Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 195 of 316 (185482)
02-15-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by riVeRraT
02-14-2005 1:55 PM


Re: Missed Point
My point, rat, is that abortion is not simply done for convenience, and that even "normal, uncomplicated" pregnancies are far from trivial and ALWAYS greatly affect a woman's body and ALWAYS expose her to greater risk of death, infertility, and maiming.
You pass judgement upon and wish to restrict women who choose abortion when there is nothing detectably wrong with the pregnancy, but, as I have demonstrated, there is ALWAYS meaningful danger to the woman's health to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, and postpartum.
quote:
Yea, maybe they shouldn't screw around then.
What about the people who's birth control failed?
What about married people who get pregnant by accident?
What about people who want to get pregnant but once they do, their life circumstances drastically change for the worse?
quote:
So having said that which will piss a lot of people off. Let's see some numbers. How many woman actually die during perfectly normal pregnacies, where there was no apparent risk?
There are no pregnancies with "no apparent risk", riverrat. The ALL increase the risk to a woman's health.
ALL of them.
That is my point.
quote:
The other number I'd like to see is the percentage of reasons that women get abortions.
Why is that any of your business, and why does it matter?
quote:
But somehow the following fictional story based on what your saying doesn't seem right to me:
Doctor Abortor: Hi there Ms.Jones, you would like an abortion today?
Ms.Jones: Why yes I would, I got pregnant by accident
(lol), and I really don't mind raising kids, but I just don't want to risk all the things that go along with pregnacy. So go ahead and rip it out, because there is no risk in that.
Thanks for the insight into the warped fantasy world you anti-abortion people have to live in in order to feel so self righteous.
Didn't you mention that a woman you were with years ago had an abortion?
Maybe you should show her that little story you wrote and ask her if that was pretty much what she said when she went for her abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by riVeRraT, posted 02-14-2005 1:55 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 10:43 PM nator has replied
 Message 199 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 10:46 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 208 of 316 (185777)
02-16-2005 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 10:43 PM


Re: Missed Point
What about the people who's birth control failed?
quote:
Birth control is a risk that you take, they shouldn't screw then.
So, married people who don't ever want to have children or are not sure if they want to have children should never, ever have sex?
Is that seriously what you are suggesting?
What about married people who get pregnant by accident?
quote:
What about people who bungie jump, and the cord breaks?
You are suggesting that we provide no medical care to the people who's bungie cord breaks. You would let them lie there, broken and bleeding, and not offer them help, because they took the risk and if something unexpected happend, it's their own damn fault, right?
Also, can you please explain how bungie jumping is a normal biological drive for all people, similar to eating or having sex?
What about people who want to get pregnant but once they do, their life circumstances drastically change for the worse?
quote:
They get stuck with a kid.
Or, they dump the newborn in a dumpster, or just left outside somewhere, possibly on a doorstep.
Is infantacide better, because that is what will happen. That's what we see in countries where abortion and family planning services
are nonexistent or illegal.
There are no pregnancies with "no apparent risk", riverrat. The ALL increase the risk to a woman's health.
ALL of them.
That is my point.
quote:
Life is full of risks, some of them are avoidable.
Agreed.
However, the risks to a woman's health from carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and postpartum are far greater than the risks she takes when she gets an early-term abortion.
Why is that any of your business, and why does it matter?
quote:
Ok, thats it. Who the heck are you to tell ask me if thats any of my business. It's everyone's business,
Every woman's body is your business? Everyone's business?
Since when?
quote:
especially the rights of the unborn, and especially since it's people like me that vote on laws the govern that sort of thing.
THIS IS AMERICA.
Yes, this is America, where our RIGHTS are not dictated by the majority.
Our RIGHTS are specifically designed to protect the minority from the "tyrrany of the majority."
Of course, this argument of yours would completely backfire on you, as a majority of Americans are supportive of legalized abortion.
Didn't you mention that a woman you were with years ago had an abortion?
Maybe you should show her that little story you wrote and ask her if that was pretty much what she said when she went for her abortion.
quote:
See, you missed my whole freakin point of telling that story. I initiated the idea of abortion, not her. She agreed to it. In retrospect, from the second after it happened till this very day it hurts me inside. I went with her, and supported her. She was emotionally screwd up from the whole experience, and so am I. It's a pain that wil never go away.
Life is full of of risks, isn't it Riverrat? Isn't that what you've been telling me?
You and the woman you got pregnant made a CHOICE, didn't you? You made your bed and are having trouble lying in it, but it was YOUR CHOICE, and that was the risk you took.
Other people make that choice and they do not feel the same way afterwords as you do. They do not regret it.
Who are you to project your reactions to YOUR CHOICE on to every other person in the US?
quote:
I did it, because today's soceity let's you do it, and it is widely accepted.
Yes, but you had a CHOICE. Nobody forced you, did they?
quote:
We got no consuling, or were we fore warned of what might happen to us psychologically.
Counselling would have been preferred at the time, to be sure, but what is stopping you now?
They don't really warn you when you get pregnant of what might happen to you psychologically when you give birth and start to raise a child, either.
quote:
Now that I have a relationship with God, I can say it was from the devil. The whole thing was so dark, and upsetting.
Of course it's was "from the devil". Everything bad or upsetting is "from the devil" and everything wonderful and good is "from God".
I know the drill by now.
quote:
You on the other hand should not speak about it unless you have been through it, and just don't care.
You are insensitive.
I am a woman, riverrat.
I have imagined myself in that position many, many times, and I have several friends who have had abortions.
I am sorry that you feel like you made the wrong choice at that time, but just because that was the wrong choice FOR YOU doesn't give you the right to decide it is the wrong choice for everybody.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted or fostered?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-16-2005 08:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 10:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:11 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 316 (185781)
02-16-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by riVeRraT
02-15-2005 10:46 PM


Re: Missed Point
quote:
My little fictional story was based on what your saying, not what I'm saying. Thats your side of the story, not mine. That's the logic you are presenting here, not mine.
No, your story was a gross caricature of my position.
It was a warped version of my position that you have constructed in order to feel self righteous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2005 10:46 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:19 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 211 of 316 (185784)
02-16-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by riVeRraT
02-16-2005 6:58 AM


Re: Missed Point
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmort2.html
Worldwide Maternal Mortality Statistics
1,600 pregnant women die daily
The first new estimates in a decade show that almost 600,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth each year. And for every woman who dies, 30 more suffer serious pregnancy- related injuries.
The process of bringing new life into the world is a major cause of death and disability among young women in developing countries, according to The Progress of Nations 1996, the latest edition of a yearly report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef).
Unicef executive director Carol Bellamy said: "It is no exaggeration to say that this is one of the most neglected tragedies of our times, when 1,600 women, some in their teens, die every day during pregnancy or childbirth and many of these deaths are readily preventable."
The new data show that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa dies of maternal causes, as does one in 35 women in south Asia.
The figure for Western Europe is one woman in 3,200. In the United States, it is one in 3,300. In Canada, it is one in 7,300.
The figures are new and more comprehensive than in previous studies.
Compiled by Unicef, the World Health Organisation and John Hopkins University, the data show a 20 per cent increase over previous estimates.
Unicef will continue its fight to get this issue onto the public and political agenda," said Bellamy, who also pointed out the serious consequences of these statistics for children.
According to the report, nearly 600,000 women dying each year in childbirth leave behind at least a million motherless children.
The statistics in the Unicef report paint a grim picture of the toll of motherhood on young women’s lives.
The most common cause of death during pregnancy and childbirth each year include 140,000 from haemorrhaging, 75,000 from attempting to abort themselves, 100,000 from sepsis and 40,000 from obstructed labour.
In addition, one quarter of all adult women in the developing world are affected by injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth. These injuries are painful, humiliating and often permanent, says the Unicef report.
The most distressing is fistula, which leaves an estimated 80,000 women a year injured and incontinent.
Most cases go untreated, and somewhere between 500,000 and one million women are living with the problem at this moment, says the report.
If the toll of maternal death and injury is to be reduced, says Unicef, then the silence that surrounds the issue has to be broken.
According to the report, the delivery of adequate obstetric care to women in developing countries would not be expensive. Affordable basic training in obstetric care could be provided for doctors, midwives and nurses. This would ensure safer deliveries for most pregnant women.
You don't need five-star hospitals," says the report. "There are thousands of hospitals in the developing world that, with minimum upgrading, could provide adequate obstetric care.
But many are unusable for the lack of a hundred dollars worth of maintenance, a repair to an anaesthesia machine, the installation of proper lighting."
In a chapter on social issues in the industrialised world, the Progress of Nations 1996 looks at child poverty in the world's most economically successful nations.
With more than one in five of its children below the poverty line, the United States has the largest number of poor children. (United States also has the largest number of rich children in the world).
Four other countries, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Israel, have child poverty rates of more than 10 per cent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:29 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 212 of 316 (185786)
02-16-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by riVeRraT
02-16-2005 6:58 AM


Re: Missed Point
CDC - Page Not Found
Maternal Mortality -- United States, 1982-1996
Maternal and infant mortality are basic health indicators that reflect a nation's health status. In the United States, infant mortality has declined steadily; however, this is not true for maternal mortality. This report presents data from death certificates compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which indicate that in the United States, the annual maternal mortality ratio * remained approximately 7.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during 1982-1996.
Annual maternal mortality ratios were calculated using information contained on death certificates filed in state vital statistics offices and compiled by CDC (1,2). Maternal deaths were defined as those deaths that occurred during a pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of a pregnancy and for which the cause of death was listed as a complication of pregnancy, childbirth, or the puerperium (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 630-676). Maternal mortality ratios were calculated as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (1,2).
In 1930, the national maternal mortality ratio was 670 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (3). The ratio declined substantially during the 1940s and 1950s, and continued to decline until 1982. During 1982-1996, the annual maternal mortality ratio fluctuated between approximately 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (Figure_1). During that time, trends by race were similar to the overall ratio, and no reductions were observed for either black or white women. Maternal mortality ratios remained higher for black women than for white women. Ratios for black women generally fluctuated between 18 and 22 per 100,000 births and for white women between 5 and 6 per 100,000 live births.
Reported by: Div of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; Div of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC.
Editorial Note
Editorial Note: Since 1982 in the United States, no progress has been made toward achieving the Healthy People 2000 goal of 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births set in 1987 (objective 14.3) (4). The reason for this lack of improvement in maternal mortality is not clear. However, during this same time period, infant mortality has declined steadily because of advances in the survival of low birthweight and preterm infants and in the prevention of some causes of postneonatal mortality, such as sudden infant death syndrome.
The United States has not reached an irreducible minimum in maternal mortality; WHO estimates demonstrate that 20 countries have reduced maternal mortality levels to below those of the United States (5). Primary prevention of maternal deaths, such as those associated with ectopic pregnancy and some cases of infection and hemorrhage, is possible. However, some complications that can occur during pregnancy cannot be prevented (e.g., pregnancy-induced hypertension, placenta previa, retained placenta, and thromboembolism). Nevertheless, more than half of all maternal deaths can be prevented through early diagnosis and appropriate medical care of pregnancy complications (6,7). Hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, infection, and ectopic pregnancy continue to account for most (59%) maternal deaths.
When compared with white women, black women continue to have four times the risk for dying from complications of pregnancy and childbirth (2), although the risk for developing maternal complications is less than twice that of white women (8). This suggests that access to and use of health-care services for early diagnosis and effective treatment, if complications develop, may be a factor. In 1996, if the maternal mortality ratio for black women were equal to that for white women, the national maternal mortality ratio would have declined by 32% from 7.6 to 5.1 per 100,000 live births.
In this report, maternal mortality ratios are based solely on vital statistics data and are underestimates because of misclassification. The number of deaths attributed to pregnancy and its complications is estimated to be 1.3 to three times that reported in vital statistics records (6). Misclassification of maternal deaths occurs when the cause of death on the death certificate does not reflect the relation between a woman's pregnancy and her death. In addition, the inclusion of deaths causally related to pregnancy that occur between 43 and 365 days postpregnancy can increase the number of maternal deaths identified by 5%-10% (6).
To identify interventions that may have an impact on reducing maternal mortality, approximately 25 states have reestablished maternal mortality review committees. These committees review various factors that may have contributed to maternal deaths, including the quality of medical care and systemic problems in the health-care delivery system. To assess the problem and develop appropriate interventions to reduce the number of maternal deaths, all states should implement active surveillance of maternal mortality, including maternal mortality review committees.
In 1998, the World Health Organization designated Safe Motherhood as the focus for World Health Day (April 7), indicating the importance of this issue globally. In the United States, several measures that need to be implemented include providing all women with access to family planning services, because unintended pregnancies are associated with higher risks for both mother and infant (9). Women should know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and women with STDs need effective and early treatment to prevent ectopic pregnancies. All women need access to culturally appropriate and quality prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care. The prevention of complications and the early diagnosis and effective treatment of any complication is critical. Although prenatal-care use in the United States has been increasing, in 1996, approximately 10% of all pregnant women received inadequate or no prenatal care (10).
In the United States, the theme for World Health Day 1998 was "Invest in the Future: Support Safe Motherhood." The proposed Healthy People 2010 goal for maternal mortality remains 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Unless investments are made in improving maternal health for all women, this goal will not be reached.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2005 6:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:41 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 316 (185791)
02-16-2005 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by daaaaaBEAR
02-16-2005 12:02 AM


quote:
It is sad that we casually abandon potential lives
What makes you think that women "casually" decide to get an abortion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-16-2005 12:02 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 217 of 316 (185979)
02-16-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jazzns
02-16-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Planned Parenthood and Satan
quote:
Overall though you are 100% dead on about the complete and utter failure of the pro-life movement to hold even the slightest morsel of integrity. They are anti-abortion, anti-reproductive health, anti-post natal support, anti-education, and anti-American.
Most of all they are anti-woman-as-autonomous-adult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jazzns, posted 02-16-2005 3:28 PM Jazzns has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 229 of 316 (186134)
02-17-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:11 AM


Re: Missed Point
So, married people who don't ever want to have children or are not sure if they want to have children should never, ever have sex?
Is that seriously what you are suggesting?
quote:
If they do not want kids that bad they can get a vesectomy like me.
You didn't answer the question. What about married people who aren't sure if they want to have kids? Should they never have sex?
You are suggesting that we provide no medical care to the people who's bungie cord breaks.
quote:
So you totally missed the logic behind that statement, what else is new?
No, you made a statement in which the logical conclusion wasn't what you intended to say.
Try again.
quote:
Also, can you please explain how bungie jumping is a normal biological drive for all people, similar to eating or having sex?
quote:
Did you even think before you wrote that statement?
Of course. I think carefully before writing most things here.
You are comparing bungie jumping with having sex.
quote:
Sex is a normal biological drive for all people? Bungie jumping is never compared to sex.
Riverrat, you compared the risks of bungie jumping with the risks of having sex. You then said that if the bungie cord breaks, it's the jumper's own fault for taking the risk, and this was similar to a person who has sex and gets pregnant even though they take reasonable precautions. I followed your analogy through explained that using your logic, we shouldn't help the jumper if they are injured in this accident.
I simply pointed out that this was an invalid comparison because a person who decides to go bungie jumping is choosing to do something well outside of most people's biological drives. We have no biological imperative, strongly driven by hormones, to bungie jump. We do have this strong drive to have sex, and engaging in sex is considered a normal, neccessary part of being a healthy person.
This is not the case with bungie jumpers. We consider them sort of crazy, rather reckless thrill seekers.
I am sorry that your analogy did not illustrate what you were trying to say. Try again.
Or, they dump the newborn in a dumpster, or just left outside somewhere, possibly on a doorstep.
Is infantacide better, because that is what will happen. That's what we see in countries where abortion and family planning services
are nonexistent or illegal.
quote:
That is such a rare circumstance, don't you think?
You know, riverrat, you might consider doing some research yourself once in a while. I did a google search on "infanticide" and this was second on the list.
As it turns out, it isn't very rare in the US compared to other countries, and it is true that the availability of safe, legal abortions has decreased the number of infantacides.
Now, I hope you do not ignore this fact. Disallowing most abortions will increase the number of infanticides. Are you comfortable with that?
Forbidden
Modern America
"In 1966, the United States had 10,920 murders, and one out of every twenty-two was a child killed by a parent."
Despite our predilection for considering modern civilization "advanced," the crime of infanticide has continued to pervade most contemporary cultures. The major difference between the nature of infanticide in the twentieth century, when compared to the rest of recorded history, however, is due to the impact of one modern medical advancement: the widespread availability of safe, and legal, means of abortion. The ability to easily terminate a pregnancy, and thereby eliminate an unwanted child before it is born, has had a profound effect on the prevalence of infanticide. The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born. The majority of these murders have been associated with reasons of necessity at least in the minds of the infanticide parent - or with untoward reactions against an unwanted birth. With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, troubled parents have had little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception.
Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 1988, 3.6 million were unintended and therefore subject to dangerous consequences. 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies resulted in abortion. In Britain, more than 160,000 legal abortions, or terminations of pregnancy, were carried out each year during this same period of time. The Family Planning Association in Russia says that there are more than 3 million abortions performed each year, more than double the number of births. In France, there are almost one million abortions each year, equal to the number of births. This means that over five million pregnancies were aborted in the Western world alone each year, and if the births of those children would not have been prevented, it is very likely that many of those infants would have been victims of infanticidal rage.
Morally right or wrong - a case of murder or manifestation of a woman's right to choose - the fact remains that the frequent use of abortion has eased the necessity for killing an infant after its birth.
Statistical Analysis - United States
Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.
The 1980's followed similar trends. Whereby overall homicide rates were decreasing in the United States, the rate at which parents were killing their children was increasing, In 1983, over six hundred children were reported killed by their parents, and from 1982-1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides were children under the age of one year of age. When the homicide of a child was committed by a parent, it was the younger age child who was in the greater danger of being killed, while if the killer was a non-parent, then the victim was generally older.
quote:
Can't there be programs in place to find those kids homes, or put them up for adoption?
Do you really think that we can find homes for millions and millions of unwanted babies every year?
Free, effective contraception for anyone who wants it and the elevation of the status of women in all cultures would go much further in preventing these pregnancies in the first place, thus negating the need to take care of all of these unwanted children.
quote:
Show me the numbers Schraf, because you keep talking about them.
They are above. I was also wondering if you read my two recent posts regarding maternal death statistics?
However, the risks to a woman's health from carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and postpartum are far greater than the risks she takes when she gets an early-term abortion.
quote:
The first time, then the risk increases with each abortion.
Source for your information, please. Also, you did not indicate if the increased risk with additional abortions exceeded the risk that a pregnancy brings.
quote:
Plus the afer postpartum abotrtion sydrome should be considered.
PAS is largely a myth propagated by the anti-choice people, rat. In short, the mental state of a woman after an abortion has much more to do with her mental state before the abortion, and that even highly religious women do not fare significantly worse after abortion than non-religious women. There is an overview of the research here:
Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS): All viewpoints
Even if it does exist, it is much less common than post partum depression. So, this works against your argument, because is a woman is concerned about post partum or post abortion depression, she should get the abortion because depression after childbirth is much more likely.
I repeat, you might want to consider actually doing some research before you post claims.
Every woman's body is your business? Everyone's business?
Since when?
quote:
Since we vote on laws governing them.
You don't vote on those laws.
The SCOTUS does. My rights to control my own reproduction are not subject to your opinion.
You and the woman you got pregnant made a CHOICE, didn't you? You made your bed and are having trouble lying in it, but it was YOUR CHOICE, and that was the risk you took.
Other people make that choice and they do not feel the same way afterwords as you do. They do not regret it.
Who are you to project your reactions to YOUR CHOICE on to every other person in the US?
quote:
Are you kidding me or what?
Absolutely not. I am completely serious.
quote:
Are we all not victims of soceity to a degree? Do we not allow how this soceity rauses our children?
Why are you talking about children and how we raise them? I was talking about you wanting to control the rest of the country.
quote:
(Oh thats right you don't care too much for children).
Be very careful, rat.
You are treading on dangerous ground with snide personal comments like that.
It simply shows that you are unable to answer me.
quote:
I explained very clearly how what happened to me relates to everyone.
You did? When? Please repeat it, I must have missed it.
quote:
With that kind of attitude or logic, its an all for himself world, that's hardly the case.
I don't even khow what you are trying to say here.
Yes, but you had a CHOICE. Nobody forced you, did they?
quote:
The forcing was in the ability to have the choice.
That is pure bullcrap, rat, and you know it.
Are you forced to eat pork rinds simply because they are on sale at the supermarket?
Are you forced to enlist in the military because there are commercials on TV and an enlistment officer calls you on the phone?
quote:
I know you won't understand that.
I don't "understand" it, that is correct.
It seems to me to be that you are blaming the fact that you even had a choice at all with your descision to terminate a pregnancy.
Gee, it really is too bad that we live in a fairly free society where you actually have choices and then have to live with the consequences instead of having one's entire life dictated by some outside authority, isn't it?
It was your responsibility to decide what was right for you, and it was the woman's responsibility to decide what was right for her.
It's called taking adult responsibility for your life, rat.
quote:
If it's legal it must be OK right?
If you didn't think that having an abortion was OK for you, then you shouldn't have had one.
Nobody forced you.
I am sorry that you feel like you made the wrong choice at that time, but just because that was the wrong choice FOR YOU doesn't give you the right to decide it is the wrong choice for everybody.
quote:
The choice was in having sex.
Whatever, but the point is that just because you have determined that terminating the pregnancy was the wrong choice for you doesn't give you the right to decide it is the wrong choice for everyone, everywhere.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted or fostered?
quote:
Zero. But, I am the Vice President of Hope for the Nations U.S.
Hope for the Nations
and we build Orphanages around the world, and help children at risk.
I am also a supporter of Care-net
Pregnancy Centers | Life Affirming Choices | Pro Abundant Life
My good friend who is a Christian is very involved with that, and we support him.
My wife and I have tossed around the idea of adopting another child, I have 5 already, but some things need to be in place first.
That is fabulous, and I mean that.
I also hope you are promoting the elevation of the status of women around the world, and also of family planning services and contraception.
quote:
Life is a blessing, whether you believe in God or not. Just because there is no higher power in life, does it mean it doesn't exist? Even if one doesn't (for your sake) where do we draw the line at playing games with life, or the ability to create life?
When does a human life begin?
quote:
Surely you value your own life, so you know how precious life is.
Absolutely. And it is MY life, rat. And you have no right to tell me what to do with it.
quote:
I Love my life, and the life of others. I hold it high in value, and that's what concerns me when our world plays games with it.
But when you want to force most pregnant women to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, you are most certainly playing games with her life.
The risks are much greater to her health to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth than those from an early term abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:05 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 316 (186145)
02-17-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:29 AM


Re: Missed Point
Maternal deaths:
The figure for Western Europe is one woman in 3,200. In the United States, it is one in 3,300. In Canada, it is one in 7,300.
Compare that with the death rate from abortion...
This is from the CDC:
Most Maternal Deaths from Abortion Could be Avoided If Procedure Performed Earlier
Washington, DC -- Deaths related to legal abortion are very rare in the US, but women whose abortions are performed at or before 8 weeks of pregnancy are significantly less likely to die of abortion-related causes than are women with abortions performed after that time, according to a study in the April issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Study authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that the annual death rate from legal abortion is extremely low. For the year 1996, for example, the number of deaths related to legal abortion in the US had dropped to seven out of nearly 1.2 million abortion procedures performed that year. Nevertheless, the authors estimate that for the years 1988 to 1997 up to 87% of the deaths in women whose pregnancies were terminated after 8 weeks of gestation might have been avoided if the women had obtained earlier abortions. The authors note that improving women's access to early abortion services -- such as early medical (non-surgical) abortions -- may further reduce the mortality rate.
The death rate from legally induced abortion was 0.6 per 100,000 abortions in 1997, compared to 4.1 per 100,000 in 1972 -- a decline of 85%. Researchers found that the greatest rate of decline in mortality rates occurred at the earliest weeks of pregnancy.
quote:
I thought we were only discussing what happens here in America, since our medical programs are a little better than those poor places, and it's the only place where our vote will make a difference.
Actually, our vote greatly affects what happens with women and children in other countries.
Bush has consistently blocked any funding for family planning services around the globe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:07 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 316 (186148)
02-17-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:41 AM


Re: Missed Point
quote:
You do understand Schraf, that I am for the woman. The woman should always come first.
No you are not.
You have consistently disregarded any consideration of a woman's health and the risks surrounding pregnancy if the fetus is "normal".
You have consistently put the fetus far ahead of the woman in importance.
quote:
I am against using abortion as a form of birth control.
Me, too, if simply for the cost.
What are you doing to promote contraception use to make abortion rarer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:41 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:10 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 273 of 316 (187236)
02-21-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by riVeRraT
02-21-2005 9:16 AM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
RiverRat,
Since you still seem to be participating in this thread just as much as you ever were, I'd like a response to message 229, please.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2005 14:38 AM

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 9:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 7:56 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 293 of 316 (187459)
02-22-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Silent H
02-21-2005 6:14 PM


off topic, proposal to start new discussion
quote:
How on earth can they have a free choice when their aid is linked to a religious message? Come on.
I agree with this completely, holmes, but it seems terribly similar to the argument I was using against you when we were discussing if it was exploitative for someone to offer substantial financial reward to Islamic, desperate Afghan women if they posed for nude photographs.
I was wondering if you would be interested in explaining what the difference is, and why one is exploitative and the other isn't?
A new coffee house thread would be appropriate, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Silent H, posted 02-21-2005 6:14 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Silent H, posted 02-22-2005 1:11 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 294 of 316 (187463)
02-22-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by riVeRraT
02-21-2005 7:56 PM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
quote:
The third choice in a google search, right after the link you supplied is this one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
That's from the government, not some pro-abortion web-site, an dit shows an increase in infanticde.
The information I posted was from a site with was working to end infanticide riverrat.
The information I posted is consistent with the government information.
Also, I'd like you to address how it is that having a choice actually forces you to do any particular thing.
If you can choose to buy pork rinds at the supermarket, and you do so, were you forced to buy them, just because they were there?
I'd also like to know how you propose we find homes for the five million unwanted children per year which would result if we drastically restricted abortion like you suggest.
quote:
Abortion does not justify infanticide. They are the same to me.
So, a viable child who is already here is the same to you as a few hunderd cells you need a microscope to see, or a little blob of tissue with no brain?
If this is the case, then you must think that the parasitic head removed from the infant recently was a case of infantacide, don't you?
[qs]This is no longer a question among modern biologists. At the very moment of conception a human being comes into existence.[/quote]
This is completely false!! Completely false.
Give me some kind of quote from a Biology textbook that claims this.
quote:
At any time after this the deprivation of life in this living matter, if done deliberately, is murder.
Biologists endorse nothing of the sort in a professional capacity.
That website blatantly and shamefully uses the authority of science/Biology to further it's religious and philosophical agenda. It is full of heavily biased and false and misleading information.
quote:
So your asking me which is worse, when they are both just as bad in my eyes.
Really? A mother smothering her newborn or dumping it in a trashcan is not worse than someone getting an early-term abortion?
An abortion of a fetus that can't feel anything is not the lesser evil to you than killing a fully viable child who feels hunger and pain?
When you restrict abortion, you see an increase in infantatide, and that is just a fact. Saying you don't like either one, just avoids the issue.
Are you OK with viable babies, who feel pain, being killed at a greater rate if we restrict abortion rights?
quote:
BTW, there is nothing wrong with me asking you to back up your claims, and I have done some research on subjects I talk about. That does not limit me to being correct all the time.
Of course you can ask me to back up my claims.
The thing is, you are apparently only getting your information from sites you agree with instead of neutral sites.
The last thing I'd like you to address is your claims about PAS.
I posted a link to a neutral site which gives an overview of the research.
Here it is again:
Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS): All viewpoints
Here is an excerpt:
How common is PAS?
In 1995, Dr. Paul Sachdef, professor of social work at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, conducted 70 in-depth interviews of women who had elective abortions during the previous 6 to 12 months. 2 They are typical of women who have sought abortions: aged 18 to 25, single, white females. All had terminated their first pregnancy during the first trimester giving mental health as their reason for seeking an abortion. He concluded: 3 Two-thirds of the woman had used contraceptives rarely or not at all.
Three-fourths of the woman thought they would not become pregnant.
Almost 80% "felt relief and satisfaction" soon after the abortion.
Long term guilt or depression were rare.
Elective abortion is less traumatic than giving a child up for adoption.
Women do not lightly decide to have an elective abortion.
June Scandiffino (Toronto ON Right to Life) disagreed with his findings. She wonders about the 10% of women who declined to be interviewed. She maintains that the "Post-traumatic abortion syndrome" may not emerge until perhaps 7 years after the elective abortion.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a famous opponent of abortion, was asked by President Reagan to study the health effects of induced abortions. He responded in a 1989-JAN-8 letter that he could not form a conclusion from the available data. A year later, Dr. Koop told representatives of some pro-life groups that the risk of significant emotional problems after an abortion was "miniscule".
In 1989, a panel of the American Psychological Association unanimously concluded that legal abortion "does not create psychological hazards for most women undergoing the procedure." They found that about 21% of US adult women had had an abortion. If severe emotional reactions were common, then they would have expected to notice an epidemic of women seeking treatment. No evidence of such a flood was observed.
The American Psychological Association conducted an 8 year study involving almost 5,295 women, starting in 1979. The women were interviewed each year until 1987. The researchers found that the best predictor of of the women's well-being during the study was their well-being at the start of the study. Whether they had had an abortion or not during the interval covered by the study did not seem to affect their mental health. Neither did their income level, job status, educational attainment, marital status, etc. In other words, they were unable to detect the existence of PAS.
The American Psychological Association further analyzed the data from the 1979-1987 study and issued a press release on 1997-JAN-31. 14 They concluded:
"Data from [a] long-term study demonstrate that even highly religious women are not at significantly greater risk of psychological distress because they had an abortion."
This time they included an analysis of the woman's religious beliefs and practices - specifically:
whether they were affiliated with a religious group, or were not religious.
if religious, whether they attended church often or rarely.
They found that:
"...having had an abortion (or more than one) had no relation with self-esteem"
the "...type of religion to which women who had an abortion belonged also did not make a difference in their post-abortion well-being..."
Thus, even religious women did not appear to suffer from PAS at a detectable level. They further analyzed the data for the Roman Catholic women in the study. They found that "highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely to exhibit postabortion psychological distress than other women..." But this is probably explained by the presence of a lower level of well-being at the start of the study by the devout Catholics, rather than any after-effect of the abortion.
A review of an article in the Journal of Social Issues states that PAS "results in partial to total cognitive restructuring and behavioral reorganization. Secondary symptoms of PAS include depression, substance abuse, sleep disorders and suicidal thoughts." The authors of the article concluded that: "at present, it is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the incidence of Post Abortion Syndrome." They urge that more research be done.1
We have personally noticed TV ads in various parts of North America by pro-life groups and crisis pregnancy centers which offer "Post-traumatic Abortion Syndrome Counseling" or "Post Abortion Counseling". It is not clear whether they are offering a genuine, needed service, or are attempting to create a false belief among the public that such a syndrome is common.
Planned Parenthood has an information sheet on PAS. 4 They quote a representative of the American Psychological Association 5 who testified before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He stated that PAS is rare and is less common than emotional upset after a birth.
Do you agree that PAS is largely a myth propagated by anti-choice propagandists?
Also, you made mentioned the increased risks of multiple abortions, and I asked you for a source for your information, and also asked if the risk from having multiple abortions exceeded the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and postpartum.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2005 10:18 AM

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 7:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by riVeRraT, posted 02-23-2005 7:58 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 295 of 316 (187467)
02-22-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by riVeRraT
02-21-2005 9:09 PM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
quote:
The sister had no choice in the way she was born, we do not seem to know exactly why she was born the way she was, and it makes it hard to debate about it.
Actually, wew pretty much know exactly why that child was born the way she was.
It's a parasitic twin.
We've seen them for a long time.
from Wikipedia:
parasitic twin
A parasitic twin is the result of a situation related to the process that results in teratomas, vanishing twin, and conjoined twins — two unique embryos begin developing in utero, but something goes wrong. Parasitic twins are also known as asymmetrical conjoined twins or unequal conjoined twins. Parasitic twins are a variation on conjoined twinsexcept one of the twins stopped developing during gestation and is now vestigial to a healthy, otherwise mostly fully-formed individual twin. They are defined as parasitic, rather than conjoined, by being incompletely formed or wholly dependent on the body functions of the complete fetus.
Conjoined-parasitic twins united at the head are described as craniopagus or cephalopagus. Craniopagus occipitalis is the term for fusion in the occipital region; craniopagus parietalis is when the fusion is in the parietal region; craniopagus parasiticus is term for a parasitic head attached to the head of a more fully-developed fetus or infant.
Specific types of parasitic twin
Fetus in fetu
Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. Invariably the parasitic fetus is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own.
Acardiac twin
An acardiac twin is a parasitic twin that fails to develop a head, arms and a heart. The resulting torso can leech blood flow from the surviving normal twin, causing extreme stress on the normal fetus's heart.
Prenatal surgery must be performed if the normal fetus is to survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 9:09 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by riVeRraT, posted 02-23-2005 8:01 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 296 of 316 (187472)
02-22-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by riVeRraT
02-22-2005 8:39 AM


Re: Law means nothing I guess.
You do NOT have control over what I do with MY body, or my beliefs.
quote:
It's not your body that concerns me, you already made the choice to do something in which you can get pregnant. It's the life that is inside you that concerns me.
That, ladies and gentlemen, says it all right there.
quote:
Do you consider your unborn child to be life?
Do you consider Asgara to be life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by riVeRraT, posted 02-22-2005 8:39 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024