new. It will never keep the monied class from getting what they want.
The fate of the fetus should be left to the woman, with whatever minimum restrictions anti-choice zealots can be placated with. The government should not tell women what they can and can't do with the contents of their body. Yes, there's life in there, but at 16-20 weeks, there are many women who can separate their guilt from their necessities and realities. It can never be healthy for a woman to be guilted into carrying a fetus that she feels nothing for.
Harsh realities. I'm all for working to slow down abortion rates, but letting the government inch their way into women's reproductive tracts will literally open Pandora's box.
The unfortunate reality is that many thousands take no more responsibility than you do. Since churches are the principal source of anti-abortion zealotry it is not unreasonable to expect those same churches to accept responsibility for the consequences of their zealotry. And, do us a favor CrapFan, stop misusing the word "baby" for dramatic effect. No one is talking about "killing babies."
Is "Crap fan" supposed to be a rub on BrewFan?
Must have hurt to hear yourself called that, Brew. That was harsh.
Brew,
The answer is simple. It's a woman's choice. Not the government.
When the government tells me how to run my body, now that's eugenics.
citizenkan | 01.29.06 - 8:20 pm |
She made her choice, here. The post spoke of the reluctance of the Hospital to treat her and the baby as something other than unnecessary. Is it that hard to take this, combine it with the girl at Baystate, and end up with the government, along with the health care industry, taking the "choice" out of our hands?
Tom,
Yes, you're right. She did make her choice. Shame on the hospital. Those who cut into healthcare profits often get treated much the same as Rosa.
citizenkan | 01.29.06 - 10:30 pm | # :
Sorry, I just got back.
Then at least on this, we agree here? The actions of the institutions (and possibly the Government) may be telling. Should there be increased pressure in the near future (as I think the Baystate case illustrates), I am going to be careful about wanting government and industry input about quality of life issues. This affects both pro-life and pro-choice positions.
"As long as a woman chooses to have sex, the woman and the man should be responsible enough to accept the fact that they could conceive a child.--goldeneagle"
How about rape? Is that a woman's choice? How about when contraception fails?
Aborting a blastocyst is not "killing a baby." Having a baby when you don't want one and eventually beating or otherwise abusing it to death: now that's "killing a baby." (See Haleigh, for example.)
RWS: "Imagine a world where abortion is illegal? How about our world before 1973?"
Ah yes, the good ol' coathanger days. Abortion has been around since the beginning of time. Are you really that deluded? Is that really what you want?
"In the same way the govt tells businesses that they have to serve black people, it can tell you that you cannot kill your child."
Did you really write that? What on earth could you possibly be thinking?
When contraception fails, that's part of the risk. You want inconsequential sex. It doesn't exist. That's what makes it special.
Your point about rape is much more important. I do see where a trauma that is manifest, and not only ever present, but increasingly so is a burden horrible to bear. I would be interested to hear from rape victims who decided to choose to keep the baby.
"In the same way the govt tells businesses that they have to serve black people, it can tell you that you cannot kill your child."
Did you really write that? What on earth could you possibly be thinking?
Actually, I think that is a good analogy. RWS is saying there are ways you just don't allow people to be treated. Judging from your "Blastocyst" referral, you should be concerned with convincing the pro-life folks that which is being aborted is not human life. Failing to do that, you will never convince anyone with the blastocyst statement.
Absolutely, but I think we're already there, Tom. The government, the insurance industry and Big Pharma just had their way with us. All at the same time! That's control.
The quality and kind of care one gets is determined by what one can afford.
And the government has already exercised its input by walking in on Terri Schiavo.
Live, love, laugh and be happy!
anonymous was me.
Neither side will convince the other. Only compromise will work.
Tom M: The anti-choice zealots cannot be convinced. They're on a mission from "god." The way to combat their misogyny is by always continuing the fight to keep choice legal. And we will.
Rape victims who become pregnant and don't opt for abortion? WTF? That's not the issue. The issue is that anti-choice zealots want to ensure that even women who are raped and become pregnant be forced into compulsory pregnancy. That's only one of many possible scenarios wherein they should be made to defend their position. Another would include the 11-year-old child who is impregnated by her father. Their answer, again, would be to blame the victim and force a child to have a child.
anonymous was me.
Neither side will convince the other. Only compromise will work.
citizenkan | 01.29.06 - 11:31 pm
Sorry for not responding earlier, I'm winding down.
Thanks for the ID.
I often wonder why the pro-choice crowd doesn't use the jurisdictional quotient in arguments toward legal abortion. You will convince many more of us than necessary that the issue, at least, is something of a red herring. This is why I think the only solution is to decriminalize abortion. If the governmet is to have any jurisdictional restrictions, it should be here. It does not mean that the government has to fund it, promote it, provide it, or approve of it. The government has every right to feel it is a wrong thing to do.
I also think Roe v Wade was bad law and should be repealed. Understand that there is a lot of us out here.
I agree with you also on the government with regards to Terri Schaivo - to a point, but enough of a point to grant your premise. But it also begs the question:
Does the government have any kind of authrity to determine such things as the worthiness of a life?
Using your point regarding the government/health care/pharma coop, the idea that government should be the arbiter of when a life begins, or when it ceases to be viable is dangerous. Don't forget, the government you would trust to make the correct decisions will not always be in power.
Tom M: The anti-choice zealots cannot be convinced. They're on a mission from "god."
Why bother? I mean is it really worth your effort and energy? You have a fundamental (okay, bad choice of words) disagreement that is a deal breaker. Please see my previous post.
Rape victims who become pregnant and don't opt for abortion? WTF? That's not the issue. The issue is that anti-choice zealots want to ensure that even women who are raped and become pregnant be forced into compulsory pregnancy.
That must be part of the issue. Everything that will feel a consequence to an action must be given attention.
That you are worrying about abortion will be forbidden even in the case of rape/incest shows that you are looking down the road, but understand, the folks you are going to convince of this are already convinced.
Please undertstand, Pro-lifers have the conviction, not just belief, that the sacred part of life, the part that gives it the natural rights that our social compact reveers(sp?), begins at conception. You can argue it is wrong, but that does not mean it is unvirtuous, or ignoble.
Tom,
I grudgingly agree with you that Roe v Wade should've been left up to the states.
Same with government support; although it's stance on viewing life as sacred is ethically challenged at best.
Moderate views must prevail.
Um, Aunt Shirley, I do consider rape an exception. That's why I said"as long as the woman chooses to have sex". Rape is not woman's choice. Almost all the pro-life people I know also consider rape an exception. You're way off base there.
A blastocyst is a baby, a human being, a child. I understand pro-abortionists fight this because it hurts their ability to de-humanize abortion.
What is the number of abortions of healthy children before and after 1973? How many women had to use coat-hangers before 1973?
Until the pro-abortionists start recognizing that unborn children are being killed and until it's recognized that maybe a human being would prefer to live instead of being "aborted", pro-abortionists will continue to rationalize abortion.
I think everyone agree that abortion is a terrible decision, the question is who makes this decision the individual or the gov't? I vote for the individual even though I may not necessarily agree.
Thank you. It is late, but I ask this: If government does not have the authority to declare the life-worthiness of a thing, either as sacred, or as not having the conditions which give it rights, Can the government take any position on this?
I must go. Thank you for the discussion. In confession, I have been listen to "You are what you is" and "Sheik Yerbooty" by F Z and it has been tough to fight the easy, cheap, cynical replies.
Wow Tom, I missed your statement about trusting government to make the decision. I don't trust the government or the church to ever tell me when life begins or ends inside my own body.
I disagree Paul.
I think the pro-abortion side considers abortion a right, not a terrible decision. If not, why do so many from that side have trouble acknowledging what abortion really is.
GE,
What does the difference between a right and a terrible decision have to do with who should make the decision to abort a "baby fetus?"
Thanks very much for posting this, RWS, and for sharing that story.
Thanks.
Du Monde says:
And, do us a favor CrapFan, stop misusing the word "baby" for dramatic effect
Aunt Shirley echos:
Aborting a blastocyst is not "killing a baby.
I admit this is where we part company, because if you believed that life began at conception you would be guilty of advocating homocide. So, this is the point you must defend to the death (pun intended). Don't you guys ever worry that you're wrong? I mean, its not like you have science on your side. Your belief requires as much faith as mine. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the only possible outcome is a baby human being.
As far as coat hanger abortions, I think I have established that those numbers before 1973 were a lie. The coathanger is a lie. Since you don't want to read the links, Nathanson said that they told the court that tens of thousands of woman were dying or injured from illegal abortions, in reality only 73, that is right 73 had died in 1972. That's 72 too many, but a problem more easily addressed than unlimited abortion. The annual rate was anywhere from 100-250 deaths. Not the 10,000 number that was given to the media and the court. Lie after lie. Jane Roe lied, and NARAL lied.
Aunt Shirely,
I use that analogy because it is one I have heard myself. When I was a teenager growing up in Mississippi I heard a resturant owner tell my dad that it was HIS business and the govt had no right to interfere in who he wished to serve. But my father told him that although it was his business, there was someone else's rights to be considered. When I heard the abortion argument about it being "my body" I remembered that. But in the former no on dies of course.
In our hearts, even you leftys know that this is wrong. I can tell in your replys. It's not something you are comfortable defending.
Instead of supporting your side's fight against us, we should work together to make abortion not needed.
GE:
So if a woman who is raped becomes pregnant and chooses to abort, is it murder?
"How many women had to use coat-hangers before 1973?"
You really have no concept of what illegal abortion involves, do you?
"I think the pro-abortion side considers abortion a right, not a terrible decision."
And you really have no idea what women go through to reach that decision, do you?
Is everything that is legal a "right"?
And again, what about the 11-year-old who is sexually abused and impregnated? Should she be forced into compulsory pregnancy? If she is "permitted" an abortion, is it murder?
BrewFan:
"When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the only possible outcome is a baby human being."
You are so wrong. You seem to have no idea how many fertilized eggs morph into medical catastrophes and unrecognizable human-like forms that have no possible chance of surviving within the womb or without. Anti-choicers choose to believe a fairy-tale if this is your stance.
RWS:
"no matter what reasons you give, killing the child should never be the answer."
Please respond, then, to the scenarios of rape and the 11-year-old impregnated by her abusive father. No abortion for them?
Interesting that you make an analogy between a woman's body and a place of business. In other words, both should be subjected to government regulation?
"Instead of supporting your side's fight against us, we should work together to make abortion not needed."
Finally, something we can agree on. This would involve easier access to birth control, emergency contraception, and better education programs, yes?
Of course this is an uncomfortable topic. No one wants to see abortions happen. Why must your side continue to demonize as "babykillers" those who simply understand that the option of abortion must be "legal, safe, and rare"?
Also, I challenge you to print the story of the testimony given by the Republican Christian woman who had a late-term abortion because of the danger to her health, just as you did this story here. Macswain linked to it on an earlier thread. I won't hold my breath.
When I was pregnant with my twins...there was a change one or both had spina bifida. I went in for testing and was "counseled". The counselor was pro-abortion. She told me how unfair it would be to my two year old son to allow these children to be born. It would take all my time to care for them and he would receive no attention. I was told the horrors of a life with spina bifida. Then, the doctor came in. He explained to me how one baby might have it and the other not and he would go in with a needle and puncture the heart of the baby with it and I would carry this dead baby with the possibility of toxemia. Also, there was a possibility he could puncture the heart of the wrong baby. I was appalled. I got up and told them they would not touch me again. I carried both babies to term and both were healthy, thank God. I was made to feel guilty for my decision to choose life. I will never forget that day and it was 24 years ago. My twins are my Marine sons and I can't imagine my life without them. Had I listened to the counselor and the doctor, I might not have had them in my life.
I just thought I would throw in some statistics to help this debate
% of women who have abortions for rape, instest, fetal health, or maternal health 5.1%
This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so don't try to argue that they are made up by anti-abortionists.
55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
I also have read that the reason most children in foster care aren't being adopted isn't because people don't want to but because they aren't eligible. There are rules about how children must stay in foster care for a certain amount of time in an attempt to reuninte them with biological parents before they can be adopted. Additionally many parents refuse to relenquish their parental rights even though they can't/don't want to take care of thier children. Many foster parents are glorified-babysitters, many of my family members (aunts/uncles/ parents in-law) have done foster care and they would have adopted but the parents of the children they were caring for refused to give up parental rights, and also refused to take care of thier children. I know there is a place where you can find the exact statistics, but I'm afraid I wasn't able to find it.
So if, as RWS claims, there are 4,000 abortions per day in this country, that 5.1 percent would equal nearly 75,000 abortions annually for rape, incest, and health reasons. Should they all be disallowed? If not, then is it murder?
BTW, this statistic contradicts RWS's earlier contention that "99% of abortions" that are performed do not encompass rape, incest, or medical reasons.
jandrewmorrison, haven't you noticed the pressure this poor woman was under to abort? This is sadly all too common.
I've not seen any real concern among the so-called "prochoice" about women being pressured into unwanted abortions. If it's really all about "choice," then there should be outrage among the prochoice about this problem. But the outrage is tiny and individual, among reticent prochoicers. The prochoice movement seems content to let these women be browbeaten to abort, even unto the point of death. (Marla Cardamone and Allegra Roseberry, for example, both died from complications of unwanted abortions. Both had been told their babies had been horribly damaged by their medications. Both women had been duped into aborting perfectly healthy babies. Where is the prochoice outrage?)
citizenkan, if abortion cures child abuse, how come it's not succeeded after 33 years? Did we abort the wrong 45 million fetuses? Or was 45 million not enough?
Du Monde, readily available abortion increases the number of pregnancies. After all, the woman is able to get pregnant again almost immediately, whereas if she gives birth she will spend nine months on the the current pregnancy, and likely won't be fertile again for at least another three months.
Abortion guru Christopher Tietze noticed in the early 1970s that readily available abortion leads to an increase in pregnancy. So we'd not have all those additional children. It's that those children would be born rather than aborted, and their mothers would not be pregnant again so quickly.
Do you really think it's better to have more pregnancies resulting in the same number of births, just to have "choice"? Why not just let the kids be born and not conceive as many?
citizenkan, outlawing abortion doesn't mean that the government chooses who aborts any more than laws against arson means that the government decides which buildings get torched. Some things are just bad and society says, "No."
citizenkan, there are enough adoptive families. It's the screwy system that keeps the kids trapped. So instead of fixing the system, we kill the kids? What kind of solution is that? Isn't that blaming the victim?
Well, as I read I see that this is all a shrill shouting match, so I'll just point out to those who are interested:
1. I've blogged on this story, and included relevant links.
2. Don't Like Abortions? Don't Have One!" What a crock! Legalization pushes abortion on women who don't want to abort. Which women are we going to side with? Those who don't want to abort, who love their unborn children? Or those who are self-centered and selfish and want their babies to die? We as a society have to choose.
I don't want the govt regulating anything to do with a woman, But I do want it to protect basic human rights. Which does include a child's right to live.
One thing that has been established in other threads, if not this one, is that there is room for compromise. It just seems it's not our side that isn't willing to do it.
You leftys work on that for me.
Thanks for the statistics everyone.
Aunt Shirley,
I've already addressed rape. I've already said this twice: "as long as the woman chooses to have sex".
I see you also avoided the coat-hanger question. Thanks Sparkle for the answer.
So if I have never experienced something I can never form an opinion about it? Does that include all the women who have not had an abortion or not had a child?
I stress that abortion is considered more a right than a terrible decision by the left because of the word game by them. Why do the left get upset when words like "baby", "child" or "human being" are used instead of "fetus"? How come the left focuses on "pro-choice", a right, instead of what the act really is, abortion.
If women don't want an abortion, NO ONE can make them have one. This "they pressured me" scenario is beyond me to understand. What kind of woman is that?
Christina, I didn't say that abortion stops child abuse. I said that bringing more unwanted children into the world will likely "pile on" to the statistics. Just like the people that Sarah Faith spoke of who won't take care of their own kids, yet won't relinquish them to the state. Is the Right prepared to fix that "screwy system" of ours before more babies are dumped into it? Where will they be when 45 million more babies arrive on our doorstep? Will they be able to rescue that many more? I just want to know that the Right is prepared to provide a safety net to all those poor women who will no longer "be pressured" into having abortions.
The screwy system that keeps kids trapped? You mean like the zealots who try to make it their business to keep loving gay families from adopting?
And if a government can outlaw a womans right to abortion, what makes you think they can't eventually regulate the number of children women are allowed to have?
GE: What "coat-hanger question"? You mean this?:
"How many women had to use coat-hangers before 1973?"
I don't know. Do you? Also:
"I've already addressed rape. I've already said this twice: "as long as the woman chooses to have sex." But you avoid the question of whether an abortion in such a case is, as your side describes it, "murder." Is it?
Also:
"So if I have never experienced something I can never form an opinion about it? Does that include all the women who have not had an abortion or not had a child?"
Obviously people are free to have opinions on whatever they want. I don't know what you're referring to with this question.
RWS: "I don't want the govt regulating anything to do with a woman, But I do want it to protect basic human rights. Which does include a child's right to live."
Unfortunately (and without subscribing to your dictum that a fertilized ovum has the same basic human rights as an actual person), you can't have it both ways, can you?
"Lefties" are not required to "work on" anything to satisfy you. And while I don't presume to speak for pro-choicers everywhere, I've stated elsewhere that there should be restrictions on abortion. The problem with the right is that they think there should never be abortion, anytime, anywhere, because it's "murder." When pressed, they acknowledge that perhaps an 11-year-old impregnated by her father, or a raped woman, might be permitted to forego compulsory pregnancy. Again, take responsibility for your ironclad position. In such situations, is this not also "murder"?
I hope I'm meeting redstatevoter's exacting standards for logic.
Damn,
What the hell is it that Pro-Life wants?????
Assume that you got to write a law tomorrow that you were gauranteed would be upheld by the Supreme Court.....
What would that law say???
Do you guys even know what it is you are fighting for, or do you simply support the "Pro-Life" slogan with so much zeal that you don't attempt to understand the issue??
Assume we agree on why you want a new interpretation of the Constitution, now what do you want that interpretation to result in?
And the Right will not stop after abortion is restricted. Just look at what's going on in our pharmacies across the country.
"No birth control for you," says the soup Nazi.
And how about the FDA bowing to some government zealot who doesn't want over the counter morning-after pills available?
And what about stem-cell research? You guys are on a mission, and it's not just about abortion!
Don't get me started on the stem cell thing. There is not a single intelligent person in this world who could possible look at the scientific advances that could be made, and the countless people that could be helped, and tell me with a straight face that somehow it is more important to throw these cell clusters in the trash than it is to use them for research.
citizenkan,
Now that disappoints me. Trust me. Women are pressured into abortions every day. I saw it too many times to count.
Why is it sometimes you sound so rational and other times you go off the deep end? It has to be your reading Kos or something.
I thought we have reached a compromise here. 1st trimester only, 24 hour waiting period, parental consent for minor and partial birth abortion ban.
Now I would add (and I think yall will agree to) "informed consent" Abortion is the only surgical procedure in the country where there is no informed consent. Where a doctor is not required to inform the patient of the exact detailed nature of the procedure.
Also I would like to get Planned Parenthood out of the business of abortion and let Doctors own and operate their own clinics.
So Abortion can remain legal with the above restrictions on it? This is asking for even less than I thought you wanted.
Take it to your legislature.
I don't think your definition of "informed consent" is all that informed, but that can easily be worked out in a later compromise.
And as far as placing restrictions on who can own medical clinics, that seems a bit draconian. Can you provide a list of individuals who are not allowed to own these clinics, or should Planned Parenthood just change it's name?
Now, what are the penalties for violating the above restrictions?
What disappoints you, Sparkle? The comment I made about women being pressured into abortions?
Or is it about the other birth control issues that are suddenly "on the radar screen" of the Right?
And using Kos against this liberal will never work. I quit reading that site years ago.
Sparkle: I could go with your compromise. Except late-term abortion procedures must be available for the rare instance in which it may be needed to protect the woman's health.
The penalites would be for the doctor, not the woman. and I would want them to be severe.
The fact is most Americans have long agreed on these compromises, but the left refuses. Everytime one is passed in the state, the ACLU or Planned Parenthood takes it to court.
Do I still think abortion is evil and wrong? Sure. Would I still wish for stricter laws? Sure. But my list of stricter laws on a number of things would take a while to write out. I hate pornography and children's access to it online and on T.V. but I am but one voice. And I take what I can get.
"Everytime one is passed in the state, the ACLU or Planned Parenthood takes it to court."
Whose fault is that? If it's legal, it'll be upheld by the court and you will prevail!
Restrictions have to be able to withstand the scrutiny of our legal system.
Are you blaming the court system now? An activist judge, perhaps?
And seriously, Sparkle, you only punish the doctor? Two people engage in illegal activity and only one is punished? No wonder the courts throw out the Right's attempts at making restrictive laws for women!
Sorry it disappoints you and jandrew that I would not prosecute the woman.
This isn't about legality or the court system. It's about The ACLU and PP wanted unlimited abortion and screw what the people want.
It isn't about legality or the court system?
For the ACLU and PP that is ALL it's about!
Sparkle,
YOU don't get to determine who gets punished if abortion becomes illegal! It's very sweet of you to want to dismiss the woman's role in this "illegal activity," but I don't think our legal system will agree with you on this one.
Your argument means that suddenly the woman becomes the victim in a crime about a "sacred life." You can't have it both ways.
So what is the penalty for the Doctor? Let me guess, it is severe enough to scare any reasonable person away from ever considering making abortion a part of their ob/gyn practice?
Yeah, lets blame only the Doctors, that way we will seem so much more compassionate.
RWS, some principles should never be put aside. St. Paul wrote, "Abhor what is evil, cling to what is good".
sparkle : as this discussion has evolved, it appears that those on the left would only be willing to compromise, in theory. Once you provided them with your compromise position, they proceeded to pick apart the various choices, reverting back to the status quo.
Good observation, JD.
I'm in favor of all aspects of the comprimise excepting a severe penalty for the Doctor who performs an abortion outside of the regulation.
The penalty should against the doctor should be doled out by the state medical licensing board, not the criminal justice system.
Not so. Restrict abortion to 1st or 2nd trimester. I've said it. Aunt Shirley said it. Jandrew said it.
I've tried to point out that there is clearly an agenda beyond abortion for the anti-choice zealots. Otherwise, why the constraints on birth control at the FDA and pharmacies across the country?
citizenkan, what can't you understand about people who lie to women in order to trick them into abortions? What can't you understand about abusive men who threaten women to get them to abort?
How is it that the prochoice can believe that women are "forced" to ream themselves out with coathangers just because there's not an abortion mill on every street corner, but can't believe that there's such a thing as using lies, threats, and coersion to get women to abort?
citizenkan, we're not the least bit opposed to stem cell research. We're opposed to raising false hope with pie-in-the-sky plans that involve killing embryos. We're very much in favor of the dozens of powerful treatments now available with adult and cord-blood stem cells. That's stem-cell treatments available right now that actually are curing patients.
The question ought to be why the embryonic stem-cell fanatics keep playing Dr. Frankenstein when clearly their research is a dead end.
jandrewmorrison, why aren't the supposedly pro-choice people protecting women from seedy abortionists?
Christina,
You give absolutely no credit to women. You view them as pathetic, yielding, abused creatures. Trick a woman into abortion? Get real. If that happened, then that woman had WAY bigger problems before she ever found herself pregnant. Legal abortion centers DO NOT trick or lie to women. It would never be in their interest to do so.
Yes, there are many abused women out there who can't seem to break the abuse cycle. THOSE are the women that you need to rescue. Not the majority of clear-headed strong women who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about abortion.
Seedy abortionists spring up, Christina, when there are no longer safe, clean facilities for women to go. Those places get shut down because of the bullying tactics of anti-choice zealots.
Women do desperate things, Christina. Sometimes it has absolutely nothing to do with pressure from men. Unfortunately, there are women who would do anything NOT to be pregnant once they find themselves in that predicament. Just as there are women who would actually kill another woman, cut her baby from her stomach and take it home as if it belonged to her.
Quit being afraid of research, Christina. Framing your argument with Dr. Frankenstein references shows the weakness of your position. Research is never-ending. Nor should it be.
Just responding to your comments, Aunt Shirley. You brought up coat hangers so why are you asking me? I would expect you to know if you brought it up.
No, I don't consider abortion to be murder in a rape situation. First of all, it is a legal term. Second of all, it is the killing of an unborn child but it is one of the few exceptions I would make. In principle, it is still wrong but I can understand why a lady, or a couple, might not want the child.
To all, I understand the concern that pro-abortionists have about wanting to control their own bodies. Who doesn't? But when I see the word "choice" used in place of "abortion" it implies that there is avoidance of what is really happening: an unborn child is being killed. If pro-abortionists got their way, children die. If pro-lifers got their way, women, and couples, may be inconvenienced. Which sounds worse?
105 Responses before I got to the post.
A most touching story. I will read the comments but I must ask one question of all those here, including any who may have sided with the abortionists:
Aren't you glad your mother chose life?
I am.
Thanks, Mom. The gift you and Dad gave me is one I will never fully appreciate. Without it, I would never have known the other gifts that came along with it.
RWR
Commenting by HaloScan
