PDA

View Full Version : 10 million abortions



George Jung
01-18-2006, 02:10 PM
Not to throw gas on the fire, or start another ... 'spitting' match. Just saw a story in the local paper about India - it seems they note that, over the past 10 years, there have been 10 million (est) abortions for the purpose of gender selection. It seems they perform an ultrasound, and if it's a female (and they all want boys!) they abort. Stunning; the numbers are almost incomprehensible to me.

Dolly Varden
01-18-2006, 02:10 PM
fart

Dutch

[ 01-18-2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Dolly Varden ]

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:14 PM
One time I agree with Dutch

Fart. :rolleyes:

Memphis Mike
01-18-2006, 02:17 PM
Me too.

Fart fart fart.

cedar savage
01-18-2006, 02:17 PM
Remember that old thing about the Chinese Army marching to the U.S. on a human bridge, fueled by their massive over population?

O.K., so now it's a horny army.

Alan D. Hyde
01-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Something like 50 million in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, IIRC... :(

Alan

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:25 PM
50 Million legal choices made by woman, the system works. smile.gif

FWIW I have made this statement before my personal opinion is that abortion is a wrong choice for me and my life but that is my PERSONAL choice.

George.
01-18-2006, 02:27 PM
Let's put India in perspective. There is a billion of them. One million abortions a year means one abortion per thousand people. Given how poor and overpolulated much of India is, that seems rather expected...

As for the fact that they preferentially abort females - they'll come to regret it in a few years... ;)

Alan D. Hyde
01-18-2006, 02:31 PM
Year........AGI.........CDC
1973......744,600......615,831
1974......898,600......763,476
1975.....1,034,200.....854,853
1976.....1,179,300.....988,267
1977.....1,316,700....1,079,430
1978.....1,409,600....1,157,776
1979.....1,497,700....1,251,921
1980.....1,553,900....1,297,606
1981.....1,577,300....1,300,760
1982.....1,573,900....1,303,980
1983.....1,575,000....1,268,987
1984.....1,577,200....1,333,521
1985.....1,588,600....1,328,570
1986.....1,574,000....1,328,112
1987.....1,559,100....1,353,671
1988.....1,590,800....1,371,285
1989.....1,566,900....1,396,658
1990.....1,608,600....1,429,577
1991.....1,556,500....1,388,937
1992.....1,528,900....1,359,145
1993.....1,495,000....1,330,414
1994.....1,423,000....1,267,415
1995.....1,359,690....1,210,883
1996.....1,360,730....1,221,585
1997.....1,335,000....1,186,039
1998.....1,319,000....* 884,273
1999.....1,314,000....* 861,789
2000.....1,312,990...** 857,475
2001...§ 1,303,000...** 853,485
2002...§ 1,293,000
2003...§§1,293,000
2004...§§1,293,000

"AGI" is the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
"CDC" is Centers for Disease Control.
§ AGI estimates
§§ NRLC Base Figure
* excludes NH, CA, AK, OK
** excludes NH, CA, AK

***

Perhaps you better call them, Norman, and set them straight...

Alan

[ 01-18-2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

High C
01-18-2006, 02:35 PM
Norman, it's been around 1.5 million in the US, per year, since RvWade. I've seen this figure dozens of times over the years, all over the place.

And yes, it is absurd.

High C
01-18-2006, 02:36 PM
The numbers... (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm)

Norman, when you said something about 1 in 3 American women having abortions...run the numbers over the period 1973 to present, compare it to the US population, and figure what percentage of the population is being aborted.

[ 01-18-2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:40 PM
HiC as per your usual KNOWLEDGE :rolleyes: Do those figures include natural miscarriages? Still births? Kinda skimpy on the facts as usual :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:41 PM
Much better stats Don[n]

JimD
01-18-2006, 02:43 PM
Stunning; the numbers are almost incomprehensible to me. George, suppose you had ten million dollars. Do you think you could comprehend that? :D

ljb5
01-18-2006, 02:47 PM
Does anyone seriously believe that 2 of every five women are evil, morally reprehensible, allied with Satan and doomed to eternal damnation?

If 40% of the population are doing something, it implies that there might be quite a good reason for it.

I'm with Joe. I don't much like abortion, but considering the strong demand for it and the fact that most of these women are probably very decent and good-hearted implies that it's not an issue for moral absolutism.

Would now be a good time to discuss birth control?

Bob Cleek
01-18-2006, 02:47 PM
Sort of gives you a different perspective when you consider the numbers, doesn't it? If two out of five American women have had an abortion, you have to figure that two out of every five of US never made it out of the box! Or, put another way, American women are killing forty percent of their fetuses! Surely, there can't be that many women becoming pregnant as a result of rape and incest! What does this say about our culture?

[ 01-18-2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

Alan D. Hyde
01-18-2006, 02:49 PM
Throwaway.

Including...

The sanctity of life.

Alan

High C
01-18-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Sort of gives you a different perspective when you consider the numbers, doesn't it?....American women are killing forty percent of their fetuses! It does for those of us who, like Norman, do consider those numbers. The numbers are, or should be, eye opening. :(

High C
01-18-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
HiC as per your usual KNOWLEDGE :rolleyes: Do those figures include natural miscarriages? Still births? Kinda skimpy on the facts as usual :rolleyes: :rolleyes: What was that? A little louder please, so we all can hear?

George Jung
01-18-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by JimD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Stunning; the numbers are almost incomprehensible to me. George, suppose you had ten million dollars. Do you think you could comprehend that? :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'm having trouble with it yet, Jim.... how'about you send me $10,000,000 and I'll work it out... :D

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
What does this say about our culture?It says woman have a choice. It says 50 million children living in poverty or with a family that can not support them were not born.

Yea and it also might mean that some tart got herself knocked up cause she is a slut and uses abortion as a form of birth control.

It also might mean that an older couple that has tried to conceive had to make the awful, heartbreaking choice to end the life of the child they wanted so very bad because of horrible birth-defects that they knew they could not take care of and were advised by there physician to abort :( She has been crying for a week solid over this. :(

This just happened to a friend of ours.

Every choice is different, thats what the stats don't tell you. Many of the choices are probably the most heart wrenching ever made.

[ 01-18-2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Joe (SoCal)
01-18-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by High C:
What was that? A little louder please, so we all can hear?http://store1.yimg.com/I/buyinprivate_1878_23819326

High C
01-18-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...You might have misinterpreted my comment. Yes, I was surprised by the magnitude of the numbers... but no, the numbers themselves don't have any effect on how I feel about the issue....I understood you correctly, Norman. You believed the numbers once they were presented, and admitted that you didn't realize their magnitude. That's all I meant.

skuthorp
01-18-2006, 03:01 PM
Agree with Dutch, were a species out of control, enough of us already to threaten survival of the species. Individually though a tragedy no doubt.

[ 01-18-2006, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: skuthorp ]

George Jung
01-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Sort of gives you a different perspective when you consider the numbers, doesn't it? If two out of five American women have had an abortion, you have to figure that two out of every five of US never made it out of the box! Or, put another way, American women are killing forty percent of their fetuses! Surely, there can't be that many women becoming pregnant as a result of rape and incest! What does this say about our culture?This thread has taken a bit of a sideroad, but I agree with your post. The approach in India (and elsewhere), that a female is not as valued as a male, is, for me, chilling. The thread responses are very telling, as well. How do we value human life? I look at the numbers posted, and think of the individuals who have been lost. Does it make a difference, in terms of culture and human existence? How do you know? I guess the emotion it engendered in me was a sense of loss.

George Roberts
01-18-2006, 03:04 PM
almost all (98%) abortions were known to have been performed by curettage (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm)

A D&C is a common procedure for problems during a pregnancy. Used as such it has never been considered an abortion by doctors or patients. It was simply a necessary procedure.

On the other hand I don't even play a doctor on TV.

Keith Wilson
01-18-2006, 03:14 PM
Or, put another way, American women are killing forty percent of their fetuses! Uh - no, Bob. Check your math. There are a lot of abortions, but not that many. There are about 4.2 million live births in the US every year (14.14/1000), so about 20% of fetuses are aborted.

George.
01-18-2006, 03:17 PM
"almost all (98%) abortions were known to have been performed by curettage"

Excuse me?

Curettage is what is done to a woman when her fetus expires from natural causes - to save her the trauma and risk of a natural miscarriage.

You mean that perhaps only 2% of those 50 million were actual abortions by choice? That's only one million, or less than 30,000 a year...

uncas
01-18-2006, 03:17 PM
I am not surprised...
The ads for abstinance..."Just say no" is or appears to be immediately followed by...
"OH, yes, OH, YES!"
Something, I guess doesn't work...

Dan McCosh
01-18-2006, 03:39 PM
FWIW--the rate of induced abortions is about twice the rate of natural abortions in the US.

Sea Frog
01-18-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Dolly Varden:
fart

DutchWhat did you edit, Dolly?

uncas
01-18-2006, 03:46 PM
Dolly...three farts in a row and I will seriously consider hooking you up to my furnace....
or throwing you overboard...I understand sharks have a good sense of smell....

[ 01-18-2006, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

Keith Wilson
01-18-2006, 03:53 PM
the rate of induced abortions is about twice the rate of natural abortions in the US. I don't think so. The best figures I know of show that about somewhere around 40 or 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages (most very early). This is about 2 to 2.5 times the rate of induced abortions.

[ 01-18-2006, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

uncas
01-18-2006, 03:54 PM
any relationship between that and age of the mother?

LeeG
01-18-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by JimD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Stunning; the numbers are almost incomprehensible to me. George, suppose you had ten million dollars. Do you think you could comprehend that? :D </font>[/QUOTE]dang,,that's a good one.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-18-2006, 04:16 PM
Abortion is legal in Canada, and available across the country free, by law.

Meerkat
01-18-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by High C:
The numbers... (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm)

Norman, when you said something about 1 in 3 American women having abortions...run the numbers over the period 1973 to present, compare it to the US population, and figure what percentage of the population is being aborted.No percentage of the population is being aborted. They're not part of the population.

Dan McCosh
01-18-2006, 04:36 PM
I was looking at the source material that said 1.3 mlllion was the total. It says 13% of pregnancies are naturally aborted. If the number is that far off, the rest of the stats could be suspect as well.

Dan McCosh
01-18-2006, 04:37 PM
[ 01-18-2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Dan McCosh ]

High C
01-18-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
...No percentage of the population is being aborted. They're not part of the population.They certainly aren't. :(

bukuboy
01-18-2006, 07:55 PM
Would be nice to have just 2-3 billion people on the planet ya know... ---Bukuboy

Meerkat
01-18-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
...No percentage of the population is being aborted. They're not part of the population.They certainly aren't. :( </font>[/QUOTE]The Earth is already too crowded.

Overcrowding will cheapen the value of human life far more than abortion, and abortion doesn't even materially reduce population increase.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-18-2006, 08:06 PM
Abortion is bad. Killing kids who sympathize with, and support terrorism, is good.

[ 01-18-2006, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-18-2006, 08:11 PM
or blowing away people who gas dogs, by killing kids too.

Meerkat
01-18-2006, 08:12 PM
There are reports of at least one terrorist in a house on a canal in Amityville, NY. CIA drones have been dispatched. tongue.gif

skuthorp
01-18-2006, 08:19 PM
From some points of view there's a whole bunch of 'em in a house on Pennsyllvania Avenue.

George Jung
01-18-2006, 08:35 PM
Well, it was an interesting thread, though the current posts bear no resemblance...

Carry on, and enjoy.

Bill Gates
01-18-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Abortion is good. Legal and free. "Free"?

Well I'll be dipped, The Donnald must be a commie socialist.

Osborne Russel
01-18-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Throwaway.

Including...

The sanctity of life.Life includes, necessarily, demonstrably, undeniably, ecology and evolution, the sanctity of which, Republicans wipe their butt with.

skuthorp
01-18-2006, 11:20 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. I''m more concerned with the children that are already born and who die at the rate of a hundred or so in the time it takes me to type this.
Billions of potential ovum dont get fertilised, what about them? So, concentrate on those who do make it through and do something for them. Pick a country, any will do, mine, your own, all of Africa South America. Plenty of kids crying out for life there. :mad:

Meerkat
01-18-2006, 11:43 PM
I wonder if pro-lifers have much interest in babies once they're born. Welfare queens and all, you know.

Sam F
01-19-2006, 11:22 AM
It too bad that these things always get side-tracked into the political - Does anyone seriously contend that the Republican Party is genuinely pro-life? Does the Democratic party actually stand for anything other than sex without consequences?
Of course a diversion into the political is just that a diversion - and a convenient excuse to not engage in actual - you know - thought. ‘Tis much easier to vent bodily gasses - yeah that's thoughtful all right - or wander into a confusion between natural causes and deliberate causes - The "reasoning" runs just like this: People die in traffic accidents all the time so it must be OK to tie someone up in a car and push it over the nearest cliff.
And then there's the fundamental confusion about empowering women - by killing girls - yeah that's some empowerment!

uncas
01-19-2006, 11:24 AM
Meer...there are already places on earth where there is nothing cheaper than a human life...

Sam F
01-19-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
I wonder if pro-lifers have much interest in babies once they're born. Welfare queens and all, you know.Wonder no longer Meer. Pro-lifers have a great deal of interest in what happens to babies after they are born. You can help too. May I suggest a contribution to Catholic Relief Services for a start?
See for yourself at:
Catholic Relief Services (http://www.crs.org/)

uncas
01-19-2006, 11:29 AM
And then there is adoption....
My problem with this entire discussion is that we are working backwards....we should not need 10 million abortions...if...and I say if....we stop a majority of kids having sex at 12,13,14,15,16,17,18...and that is a family issue...And it takes two to tango...
There is no stigma attached to a person who becomes pregnant anymore.At the turn of the century..if a young lady becomes pregnant...she is sent away...far far away from home to have the baby......In the same way, there really is no stigma attached to a couple getting divorced...

[ 01-19-2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 11:44 AM
sex without consequencesOh what a lovely phrase. The “reasoning”, such as it is, runs just like this: because without birth control, sex often results in pregnancy and eventually babies, therefore there’s something wrong with techniques that allow sex without pregnancy. Since we live on a planet full of various kinds of microbes, there’s something wrong with techniques that allow us to avoid diseases. Since we live on a planet were it rains and snows, there’s something wrong with techniques that allow us to stay warm and dry. If God had meant us to be comfortable and live a long time, he wouldn’t have made the Earth like it is. It’s going against nature, against God’s will, to do anything else.

:rolleyes:

George.
01-19-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Does the Democratic party actually stand for anything other than sex without consequences?
It... is... alive! :eek: :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-19-2006, 11:48 AM
May I suggest a contribution to Catholic Relief Services for a start? Do they have a breakdown of costs associated with administration, fundraising etc? I never donate to a charity without seeing those figures.

uncas
01-19-2006, 11:49 AM
And I get outta donating to a lot of charities because they won't tell me the answers to the above...

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-19-2006, 11:55 AM
I've had a few fights as a board member on charitable organizations over the cost of running the organization. A small organization can't run for less than about 12% with any staff or facilities. (small being under 5 mil a year)...but amazingly, a lot of fundraisers and service deliverers use 25% of the money to pay the fundraisers. Empire building,

Sam F
01-19-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> May I suggest a contribution to Catholic Relief Services for a start? Do they have a breakdown of costs associated with administration, fundraising etc? I never donate to a charity without seeing those figures.</font>[/QUOTE]That information is available on the link I posted. However...

http://www.crs.org/images/charts/05_pie_chart-SM.gif

Sam F
01-19-2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />sex without consequencesOh what a lovely phrase. The “reasoning”, such as it is, runs just like this: because without birth control, sex often results in pregnancy and eventually babies, therefore there’s something wrong with techniques that allow sex without pregnancy. :</font>[/QUOTE]What’s the matter Keith? Why did you miss the crucial step in your own reasoning?
Birth control fails. Therefore a “safety valve” must exist so that people can continue to have sex without consequences – the most obvious consequence of sex is related to its function – procreation.
Or did you think that all those millions of abortions are the result of not using contraception? Do you really think that?

And by the way you also skipped the context entirely - Is it true that the Democratic Party is obsessed with abortion? Sure seems to be. Look at the recent Judge Alito hearings... true, time was spent on concerns about Presidential powers (though all Congress needs is a backbone transplant to restrain them) A huge percentage of the rest of that public root canal operation reflected a Democratic Party obsession with abortion - is that what the Party now stands for? Sex with out consequences? My my, now that's standing for a noble Principle!

Sam F
01-19-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
And I get outta donating to a lot of charities because they won't tell me the answers to the above...Any charity that won't tell you that should be avoided. There is however a national organization that rates charities. It's
Charitywatch.org (http://www.charitywatch.org/ratingguide.html)

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2006, 01:47 PM
When my great-grandfather was born in;
1842 = 1.5 billion folks worldwide

grandfather;
1867 = 1.8 billion

father;
2.0 billion

me;
2.2 billion

today;
6 billion, give or take a bit

Although mass marketers are licking their lips at all the potential for future customers there is also the downside that there are many more hosts for the incubation and genetic advancement of diseases and our proximity to each other makes spreading same much easier.
Also, the distribution of static resources over ever increasing populations makes wars of survival more likely.
In some ways I'm glad I am as old as I am.

Charlie

"Time to rent a copy of "Soylent Green" again."

[ 01-20-2006, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

uncas
01-19-2006, 01:49 PM
Naw...I'n gonna read Brave New World again...

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 01:54 PM
the most obvious consequence of sex is related to its function – procreation.Right. And the natural (or God-given) function of typhoid bacteria is to reproduce themselves as fast as possible. We should therefore ban antibioics.

Tristan
01-19-2006, 01:57 PM
My wife had two D&C's following death of foetus in utero. Do we count those? How many such procedures are counted in the "abortion" numbers?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-19-2006, 01:57 PM
Ummm Not to be way out there... but if someone decides to have sex without wanting/having consequences, what would be wrong with that?

George.
01-19-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
In some ways I'm glad I am as old as I am.

Wisest quote by Sil's 90-year-old grandmother:

"The best thing about the future is that I won't have to live in it."

Paul Pless
01-19-2006, 02:16 PM
Ummm Not to be way out there... but if someone decides to have sex without wanting/having consequences, what would be wrong with that?nothing, but part of avoiding the consequences, is practicing safe sex. Personally I have litle problem with abortion, other than its use as a substitute for other birth control methods.

George Jung
01-19-2006, 02:36 PM
Skuthorp, you're crossing your wires...
honestly, the abortion issue runs, at best, on a tangent with 'caring for children already born'. Trying to blend them is disingenuous at best. You're saying that the 'future resources' that would've been 'wasted' on these aborted children are, instead, being used to care for children dying at a 'hundred a minute' (assuming yer a slow typer)? Where'd you get that?
Billions of ovum don't get fertilized? So? What's that got to do with abortion? You do understand the concept of the 'fertilized egg', etc., right?
Uncas, you hit on a sore spot, and I agree with you. Personal responsibility, or the lack of...
Birth control is SO readily available; I'm simply amazed at that segment of the population (I'm talking local/my experience) who, whether too lazy, or too uncaring, refuse to do ANYTHING to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Notice I didn't say they should practice abstinence. These folks wouldn't even consider that an option; abortions are so much simpler than any other choice, in their opinion.
Keith, you okay? Your current level of argument isn't really up to your usual standard.

Getting back to the original premise: Abortion for gender selection. The ethical implications are incredible, this total lack of value for human life, based on gender. It's like going down to the toystore to pick out a kuipie doll; it diminishes all of mankind.

[ 01-19-2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: George Jung ]

PatCox
01-19-2006, 02:41 PM
Whats all this talk about "life?" So a foetus us alive. So is a tree, a slug, and a typhus bacterium.

Murder isn't killing a "life." Murder is killing a "human." You all really think a fertilized egg is a "human?"

Sam F
01-19-2006, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And by the way you also skipped the context entirely - Is it true that the Democratic Party is obsessed with abortion? Sure seems to be. Look at the recent Judge Alito hearings... The very notion is absurd. Abortion is the #1 hotbutton of American politics, and neither party is solely responsible for that.
For every Democratic senator who would want to attack a nominee based on that nominee's possible views on abortion, there is a Republican senator doing the same damn thing, trying to get an anti-Roe nominee on the bench... because they represent a constituency that WANTS them to! Reversing Roe v. Wade is most decidedly a plank of the Republican party platform, just as much as defending it is a stated objective of Democrats. Democrats are no more 'obsessed' with abortion than are Republicans... it's an equal opportunity issue.</font>[/QUOTE]Norman, I am fairly aware that abortion is a hotbutton issue in the US. Did you think I thought otherwise? Again, my point is does the Democratic Party stand for anything else?
The notion is not in the least absurd.
Given the enormous effort expended on this issue, everything else the Party does and says seems decidedly an afterthought. The Democrats are quite prepared to lose and have lost elections over this point. Now I suppose that’s to its collective credit, but is that really a principle worth losing for? Is the right to have sex without consequences and enable American women to become latter day Medea’s, really comparable to the great Civil Rights battles of the 1960’s? Since when did the “right” to kill one’s own baby become a great PRINCIPLE?

Btw, did you not notice where I said: “Does anyone seriously contend that the Republican Party is genuinely pro-life?”
They’ve been in power quite a few years now and have not produced any spectacular results either legislatively or in Supreme Court Justices. And did any Republican President ever even bother to appear in person at the yearly Right to Life Marches. The answer is NO.

Sam F
01-19-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by PatCox:
Whats all this talk about "life?" So a foetus us alive. So is a tree, a slug, and a typhus bacterium.

Murder isn't killing a "life." Murder is killing a "human." You all really think a fertilized egg is a "human?"Gee Pat, what do you think? People spend some serious buckage to have in-vitro fertilization done so they can give birth to what? ..... A racoon?
And then there's Partial Birth Abortion where a baby is minutes from birth and has his or her brain sucked out. But that's not taking a human life?
Come now Pat, you know perfectly well that a human fetus is human.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 02:51 PM
Oh, Pat, we've been through this over and over and over and over again. The central issue is the moral status of the embryo and fetus; all else is commentary (or obfuscation). Is it worthy of protection, like a baby, or not, like my still-living skin cells I wash off by the tens of thousands, or the cow I ate some of for lunch? Almost everyone agrees that just before emerging from the womb, a full-term baby is morally a human being. Almost everyone agrees that every sperm is not sacred. The question is, where in between those two extremes do we have a human being, worthy of the protection of law and custom? Despite Sam's specious claim that it's obvious, and his transparent attempts to argue by choice of words (“the right to kill one’s own baby") there is a fair amount of disagreement on that point, to say the least.

[ 01-19-2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

High C
01-19-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Oh, Pat, we've been through this over and over and over and over again. The central issue is the moral status of the embryo and fetus; all else is commentary (or obfuscation). Is it worthy of protection, like a baby, or not, like my still-living skin cells I wash off by the tens of thousands, or the cow I ate some of for lunch? Almost everyone agrees that just before emerging from the womb, a full-term baby is morally a human being. Almost everyone agrees that every sperm is not sacred. The question is, where in between those two extremes do we have a human being, worthy of the protection of law and custom? Thank you, Keith. That's the debate, clearly and simply put. I wish folks would concentrate on these questions, and try to answer them for themselves, without allowing external issues to cloud the question.

This is the core issue.

[ 01-19-2006, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

PatCox
01-19-2006, 03:45 PM
Well, thats my understanding of the debate, too. Thats why I can't understand this talk of life and taking life and people being "pro-life." Life isn't the issue, thats why I asked.

High C
01-19-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...It's the issue of how we judge human life... ALL human life.We can't judge it we can't define it.

George Roberts
01-19-2006, 03:54 PM
Tristan ---

You might notice that was my comment on page 1.

In the bilge no one is influenced by facts only rhetoric in volumes will do.

Meerkat
01-19-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
Naw...I'n gonna read Brave New World again...Just read the daily paper. It will be much the same. ;)

Sam F
01-19-2006, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by PatCox:
Well, thats my understanding of the debate, too. Thats why I can't understand this talk of life and taking life and people being "pro-life." Life isn't the issue, thats why I asked.Of course human life is the issue Pat - unless you think human life negligible. Or is it just some human life that unimportant?
But you haven't answered my question. What is produced with in-vitro fertilization that people pay all the money for? Is it a raccoon? A turtle? Or is it human?
Enquiring minds want to know what you think about that.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 05:06 PM
Is it a raccoon? A turtle? Or is it human?You are once again trying to define the terms of the debate by your choice of words. It's getting old.

What is produced is a human fertilized egg. It is a single cell. If it is implanted in a uterus, and if all goes well, in nine months or so it will develop into a baby. Yes, it has human DNA; yes, it has the potential, given the proper conditions, to develop into what everyone recognizes as a human being, but it is a single cell.

One can argue that this single cell is morally equivalent to a full-term baby, and that a woman who uses an IUD is morally equivalent to a mass murderer. That's one possible answer to the question of the moral status of an embryo, but it's very far from an obvious or universally-accepted one.

Sam F
01-19-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Oh, Pat, we've been through this over and over and over and over again. The central issue is the moral status of the embryo and fetus; all else is commentary (or obfuscation). Is it worthy of protection, like a baby, or not, like my still-living skin cells I wash off by the tens of thousands, or the cow I ate some of for lunch? Excuse me? May I point out that our still-living skin cells are not a unique human beings…
and beef for lunch?
Are you letting your rhetoric carry you away, or do you really see a moral point of equivalence between a human life and a cow’s?


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Almost everyone agrees that just before emerging from the womb, a full-term baby is morally a human being. Apparently not otherwise Partial Birth Abortion would be illegal. Care to explain why if “everyone agrees” that it is not forbidden?


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Almost everyone agrees that every sperm is not sacred. No one believes that every sperm is sacred. Lay off the ridiculous caricature please.


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
The question is, where in between those two extremes do we have a human being, worthy of the protection of law and custom? Oops, seems you’ve set up a specious set of extremes!


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Despite Sam's specious claim that it's obvious, and his transparent attempts to argue by choice of words (“the right to kill one’s own baby") there is a fair amount of disagreement on that point, to say the least. I am not arguing about a “choice of words”. If a baby killed seconds before she is born in what way is it not killing a baby? Come on Keith – you presumably are one of those “everyone agrees that just before emerging from the womb, a full-term baby is morally a human being” folks.

I also asked a simple question: “People spend some serious buckage to have in-vitro fertilization done so they can give birth to what? ..... A raccoon?”
Maybe you’ll answer it.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 05:35 PM
Once again, a simple answer: Fertilization, in vitro or otherwise, produces a human fertilized egg. Under the proper conditions, it has the potential to develop into a baby.

IMO, a fetilized egg, a single cell, is not morally equivalent to a human being, nor should it have any protection under the law.

[ 01-19-2006, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

sharpie
01-19-2006, 05:46 PM
Under the proper conditions, it has the potential to develop into a baby. Ah, then the "proper conditions" are invaded by foreign objects in order to willfully render the proper conditions improper. Now abortion makes sense to me.

Sam F
01-19-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
IMO, a fetilized egg, a single cell, is not morally equivalent to a human being, nor should it have any protection under the law.Prove it.

Then using the same reasoning explain why a baby, minutes away from birth, is not entitled to protection "under the law".

[ 01-19-2006, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Keith Wilson
01-19-2006, 06:01 PM
Prove it? And how precisely would one prove or disprove that contention? :rolleyes:

Sam, you know very well that my position all along has been that higher brain function, the capability for consciousness, is what constitutes a human being. Before that occurs, and after it's irretreivably lost, IMO we have a bunch of human tissue, not a human being as such.

Late abortions are very rare, should only be done for dire medical reasons, and can be legitimately restricted under current law. That's a red herring on which I won’t bite.

[ 01-19-2006, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

LeeG
01-19-2006, 06:15 PM
Hey,,Sams back,,Hi Sam.

George Jung
01-19-2006, 07:56 PM
Greetings, SamF... where have you been? I think everyone - even dotty - missed ya! (How soon they forget...) :D

Tan, rested, and ready for the next campaign...

Meerkat
01-19-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
IMO, a fetilized egg, a single cell, is not morally equivalent to a human being, nor should it have any protection under the law.Prove it.
</font>[/QUOTE]YOU prove it is!

We'll expect testimony from the cell of course. tongue.gif

Meerkat
01-19-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:

Then using the same reasoning explain why a baby, minutes away from birth, is not entitled to protection "under the law".Got any more rediculous obscure "never happens" cases you want to bring up?

Inflamatory words and statements only underscore the paucity of your argument.

LeeG
01-19-2006, 08:05 PM
well I'm not having that 10,000,001 abortion.

George.
01-20-2006, 06:27 AM
My thoughts on the matter:

Is abortion killing? Yes.

Is it wrong? No.

Note that few people consider any and all killing to be wrong. So why is some killing considered wrong? Because it causes suffering and grief. I posit that if killing someone causes no suffering or grief to anyone, then it is not wrong. What is immoral is not the killing in itself, but its consequences.

If I were shot in the back of the head as I write this, and if there was no one who would miss me or grieve me, that would not be immoral.

It's the same with an early fetus. It has no nervous system or brain - it cannot feel or suffer. Only the parents would suffer if it were killed. If the parents choose to kill it, rather than have it, then literally no one suffers from its killing. Therefore, it is not an immoral act.

We can argue all we want about when exactly a fetus becomes a human being. It is not relevant to the morality of abortion. One three-month fetus may be morally aborted, because its mother has chosen to do so, and no one will be made to suffer by her decision. Another, perhaps even younger fetus, is wanted by its mother, who would suffer if it were killed. Aborting that one is immoral. That is why if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two murders, but the woman herself may legally kill her fetus.

sharpie
01-20-2006, 06:59 AM
A lot of people raise a stink when victims of war are unjustly denied their right to life. This is murder. Now, G. is claiming the sophistry that says that abortion is killing but that it is not wrong when it causes no suffering and or grief (i.e., no harm to anyone). But it seems to me that murder is prohibited in society precisely because it does harm: to the victim who is denied life, and the the society that is coarsened by that act if the act itself is not redressed by the demands of justice. A sign of this coarsening is evident in language of many posters here who think aborting a fetus is no different than blowing one's nose and discarding the tissue.

George.
01-20-2006, 07:29 AM
It is not sophistry. It is my personal belief.

Denial of life in itself is not a wrong. If it were, then birth control, and even abstinence, would be immoral, since they deny life as effectively as abortion or murder.

For the individual, it is not death, it is the dying that causes suffering and dread. If you believe in an afterlife, then once you are dead, you will be better off than before. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you won't be bothered by anything once you no longer exist.

If no one else is made to suffer either, then there is no wrong.

Norske3
01-20-2006, 08:55 AM
I very glad my Mother didn't trash me. smile.gif

How many abortionists feel the same way....I better all of them .. :D

George Jung
01-20-2006, 11:25 AM
Nicely articulated, Sharpie; Impressive how far apart some are in their thinking, their perceptions of moral right, and respect for human life. Not meant as harsh criticism; I'm genuinely amazed at the divide sometimes.

LeeG
01-20-2006, 12:51 PM
yep,,they say it all the time,,an abortion is just like blowing ones nose, chemotherapy is just like gargling with bleach, yada,yada,yada.

uncas
01-20-2006, 01:02 PM
This has gone on for...pages...and yet...no one...other than saying its lagal.or moral or immoral..etc...has asked the obvious...Why has there been an increased need for abortions?
Perhaps a very casual approach to the consequences of unprotected sex....and people's changed attitudes towards sex...and the possible consequence of the act...

This whole thread...to me...backwards...The horse has already left the barn....

[ 01-20-2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

Keith Wilson
01-20-2006, 01:11 PM
Increased need? The total number of abortions has steadily been decreasing for fifteen years. The per capita decrease is even greater. Check the stats Alan posted on page 1. Still too many, I'll grant you. IMO it would be best if abortion were legal, readily available, and almost never necessary.

[ 01-20-2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

George Jung
01-20-2006, 01:14 PM
Good points; my perception is, sex is much more casual, both pre and post marriage (heck, marriage is more casual today, with little thought to divorce, compared to say, 40 years ago. That's reflected in the statistics). Abortion is so readily available, and through promotion, is (by many) considered an easy answer to an unwanted problem. There used to be some stigma to 'getting an abortion'; not so much today. As evidenced by many of the responses here, the spectrum of concern varies from much, to not much concern at all. I think that's a major shift from not that many years ago. We're desensitized to abortion, and a greater percentage of the population no longer considers it wrong; I personally know several folks who apply less thought, and concern, to gettin their abortion than they do trying to select just the right shoe to go with that outfit....

uncas
01-20-2006, 01:16 PM
Kieth...you're right...
So for the obvious ...why the big discussion...If abortions are going down...fewer unborn die...
both sides...pro-life and right to choose should be very happy...

uncas
01-20-2006, 02:20 PM
Norman...You are probably right..
Let the warriors continue....
I am afraid abortion is not the top of my list...especially looking at the length of it..

Sam F
01-21-2006, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Prove it? And how precisely would one prove or disprove that contention? Well. that’s what I’m asking isn’t it? So that’s a matter of faith?
Sorry Keith, but I don’t find your faith persuasive – that’s why I asked you to prove it.
Faith equals faith, doesn’t it? So why should we make our laws based on your faith and not mine?
After all, taking a human life is a serious matter (and regardless of the stage of pregnancy it is a human life) and all you give me to go on is your opinion?
Can’t you do just a bit better than that?


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Sam, you know very well that my position all along has been that higher brain function, the capability for consciousness, is what constitutes a human being…
Late abortions are very rare, should only be done for dire medical reasons, and can be legitimately restricted under current law. That's a red herring on which I won’t bite.
Keith, neither you nor anyone else has ever proved “dire” medical anything. In contrast, the last time we discussed this I provided medical evidence that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary. So where's the "dire"?
The way the law is interpreted, health is so vague a concept that mere assertion of mental distress is an acceptable excuse.
Besides what’s “rare” got to do with it? In some “communities” murder is fairly common but in my social class murder is quite rare… I don’t even know someone who knows someone who was murdered… So does that make murder OK – just ‘cause it’s rare? Reminds me of an exact parallel… During the 19th century critics of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin some critics claimed that since murders of slaves such as happened to Uncle Tom were very rare and therefore no indictment of slavery.
Can you explain how your excuse is any better, Keith?

Sam F
01-22-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by George Jung:
Greetings, SamF... where have you been? I think everyone - even dotty - missed ya! (How soon they forget...) :D

Tan, rested, and ready for the next campaign...Hi George! I've changed jobs and have been very busy lately. Thank goodness for that - it's better than the awful boredom of the previous job. As a result, I can't say I'm all that rested. :D
I've been lurking here now and than and will (time permitting) enter the fray if "invited". ;)

Paul Girouard
01-22-2006, 11:43 PM
I'll add only this to this thread . A couple , man and women I know had a baby thru a adoption agent/ adengcy (sp) for two weeks , a judge decided to give the baby to the birth father after the fact. Where was this Father I have no idea , what I know is , IT IS HARDER TO ADOPT A KID THAN TO ABORT A KID . I think everyone would agree on that . Short rant. Done . Paul

[ 01-22-2006, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

Meerkat
01-22-2006, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Keith, neither you nor anyone else has ever proved “dire” medical anything. In contrast, the last time we discussed this I provided medical evidence that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary. So where's the "dire"?
Unless you're an MD, how can you provide proof of anything? What are your qualifications? What do you consider proof, other than what fits your views?

You're wrong that there are no dire medical conditions in late pregnancy that might require an abortion. Eclampsia is one such.

George Jung
01-23-2006, 12:10 AM
Meer said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sam F:
Keith, neither you nor anyone else has ever proved “dire” medical anything. In contrast, the last time we discussed this I provided medical evidence that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary. So where's the "dire"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you're an MD, how can you provide proof of anything? What are your qualifications? What do you consider proof, other than what fits your views?

You're wrong that there are no dire medical conditions in late pregnancy that might require an abortion. Eclampsia is one such. From UpToDate:

Delivery — Eclampsia is usually considered an absolute contraindication to expectant management, although this has been attempted [44]. The definitive treatment for eclampsia is prompt delivery; however, this does not necessarily preclude induction of labor [45]. After maternal stabilization, factors to consider in determining the mode of delivery are gestational age, Bishop score, whether the patient is in labor, and fetal condition and position.

In general, fewer than one-third of women with severe preeclampsia/eclampsia remote from term (eg, less than 28 to 32 weeks of gestation) with an unfavorable cervix and not in labor will successfully deliver vaginally [46-48]. Cesarean delivery is a reasonable option for these women. However, the fetus benefits from in utero resuscitation before delivery; therefore, it is desirable to wait 15 to 20 minutes until the mother and fetus show signs of recovery (control of convulsions; mother oriented to name, time, and place; fetal heart rate reassuring) before proceeding to surgery, if possible.

I've seen a few patients with eclampsia, and many more with pre-eclampsia. Several friends are ob/gyns. I don't recall ever hearing about a late-term abortion being performed in such an instance; it would take too long, and they would simply do a c-section. Although eclampsia can occur pre-viable stage, it is unsual, and I don't recall ever hearing of a case, in any of the hospitals I've worked. So if it occurs, it's apparently quite rare.

[ 01-23-2006, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: George Jung ]

Meerkat
01-23-2006, 12:24 AM
I was not commenting on frequency, only the existance of the condition. It's potentially dire is it not?

Given that it can occur at all, any law regarding abortion must make provision for it if one accepts the premise that abortion laws are necessary in the first place, which I do not, whether federal or state law. As a right, it's excluded from legislative consideration by the 9th amendment.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-23-2006, 12:24 AM
I did mention that Abortion is legal in Canada, and free across the country didn't I?

Paul Girouard
01-23-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
I did mention that Abortion is legal in Canada, and free across the country didn't I?What is it's frequency of use , IE is it used as birth control after the fact ?

Seeing you know your country is better , hence your people better , more in control , etc . Guns and such etc . it must be little used , abortion that is ! Should we send you all our gals looking for a free ride. And would your country except them ? We seem to have lots of folks that come in from the south and stay , leakly borders , you all mostly are good except those pesky's bombers :( In P.A., Wa.

Hey come on down EHH smile.gif Paul

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-23-2006, 01:01 AM
I don't know what it's used for... medical records are confidential. Besides, abortion is a individual right of the person getting it. It's not my right to interfere. ;)

George Jung
01-23-2006, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
I was not commenting on frequency, only the existance of the condition. It's potentially dire is it not?

Given that it can occur at all, any law regarding abortion must make provision for it if one accepts the premise that abortion laws are necessary in the first place, which I do not, whether federal or state law. As a right, it's excluded from legislative consideration by the 9th amendment.It would be inappropriate to perform a late-term abortion for the purposes of treating a woman with pre-eclampsia; in that circumstance, if it was felt that 'delivery' was required to save the life of the mother, a c-section would be performed. So no, you are not correct.

Paul Girouard
01-23-2006, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
I don't know what it's used for... medical records are confidential. Besides, abortion is a individual right of the person getting it. It's not my right to interfere. ;) My that is nice , convenient, ain't you glad your Mum didn't have a choice (I'd guess your to old to fall under the new rule ) . Oh ya she loves you , humm what if she was , Oh well , that's history EH.

And based on your statement it would be a special right , given only to females , as they would be the only individuals given such rights . What if a man said Abort , I sired the kid , and will not parent said kid !
Should then the mother be subject to abort .
Points to ponder , EHH, Paul

LeeG
01-23-2006, 01:59 AM
lifes not fair,,women get pregnant, men leave, que sera sera

Paul Girouard
01-23-2006, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
lifes not fair,,women get pregnant, men leave, que sera seraWomen leave babies at the store , on the steps of apartment buildings , should we just club then to death and say it's a late term abortion?

You all can't have it" all your way ", it is or it isn't murder. I see no , not much , wiggle room . Hey but I'm a "fundie nut" (ask (JCSOH) . My kids will / Grandkids etc. etc, will go on . You'll , let your's be killed off . What ever you will let happen , will happen . Good luck , Paul .(With dusty feet).

[ 01-23-2006, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

Sam F
01-23-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sam F:
[qb]Keith, neither you nor anyone else has ever proved “dire” medical anything. In contrast, the last time we discussed this I provided medical evidence that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary. So where's the "dire"?
Unless you're an MD, how can you provide proof of anything?

Simple Meer. By quoting a doctor.


Originally posted by Meerkat:
You're wrong that there are no dire medical conditions in late pregnancy that might require an abortion. Eclampsia is one such.Meer, I didn't say that there were no dire medical situations only that no one had proved that they required partial birth abortion. If you have proof that there is a dire medical reason the requires partial birth abortion feel free to provide documentation. Then show that every one of these abortions fits that definition. Even one that does not is murder - by the general agreement on what constitutes humanity.
Or is a "rare" murder OK with you just because it's "rare"?

[ 01-23-2006, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Meerkat
01-23-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
I didn't say that there were no dire medical situations only that no one had proved that they required partial birth abortion. Oh, well, you're right. Since there is no medical procedure that's called "partial birth abortion", you win.

Enjoy your victory while ye may: there will never be a ban on abortions in the US.

George Jung
01-23-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sam F:
[qb] I didn't say that there were no dire medical situations only that no one had proved that they required partial birth abortion. Oh, well, you're right. Since there is no medical procedure that's called "partial birth abortion", you win.

I'm really not sure where you get this; from UpToDate:

[QUOTE] Intact dilation and extraction — Intact dilatation and extraction (D&X) refers to a procedure in which an assisted breech delivery of the fetus is accomplished, often under ultrasound guidance, and then the calvarium is decompressed so that fetus can be delivered intact [15]. Multistage laminaria insertion beginning two days before the procedure is used to obtain wide cervical dilation.

A retrospective study comparing 120 intact D&Xs at a median gestational age of 23 weeks to 263 D&Es at a median gestational age of 21 weeks found similar complication rates and outcomes for both procedures [16]. The authors tended to choose D&X when the cervix was well dilated (mean preoperative dilation 5 cm, range 2 to 10 cm) at more advanced gestational ages because they believed this approach minimized the need to use forceps for disarticulation and evacuation and thus potentially reduced the risk of uterine trauma. The procedures were performed between June 1996 and June 2003.

In November 2003, the United States Congress passed a bill banning partial birth abortion (S. 3-8, 108th Congress, First Session). The bill makes it illegal to intentionally perform an act that will kill a partially delivered, living fetus. A partially delivered fetus is defined as one whose entire head is outside the mother's body (in vertex presentation) or in whom any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body (in breech presentation). The bill does not apply to procedures performed to save the life of the mother. The ban on intact D&X is currently not being enforced because the constitutionality of the law was challenged in federal courts in New York, Nebraska, and San Francisco and was ruled unconstitutional in all three courts. The judgments are being appealed in federal appellate courts.

Meerkat
01-23-2006, 03:13 PM
Please cite a mainstream MEDICAL REFERENCE that uses the term "partial birth abortion".

It's inflamatory sleazy marketing hype and you (should) know it!

[ 01-23-2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

George Jung
01-23-2006, 04:17 PM
UpToDate is about as mainstream as you're likely to find; it's a review of all the medical literature:


UpToDate is specifically designed to answer the clinical questions that arise in daily practice and to do so quickly and easily so that it can be used right at the point of care.

Our physician editors and authors review and update our content on a continuous basis and a new, peer-reviewed version is issued every four months.

The published evidence is summarized and specific recommendations made for patient care.

Independent research shows that UpToDate outperforms other resources and has a significant impact on patient care.

Meerkat
01-24-2006, 09:46 PM
Stop wiggling: "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term.