Abortion rates are at the lowest in decades. How about murders?
Besides… don’t we want high abortion rates? If there are no babies, then we don’t have to deal with these whiners wanting healthcare when they come of age. Ta-da, two problems solved. *
I hate to say it charlie you are right abortion rates went up this year but they are still at all time lows.
most recent abortions are from families that already have 2 or 3 kids and can’t afford them, if insurance companies covered birth control that wouldn’t happen. over 90% of women use some form of birth control during their lives.
but your stupid abstinence only education doesn’t teach women how to protect themselves.
^^ You better qualify your statement or someone will come along and point out the contradictory nature of it, not to mention the fallacy. I’m pretty sure that abortion rates were next to nil in other historic times.
I agree, Cogent….before the January 1973 roe vs wade miscarriage of justice, USA abortion rates may have been the “all-time low”….
“birth control” is a private family matter that the State has no business “teaching” or “promoting”…the State’s job is to protect all life, born and unborn, from Murder.
The husband and wife have God’s authority to have children and the responsibility to raise them safely to adulthood; the Christian couples should have counsel from their local church and non-Christians should have private counselling from their doctor or his referral.
Medical societies (private) have monitor duties of the professionals…but the STATE should not interfere…except if evidence of abuse or misconduct is suspected.
Until 1973 abortion was always “wrong”…and 1973 only legalized a moral and physical wrong that was a Crime, 1787 to 1973.
How about the Philadelphia doctor doing illegal abortions???????? I understand he is charged with 7 counts of murder for killing newborns with scissors and the death of one patient.
Make abortion illegal once again, and we’ll have the same situation we had pre-1973: only rich women will be able to get safe, sterile, confidential abortions from their private doctors. And they will – they do now, regardless of religion or “morals” – make no mistake.
Poor women, of course, will be stuck with the same old back-alley quacks, or do-it-yourself abortions with coat hangers and/or pennyroyal oil and/or falling down the stairs and/or having someone kick them in the stomach. They will be crippled or die of infection and blood loss and trauma, like they always have.
Women have been making the choice to have children or not for millennia. Just making abortion illegal won’t make it go away. It’ will just make it unsafe for the non-rich majority of women.
^^ and that was only for the ones they could prove. My local liberal rag actually noted that there were hundreds of records found indicating other abortions were done in similar horrid conditions of his clinic… and those were of the records that weren’t destroyed.
The problem with these “numbers” when it comes to abortion rates is that only those abortions which are reported are listed in the numbers. Typically abortions with girls under 15 don’t go tracked as many happen without the parent’s knowledge (making it illegal in most states if not all).
Also, with illegal aliens (which we have millions) and too many low income districts have a tendency to go unaccounted for in the federal figures.
With that said, prior to Roe V Wade that is essentially how nearly all abortions were conducted, off the books or in shady clinics/homes/etc. It’s hard to know just how many abortions were conducted in the 70’s and before since they were illegal. However, I imagine it’s not going to be as much as today with our easy, legal access to it… even with some plans paying for it and entities like Planned Parenthood paying for them.
Before long, medical science will change the nature of the abortion issue and help crystalize the real “choice” being made.
Suppose in the near future, it becomes possible to harvest the unborn child as soon as Mom realizes she’s pregnant (about 1 month) and grow the child to 9 months outside the womb. The procedure would be about the same as an abortion. Mom would have the option to raise the child herself or give her up for adoption… but would she still have the right to choose an abortion instead?
If you debate the abortion issue long enough, you’ll hear from women who will admit “I wasn’t ready to raise a child, but I couldn’t stand the thought of anyone else raising her, so I had an abortion”. Is that the right to choose we’re protecting, or will it become void when medical science makes it obsolete by helping the unborn become viable early?
Canadian, then you admit that the abortion issue is really about population control, not women’s rights?
As to pro-women rhetoric, I’ve seen stats that say that not having an abortion puts the mother at risk about 5% of the time (I’m in favor of abortion when Mom’s life is endangered). However, I’ve seen other statistics that says having an abortion puts the unborn child at risk about 100% of the time. Since 51% of children born are female, isn’t the most pro-women position that which advocates that they be allowed to be born at all?
Jared Loughner is OBVIOUSLY a perfectly sane, “good Christian” just doing “God’s work” for him, as ONLY “God” can determine when people die? Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Tucson– just “good Christians” working for God– right.
God is the ultimate Red Herring when introduced into the abortion discussion, pro or con. The issue is about the rights of people, not of theologies. Traditional Hawiians didn’t have abortions, but left their unwanted children (usually girls) in the surf for Mako the shark god to devour, but I don’t see anyone advocating for that anymore.
I’ve always been surprised that abortion isn’t the ultimate issue for progressives, who (by definition) have advocated the progress and expansion of human rights throughout history. Progress in human rights for slaves, women, children, and even animals came to a screeching halt in the 1960’s… why not expand human rights to the unborn to continue this noble progression?
Eventually this will happen (it’s beginning to with our young people), but maybe we’ll have to wait until all the flower children die out before progressivism moves forward again and protects these people-to-be.
DjGuardian just so you are aware, when women use birth control they have to have a 3rd party to get it, it’s usually a Doctor to prescribe birth control pills or one of the other means of preventing pregnancy. When men use birth control they go to the corner store to by condoms, and only if they get a vasectomy do they need to involve a 3rd party. (I’m guessing you failed health class when you were in high school) So we know that 90% of women use birth control in their lifetimes while we have no numbers on men.
Our local abortion clinic had to hire a full time Spanish speaker because they provide so many abortions to the daughters of Spanish speak immigrants and almost all of those are under the age of 15. What it boils down to is whatever someone chooses it’s between them and God not for the government to decide(wow you’d think the psycho anti government types would be pro women’s rights but then you remember they just want government out of their lives and to interfere with everyone elses.)
kryeian, you’re absolutely right. You’d think that conservatives would be in favor of abortion rights, but religion has gotten into the mix and many people think that they’re advocating for God, not people. That’s slowly shifting.
However, man can no longer beat a woman because he “has the God-given right”, nor can he send his child to work “because he has the “God-given right”, nor can he own his neighbor “because he has the “God-given right”. In each case, the rights of people to do these horrible things was sanctioned and protected by the government. Also in each case, progressivism stepped in and placed limitations on these rights as it recognized and expanded the new rights of others.
One day, the rights of the unborn will be recognized and human rights will move forward. It won’t be conservatives behind it, either. It never is.
Nemesys what is your position on women getting an abortion if she was raped? or if the child will be born with a severe birth defect that she can’t afford to take care of? or she already has 3 kids and can’t afford to feed a forth?
It’s a really terrible thing to have to choose between an unborn child’s life and the rest of the families wellbeing, but life won’t mean anything if it was easy.
And don’t give me that BS about adoption. I’ve worked with the poor for 13 years now and the teenagers who have the guts to give a kid up for adoption get treated like s**t by everyone (their family, their friends, their teachers even) because they didn’t raise ‘their own’ child. It must suck to have to justify your decision to everybody you meet for the rest of your life; heck abortion would be an easier decision than those kids make.
kryteian, since I don’t have a religious viewpoint on abortion, I’m ok with rape/incest victims having abortions. Dittos re: birth defects. That’s a very tiny percentage of abortions, however, so it doesn’t really influence the question very much.
My mother had me adopted in the situation you describe, so I guess the only BS is your insistance against adoption. I’m not really moved by your argument that it’s better to abort a child just because mom’s feelings might be hurt by ignorant people, no matter how “easy” that might be. I’m kinda glad that my mother - a 19 year-old nurse from an old-style Italian family in the north end of Boston - made that really hard choice.
As you say… choosing life isn’t easy. But is having things “easy” the right we’re protecting, or is there perhaps a higher one?
Last week Oprah Winfree spoke of her pregnancy at age 14, and that had her baby NOT died, it is unlikely she would have achieved “success”, in fact under the culture of the times, none of it would have occurred.
Statistics in fact make it likely she would have been one of those “lazy welfare mothers” the “right” hate so much.
Point being rape and incest should NOT determine any young girl’s life. The “pre-born” are NOT entitled to “rights”. IF they do, should we “pre-determine” those who will be murderers or assassins, and terminate THEM to save the state, and their potential victims?
Nemesys I’m glad your mom made the choice she did, my point is and will always be, it’s up to the woman to make that choice.
if something is easy/hard is irrelivant because that will always depend on the person. Things I think are easy might not be for you.
Adoption is what the anti-abortion zelots throw out there, “why don’t they just give the kid up for adoption?” everyone thinks that’s so easy but I’ve seen how hard it is and it sounds like your bio-mom took the time to make the decision she could live with.
Insert “My wife” or “My slaves” into that sentence and hear how it sounds today. 100 years from now, that’s how this sentence will sound, too.
kryteian, thanks for your thoughts. I’m just hoping that we can get to the point where both mom and the unborn child can find a decision that they both can live with. It might be possible one day.
kyreian… I’m not aware that any school health program is providing birth control pills. However, they do give out condoms and sex ed programs push that method heavily because it’s quite simple and inexpensive, however imperfect. I’m not aware of teens and 20 somethings getting their tubes tied nor schools advocating it (matching your silly vasectomy comment). But I guess where ever you are common sense is abandoned for extremes.
You brought up abstinence education Ky… throwing vasectomies into your reasoning is a non-sequitur.
When I was in school they didn’t waste time on sex-ed classes. They taught stuff like Math (which our country is currently abysmal at), history, logic (not taught at all anymore), science, English, languages and arts. We didn’t have the kind of numbers in abortions nor teen pregnancies nor STDs as there are now either. I have no illegitimate children or children out of wedlock. Neither did any of my class mates in either high school I attended. Nor am I aware of any abortions (I’m sure at the public school there had to be at least one just by chance and numbers).
So I’m assuming that the lack of sex-ed programs somehow made me delinquent? shakes head in bemusement
As far as numbers for “boys” and men wearing condoms, we do have numbers actually. The problem is that they cannot be confirmed by a doctor’s log so they are inaccurate. But with all this silly discussion of women rights/equality or what ever… where’s the man’s/male’s responsibility in the matter? That was my point and the one you left out.
“…and kryteian, how come you only sight women’s responsibility in birth control? Just saying…”
Lastly regarding my previous comment, I was also pointing out that the lack of numbers available prior to Roe v Wade makes it impossible to compare the eras, but that logic would dictate that there would be less simply because of societal pressure and the lack of resources. Also, that if one did seek an abortion in that era that it was more likely to be similar to the situation of the qwak in Philli that Justice had brought up.
Btw, one of my best friends in high school was adopted by a wonderful family that could not bear children. One of my best friends adopted a child because the wife didn’t want to bear children. They too are wonderful parents. Extreme Home Makeover has highlighted fantastic families that have adopted or have large families, even with physical and/or mental disabilities and they are wonderful families who cherish their children.
Just because there are a few bad apples doesn’t mean the whole field is bad. The travesty is that some people would rather advocated the murder of the helpless baby instead of life and somehow think that is the more moral choice… especially when using economics as a line of reasoning. Truly disgusting and reprehensible. Do you plan on burning down the ghettos too? Or trailer parks? They’re poor, so maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to live either. DISGUSTING.
DjGuardian I learned math and history is high school as well, I also learned basic biology and sex ed since almost every person on the plant will have sex at some point in their life. We expect kids to just pick things up and they can’t because adults won’t talk to them about things like ‘sex’ and ‘drugs’ or if they do it comes from a judgmental viewpoint.
I think it is hilarious when people believe there were no abortions before Roe V. Wade just because they didn’t meet anyone who had an abortion. I can promise you we had abortions back then, and if you were rich you went to Canada or the UK and had a doctor do them.
I know plenty of people who have adopted kids and are wonderful people. I don’t know anyone who gave their kid up for adoption who doesn’t get treat like garbage by our society. To illustrate my point we all can think of famous people who were adopted, Walt Disney for example, but can you think of a famous person who gave up a child?
Comparing burning down the ghettos to abortion is a standard low brow, emotional argument. The better comparison would be abortion to a sinking ship, there aren’t enough life boats to take everybody so you have to choose, God the decision sucks but either choose or die. Life isn’t black or white like the movies were when you were little.
Lastly, (someone just thought “thank God”)… *Ky* you backed up my point about illegals and under age abortions. But I don’t know why having a large number of minorities having abortions is a good thing. Nor that so many would be under 15. I would hate to assume that they are caused by rapes, especially in the case of those who are illegals. It would be a sad and unfortunate reality.
But I don’t know why “women’s rights” would somehow trump “human rights.” I know there are tough scenarios that are more contentious, but still.
As far as women and girls being ostracized for giving their child up for adoption… I actually know a few that did. Only one had drama from a couple of their crazy family members. But these aren’t exactly the best apples in the trees that are pitching a fuss. Most people around these young women were supportive, especially where in the adoptive families were met and consulted with prior to birth.
I could imagine some girls catching slack for giving their child up for adoption, but how would that be any better than having it murdered? I’m disgusted that teachers would be involved but to think that they’d be praise worthy over murdering the child instead of allowing the child to live and have a chance at life is utterly revolting. But their impropriety does not dictate murder.
Understand this Ky… your line of reasoning for abortion in your last comment is that because some other people are mean and a girl might have to suffer for her mistake (even if it’s an improper and unsanctioned verbal mocking/ridicule and temporary social ills) that the solution is destruction of the life of an innocent. That means that you put more importance on esteem, popularity and social interaction than basic human life itself.
How can we be humane if we can’t even favor humanity?
I can tell by other posts that’s not your only view and I understand it comes from a place where you don’t want people to suffer. But how many innocent lives have to perish for that to happen before you’re no better than Stalin or Mao? Good intentions, however progressive, do not always yield the most positive or good, moral result.
As a person who spent most his school life being ostracized and teased I can attest that these things pass and can make a person stronger and better in the long run.
^^ interesting points. How many famous people had abortions and are lauded for it?
I actually think it is more praise worthy to adopt. But if all the babies were murdered I guess they’re would be no need for the practice.
Speaking personally, I’d have more disdain for someone who had an abortion than someone who gave their child up for adoption. Though I probably wouldn’t say anything unless pressed to and would care more to see the person who had the abortion become a better person overall so that such an event would not have to occur again.
We both agree that condemning a girl/woman for giving up a child for adoption, especially by teachers, is shameful on those doing the condemnation.
As far as the sinking ship. No, that’s not accurate. That would assume someone MUST die. In that case, it’s women and children first, I believe, and children are always favored the most. That works against favoring abortion.
I used the ghettos principle because you and others used economics as a legitimate reason for an abortion. That assumes that the lower classes will do a poor job at raising children and maybe even that we would have to pay for their children via welfare, etc. Your solution was abortion, the elimination of a life, for economic reasons. Thus, why not just draw out that principle to its logical conclusion… Darwin’s eugenics did (as the source for Hitler’s cleansing). This is also where your concept of aborting children with defects comes into play. Read the book… and then maybe see what kind of people actually acted on it and what the results are. It will not make you smile as you’re not an evil person.
So I will alter my metaphor. Why not just do as many progressive scientist have advocated for and chemically or even forcibly medically sterilize girls in poor communities so that they don’t bear children and can be as sexually irresponsible as they like. That is what the US gov’t sanctioned in Puerto Rico where they would tie the tubes of women and girls in poor communities… often without the women/girls even knowing it.
You are better off sticking with “women’s rights” arguments instead of economic ones. Economic reasoning only ends in tyranny and egregious evils. You’re not that low of a person.
But thanks for thinking the argument emotional… after all, emotion is the source of the “women’s rights” argument.
I thought myself far more cynical and sarcastic than emotional. I guess the question would be if emotion is involved, is it controlled by the mind and reason to keep it in check… nothing wrong with passion (reasoning with emotion), but reasoning from emotion always results in error. But that is a biblical principle I’m sure a progressive wouldn’t understand… see sarcasm.
DJ you’re an interesting person that’s for sure. You seem to value quantity of life above everything else, while I value quality. But I believe it’s up to an individual to decide, I won’t force my morality on anyone.
And just because you can’t imagine someone being treated badly doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. A person’s place in the world as well as how they live it, is up to them and their relationship with god not you and what you believe. I’ll never force you to do anything against your will or against your beliefs, and I expect the same from you.
One last thing: would you kill one man, who happens to be a serial rapist/killer if it would save 10 young ladies from him. For me that’s an easy one, the good of the many has to outweigh the good of the one. But I’ve sat down and thought about what I think is right and wrong instead of just following the stuff I was told.
DJ if you don’t think we should use an economical arguement than how are these unborn babies going to be taken care of? will god provide? come on you have to at least look at reality.
If you want to stop abortion start by increasing education, the more educated a person is the better they are with dealing with situations and making choices. but you know what that will cost money and no one is willing to pay taxes in this country.
you should advocate for more money for schools to teach kids about math and history and philosophy and how to think and make choices. That’s the real answer to this problem.
““The “pre-born” are NOT entitled to “rights””
Insert “My wife” or “My slaves” into that sentence and hear how it sounds today. 100 years from now, that’s how this sentence will sound, too.”
Insert ‘gays and the transgendered’ and you don’t need 100 years, that’s right now.
I really want to see statistics comparing the cross-over between the pro-gun lobby and the pro-Life lobby. I wonder what those would look like.
I’m always amazed how people in these comment areas throw about cliches and one line arguments as undisputable truths, and anyone who doesn’t believe as they do is an idiot.
The days of civil discourse appear to be waning…
Anyone who has actually looked at what abortion is, and how late it is performed, and then defends it as acceptable in any fashion is a dangerous person with a mental disorder.
Yes, stuper, I admit, that was a one-line argument, but I believe it!
What nobody seems to focus on is the question of when HUMAN life begins. Vegans excepted, most of us are not against taking lives, but is a non-thinking clump of cells human because it has the potential to be human? If no, then when does the transition occur? If yes, then doesn’t that mean you’re really eating a chicken every time you have an egg?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Abortion rates are at the lowest in decades. How about murders?
Besides… don’t we want high abortion rates? If there are no babies, then we don’t have to deal with these whiners wanting healthcare when they come of age. Ta-da, two problems solved. *
kryteian over 13 years ago
I hate to say it charlie you are right abortion rates went up this year but they are still at all time lows.
most recent abortions are from families that already have 2 or 3 kids and can’t afford them, if insurance companies covered birth control that wouldn’t happen. over 90% of women use some form of birth control during their lives.
but your stupid abstinence only education doesn’t teach women how to protect themselves.
Justice22 over 13 years ago
Abortion is wrong but so is the absence of birth control.
CogentModality over 13 years ago
^^ You better qualify your statement or someone will come along and point out the contradictory nature of it, not to mention the fallacy. I’m pretty sure that abortion rates were next to nil in other historic times.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
I agree, Cogent….before the January 1973 roe vs wade miscarriage of justice, USA abortion rates may have been the “all-time low”….
“birth control” is a private family matter that the State has no business “teaching” or “promoting”…the State’s job is to protect all life, born and unborn, from Murder.
The husband and wife have God’s authority to have children and the responsibility to raise them safely to adulthood; the Christian couples should have counsel from their local church and non-Christians should have private counselling from their doctor or his referral.
Medical societies (private) have monitor duties of the professionals…but the STATE should not interfere…except if evidence of abuse or misconduct is suspected.
Until 1973 abortion was always “wrong”…and 1973 only legalized a moral and physical wrong that was a Crime, 1787 to 1973.
Justice22 over 13 years ago
How about the Philadelphia doctor doing illegal abortions???????? I understand he is charged with 7 counts of murder for killing newborns with scissors and the death of one patient.
walruscarver2000 over 13 years ago
You probably wouldn’t have like them anyway
leorising over 13 years ago
Make abortion illegal once again, and we’ll have the same situation we had pre-1973: only rich women will be able to get safe, sterile, confidential abortions from their private doctors. And they will – they do now, regardless of religion or “morals” – make no mistake.
Poor women, of course, will be stuck with the same old back-alley quacks, or do-it-yourself abortions with coat hangers and/or pennyroyal oil and/or falling down the stairs and/or having someone kick them in the stomach. They will be crippled or die of infection and blood loss and trauma, like they always have.
Women have been making the choice to have children or not for millennia. Just making abortion illegal won’t make it go away. It’ will just make it unsafe for the non-rich majority of women.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
…and kryteian, how come you only sight women’s responsibility in birth control? Just saying…
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
^^ and that was only for the ones they could prove. My local liberal rag actually noted that there were hundreds of records found indicating other abortions were done in similar horrid conditions of his clinic… and those were of the records that weren’t destroyed.
The problem with these “numbers” when it comes to abortion rates is that only those abortions which are reported are listed in the numbers. Typically abortions with girls under 15 don’t go tracked as many happen without the parent’s knowledge (making it illegal in most states if not all).
Also, with illegal aliens (which we have millions) and too many low income districts have a tendency to go unaccounted for in the federal figures.
With that said, prior to Roe V Wade that is essentially how nearly all abortions were conducted, off the books or in shady clinics/homes/etc. It’s hard to know just how many abortions were conducted in the 70’s and before since they were illegal. However, I imagine it’s not going to be as much as today with our easy, legal access to it… even with some plans paying for it and entities like Planned Parenthood paying for them.
Redeemd over 13 years ago
“Poor women, of course, will be stuck with the same old back-alley quacks, or do-it-yourself abortions with coat hangers…”
The injury of a few does not justify the death of many.
Nemesys over 13 years ago
Before long, medical science will change the nature of the abortion issue and help crystalize the real “choice” being made.
Suppose in the near future, it becomes possible to harvest the unborn child as soon as Mom realizes she’s pregnant (about 1 month) and grow the child to 9 months outside the womb. The procedure would be about the same as an abortion. Mom would have the option to raise the child herself or give her up for adoption… but would she still have the right to choose an abortion instead?
If you debate the abortion issue long enough, you’ll hear from women who will admit “I wasn’t ready to raise a child, but I couldn’t stand the thought of anyone else raising her, so I had an abortion”. Is that the right to choose we’re protecting, or will it become void when medical science makes it obsolete by helping the unborn become viable early?
ohrn over 13 years ago
thanks, True Canadian
Nemesys over 13 years ago
Canadian, then you admit that the abortion issue is really about population control, not women’s rights?
As to pro-women rhetoric, I’ve seen stats that say that not having an abortion puts the mother at risk about 5% of the time (I’m in favor of abortion when Mom’s life is endangered). However, I’ve seen other statistics that says having an abortion puts the unborn child at risk about 100% of the time. Since 51% of children born are female, isn’t the most pro-women position that which advocates that they be allowed to be born at all?
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Jared Loughner is OBVIOUSLY a perfectly sane, “good Christian” just doing “God’s work” for him, as ONLY “God” can determine when people die? Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Tucson– just “good Christians” working for God– right.
Nemesys over 13 years ago
God is the ultimate Red Herring when introduced into the abortion discussion, pro or con. The issue is about the rights of people, not of theologies. Traditional Hawiians didn’t have abortions, but left their unwanted children (usually girls) in the surf for Mako the shark god to devour, but I don’t see anyone advocating for that anymore.
I’ve always been surprised that abortion isn’t the ultimate issue for progressives, who (by definition) have advocated the progress and expansion of human rights throughout history. Progress in human rights for slaves, women, children, and even animals came to a screeching halt in the 1960’s… why not expand human rights to the unborn to continue this noble progression?
Eventually this will happen (it’s beginning to with our young people), but maybe we’ll have to wait until all the flower children die out before progressivism moves forward again and protects these people-to-be.
kryteian over 13 years ago
DjGuardian just so you are aware, when women use birth control they have to have a 3rd party to get it, it’s usually a Doctor to prescribe birth control pills or one of the other means of preventing pregnancy. When men use birth control they go to the corner store to by condoms, and only if they get a vasectomy do they need to involve a 3rd party. (I’m guessing you failed health class when you were in high school) So we know that 90% of women use birth control in their lifetimes while we have no numbers on men.
Our local abortion clinic had to hire a full time Spanish speaker because they provide so many abortions to the daughters of Spanish speak immigrants and almost all of those are under the age of 15. What it boils down to is whatever someone chooses it’s between them and God not for the government to decide(wow you’d think the psycho anti government types would be pro women’s rights but then you remember they just want government out of their lives and to interfere with everyone elses.)
Nemesys over 13 years ago
kryeian, you’re absolutely right. You’d think that conservatives would be in favor of abortion rights, but religion has gotten into the mix and many people think that they’re advocating for God, not people. That’s slowly shifting.
However, man can no longer beat a woman because he “has the God-given right”, nor can he send his child to work “because he has the “God-given right”, nor can he own his neighbor “because he has the “God-given right”. In each case, the rights of people to do these horrible things was sanctioned and protected by the government. Also in each case, progressivism stepped in and placed limitations on these rights as it recognized and expanded the new rights of others.
One day, the rights of the unborn will be recognized and human rights will move forward. It won’t be conservatives behind it, either. It never is.
kryteian over 13 years ago
Nemesys what is your position on women getting an abortion if she was raped? or if the child will be born with a severe birth defect that she can’t afford to take care of? or she already has 3 kids and can’t afford to feed a forth?
It’s a really terrible thing to have to choose between an unborn child’s life and the rest of the families wellbeing, but life won’t mean anything if it was easy.
And don’t give me that BS about adoption. I’ve worked with the poor for 13 years now and the teenagers who have the guts to give a kid up for adoption get treated like s**t by everyone (their family, their friends, their teachers even) because they didn’t raise ‘their own’ child. It must suck to have to justify your decision to everybody you meet for the rest of your life; heck abortion would be an easier decision than those kids make.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
How did Loughner get into this thread? Gees, get a grip.
Nemesys over 13 years ago
kryteian, since I don’t have a religious viewpoint on abortion, I’m ok with rape/incest victims having abortions. Dittos re: birth defects. That’s a very tiny percentage of abortions, however, so it doesn’t really influence the question very much.
My mother had me adopted in the situation you describe, so I guess the only BS is your insistance against adoption. I’m not really moved by your argument that it’s better to abort a child just because mom’s feelings might be hurt by ignorant people, no matter how “easy” that might be. I’m kinda glad that my mother - a 19 year-old nurse from an old-style Italian family in the north end of Boston - made that really hard choice.
As you say… choosing life isn’t easy. But is having things “easy” the right we’re protecting, or is there perhaps a higher one?
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Last week Oprah Winfree spoke of her pregnancy at age 14, and that had her baby NOT died, it is unlikely she would have achieved “success”, in fact under the culture of the times, none of it would have occurred.
Statistics in fact make it likely she would have been one of those “lazy welfare mothers” the “right” hate so much.
Point being rape and incest should NOT determine any young girl’s life. The “pre-born” are NOT entitled to “rights”. IF they do, should we “pre-determine” those who will be murderers or assassins, and terminate THEM to save the state, and their potential victims?
kryteian over 13 years ago
Nemesys I’m glad your mom made the choice she did, my point is and will always be, it’s up to the woman to make that choice.
if something is easy/hard is irrelivant because that will always depend on the person. Things I think are easy might not be for you.
Adoption is what the anti-abortion zelots throw out there, “why don’t they just give the kid up for adoption?” everyone thinks that’s so easy but I’ve seen how hard it is and it sounds like your bio-mom took the time to make the decision she could live with.
Nemesys over 13 years ago
“The “pre-born” are NOT entitled to “rights””
Insert “My wife” or “My slaves” into that sentence and hear how it sounds today. 100 years from now, that’s how this sentence will sound, too.
kryteian, thanks for your thoughts. I’m just hoping that we can get to the point where both mom and the unborn child can find a decision that they both can live with. It might be possible one day.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
kyreian… I’m not aware that any school health program is providing birth control pills. However, they do give out condoms and sex ed programs push that method heavily because it’s quite simple and inexpensive, however imperfect. I’m not aware of teens and 20 somethings getting their tubes tied nor schools advocating it (matching your silly vasectomy comment). But I guess where ever you are common sense is abandoned for extremes.
You brought up abstinence education Ky… throwing vasectomies into your reasoning is a non-sequitur.
When I was in school they didn’t waste time on sex-ed classes. They taught stuff like Math (which our country is currently abysmal at), history, logic (not taught at all anymore), science, English, languages and arts. We didn’t have the kind of numbers in abortions nor teen pregnancies nor STDs as there are now either. I have no illegitimate children or children out of wedlock. Neither did any of my class mates in either high school I attended. Nor am I aware of any abortions (I’m sure at the public school there had to be at least one just by chance and numbers).
So I’m assuming that the lack of sex-ed programs somehow made me delinquent? shakes head in bemusement
As far as numbers for “boys” and men wearing condoms, we do have numbers actually. The problem is that they cannot be confirmed by a doctor’s log so they are inaccurate. But with all this silly discussion of women rights/equality or what ever… where’s the man’s/male’s responsibility in the matter? That was my point and the one you left out.
“…and kryteian, how come you only sight women’s responsibility in birth control? Just saying…”
Lastly regarding my previous comment, I was also pointing out that the lack of numbers available prior to Roe v Wade makes it impossible to compare the eras, but that logic would dictate that there would be less simply because of societal pressure and the lack of resources. Also, that if one did seek an abortion in that era that it was more likely to be similar to the situation of the qwak in Philli that Justice had brought up.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
Btw, one of my best friends in high school was adopted by a wonderful family that could not bear children. One of my best friends adopted a child because the wife didn’t want to bear children. They too are wonderful parents. Extreme Home Makeover has highlighted fantastic families that have adopted or have large families, even with physical and/or mental disabilities and they are wonderful families who cherish their children.
Just because there are a few bad apples doesn’t mean the whole field is bad. The travesty is that some people would rather advocated the murder of the helpless baby instead of life and somehow think that is the more moral choice… especially when using economics as a line of reasoning. Truly disgusting and reprehensible. Do you plan on burning down the ghettos too? Or trailer parks? They’re poor, so maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to live either. DISGUSTING.
Dichotomous over 13 years ago
Might want to get to know the fathers first … check the obits!
kryteian over 13 years ago
DjGuardian I learned math and history is high school as well, I also learned basic biology and sex ed since almost every person on the plant will have sex at some point in their life. We expect kids to just pick things up and they can’t because adults won’t talk to them about things like ‘sex’ and ‘drugs’ or if they do it comes from a judgmental viewpoint.
I think it is hilarious when people believe there were no abortions before Roe V. Wade just because they didn’t meet anyone who had an abortion. I can promise you we had abortions back then, and if you were rich you went to Canada or the UK and had a doctor do them.
I know plenty of people who have adopted kids and are wonderful people. I don’t know anyone who gave their kid up for adoption who doesn’t get treat like garbage by our society. To illustrate my point we all can think of famous people who were adopted, Walt Disney for example, but can you think of a famous person who gave up a child?
Comparing burning down the ghettos to abortion is a standard low brow, emotional argument. The better comparison would be abortion to a sinking ship, there aren’t enough life boats to take everybody so you have to choose, God the decision sucks but either choose or die. Life isn’t black or white like the movies were when you were little.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
Lastly, (someone just thought “thank God”)… *Ky* you backed up my point about illegals and under age abortions. But I don’t know why having a large number of minorities having abortions is a good thing. Nor that so many would be under 15. I would hate to assume that they are caused by rapes, especially in the case of those who are illegals. It would be a sad and unfortunate reality.
But I don’t know why “women’s rights” would somehow trump “human rights.” I know there are tough scenarios that are more contentious, but still.
As far as women and girls being ostracized for giving their child up for adoption… I actually know a few that did. Only one had drama from a couple of their crazy family members. But these aren’t exactly the best apples in the trees that are pitching a fuss. Most people around these young women were supportive, especially where in the adoptive families were met and consulted with prior to birth.
I could imagine some girls catching slack for giving their child up for adoption, but how would that be any better than having it murdered? I’m disgusted that teachers would be involved but to think that they’d be praise worthy over murdering the child instead of allowing the child to live and have a chance at life is utterly revolting. But their impropriety does not dictate murder.
Understand this Ky… your line of reasoning for abortion in your last comment is that because some other people are mean and a girl might have to suffer for her mistake (even if it’s an improper and unsanctioned verbal mocking/ridicule and temporary social ills) that the solution is destruction of the life of an innocent. That means that you put more importance on esteem, popularity and social interaction than basic human life itself.
How can we be humane if we can’t even favor humanity?
I can tell by other posts that’s not your only view and I understand it comes from a place where you don’t want people to suffer. But how many innocent lives have to perish for that to happen before you’re no better than Stalin or Mao? Good intentions, however progressive, do not always yield the most positive or good, moral result.
As a person who spent most his school life being ostracized and teased I can attest that these things pass and can make a person stronger and better in the long run.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
^^ interesting points. How many famous people had abortions and are lauded for it?
I actually think it is more praise worthy to adopt. But if all the babies were murdered I guess they’re would be no need for the practice.
Speaking personally, I’d have more disdain for someone who had an abortion than someone who gave their child up for adoption. Though I probably wouldn’t say anything unless pressed to and would care more to see the person who had the abortion become a better person overall so that such an event would not have to occur again.
We both agree that condemning a girl/woman for giving up a child for adoption, especially by teachers, is shameful on those doing the condemnation.
As far as the sinking ship. No, that’s not accurate. That would assume someone MUST die. In that case, it’s women and children first, I believe, and children are always favored the most. That works against favoring abortion.
I used the ghettos principle because you and others used economics as a legitimate reason for an abortion. That assumes that the lower classes will do a poor job at raising children and maybe even that we would have to pay for their children via welfare, etc. Your solution was abortion, the elimination of a life, for economic reasons. Thus, why not just draw out that principle to its logical conclusion… Darwin’s eugenics did (as the source for Hitler’s cleansing). This is also where your concept of aborting children with defects comes into play. Read the book… and then maybe see what kind of people actually acted on it and what the results are. It will not make you smile as you’re not an evil person.
So I will alter my metaphor. Why not just do as many progressive scientist have advocated for and chemically or even forcibly medically sterilize girls in poor communities so that they don’t bear children and can be as sexually irresponsible as they like. That is what the US gov’t sanctioned in Puerto Rico where they would tie the tubes of women and girls in poor communities… often without the women/girls even knowing it.
You are better off sticking with “women’s rights” arguments instead of economic ones. Economic reasoning only ends in tyranny and egregious evils. You’re not that low of a person.
But thanks for thinking the argument emotional… after all, emotion is the source of the “women’s rights” argument.
I thought myself far more cynical and sarcastic than emotional. I guess the question would be if emotion is involved, is it controlled by the mind and reason to keep it in check… nothing wrong with passion (reasoning with emotion), but reasoning from emotion always results in error. But that is a biblical principle I’m sure a progressive wouldn’t understand… see sarcasm.
kryteian over 13 years ago
DJ you’re an interesting person that’s for sure. You seem to value quantity of life above everything else, while I value quality. But I believe it’s up to an individual to decide, I won’t force my morality on anyone.
And just because you can’t imagine someone being treated badly doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. A person’s place in the world as well as how they live it, is up to them and their relationship with god not you and what you believe. I’ll never force you to do anything against your will or against your beliefs, and I expect the same from you.
One last thing: would you kill one man, who happens to be a serial rapist/killer if it would save 10 young ladies from him. For me that’s an easy one, the good of the many has to outweigh the good of the one. But I’ve sat down and thought about what I think is right and wrong instead of just following the stuff I was told.
kryteian over 13 years ago
DJ if you don’t think we should use an economical arguement than how are these unborn babies going to be taken care of? will god provide? come on you have to at least look at reality.
If you want to stop abortion start by increasing education, the more educated a person is the better they are with dealing with situations and making choices. but you know what that will cost money and no one is willing to pay taxes in this country.
you should advocate for more money for schools to teach kids about math and history and philosophy and how to think and make choices. That’s the real answer to this problem.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
““The “pre-born” are NOT entitled to “rights”” Insert “My wife” or “My slaves” into that sentence and hear how it sounds today. 100 years from now, that’s how this sentence will sound, too.”
Insert ‘gays and the transgendered’ and you don’t need 100 years, that’s right now.I really want to see statistics comparing the cross-over between the pro-gun lobby and the pro-Life lobby. I wonder what those would look like.
TheFinalSolution over 13 years ago
I think ‘gays and the transgendered’ will enjoy the insertion.
Stuperfan Premium Member over 13 years ago
I’m always amazed how people in these comment areas throw about cliches and one line arguments as undisputable truths, and anyone who doesn’t believe as they do is an idiot. The days of civil discourse appear to be waning…
HabaneroBuck over 13 years ago
Anyone who has actually looked at what abortion is, and how late it is performed, and then defends it as acceptable in any fashion is a dangerous person with a mental disorder.
Yes, stuper, I admit, that was a one-line argument, but I believe it!
walruscarver2000 over 13 years ago
What nobody seems to focus on is the question of when HUMAN life begins. Vegans excepted, most of us are not against taking lives, but is a non-thinking clump of cells human because it has the potential to be human? If no, then when does the transition occur? If yes, then doesn’t that mean you’re really eating a chicken every time you have an egg?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
@TheFinalSolution - Hah hah! Ba-zing! Except I think even straights (particularly men) tend to enjoy the “insertion.” ;)