They already do take action to influence those opinions, such as allowing states to restrict abortions during and after the 2nd trimester, they also try to influence in a positive (well some do) way by promoting comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception, don't you find it strange that a large proportion of the pro-life groups stand against these things even though they have been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions. Again I will refer to Canada, their very liberal laws on abortion do not seem to have effected their opinion on the sanctity of life .. It is a obvious thing that all life is not equal, and that includes human life. Your family have more value to you that your friends Your friends have more value to you than your neighbours Your neighbours have more value to you than a stranger A stranger has more value to you than some one in another country. I have often said that the pro-life and pro-choice positions both want the same thing and that is a time when abortion becomes rare, the difference is on how to achieve it . .for that I can only judge on what the evidence shows, and that evidence shows that the pro-life way of legislation against abortion, sex education and contraception does not work, while the pro-choice way of comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception does work to, at least, reduce abortions. For the life of me I can not understand, nor have I been given a reasonable answer, why so many pro-lifers stand against two things that would reduce the number of abortions happening .. my own conclusion is that this stance is firmly rooted in religious beliefs. We all place a value on those around us
congratulations, you have won the prize for posting a comment about the most debunked piece of film ever produced. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Facts_Speak_Louder_than_the_Silent_Scream_03-02.pdf http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/silent.html http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-17/entertainment/ca-2276_1_silent-scream http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html
I know, they already restrict it. Right now, states can restrict it in order to further 2 interests: to protect the health of mothers, to protect the state interest in potential of life. I'm saying there is a possibility of adding 2 more interests: 1. impact on the family structure of societies and 2. impact on human evolution. I'm not saying outlaw it right now. I think Roe was a good compromise for now. Keep protecting sanctity of life in late-term abortions, while not causing an undue burden in the other restrictions. But imo, they should at least be considering these other 2 interests in the future.
In my opinion in order for those two to be considered there would have to be evidence to support that there is a problem, too me there isn't.
The phrase "late term abortion" just leapt out at me Are you aware that they are RARE RARE RARE and overwhelmingly done for conditions incompatible with life i.e. the foetus will not survive?
The family structure is a relatively new concept for humans and one not practiced worldwide .. at least in a monogamous way, and you have to be able to define what a familt structure is .. chances are you will define it in a way that fits into the culture you have been raised in. I came across an interesting set of questions while doing some research on the family, I'd be interested in your responses They are all True or False answers. Q1. Teenage out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. Q2. Cohabitation (living together) promotes a happy and lasting marriage. Q3. Singles have better sex lives than married people Q4. The more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to marry Q5. People get married because they love each other. Q6. Divorce rates have increased during the past few decades Q7. Having children increases marital satisfaction Q8. Married couples have healthier babies than unmarried couples Q9. Generally, children are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families Q10. Family relationships that span several generations are less common now than they were in the past. I wonder if you will be as surprised as I was with the answers? It is an interesting idea, but one that cannot really be tested. All we do know is that abortion has been practiced since around the 3rd millennium BCE (taken from an ancient Egyptian medical text the Ebers Papyrus) and as yet we don't seem to have suffered any real evolutionary problems . .though how we would know if we have is impossible to gauge, just as it will be at any time in the future, thus to me the idea of abortion having an effect on human evolution is one that is impossible to provide any evidence to support and will only ever be speculation .. I for one don't believe we should make laws on speculation.
Here is the thing, nobody wants abortions to continue to happen (except maybe abortion clinics). All sides can agree that utopia would be for there to never need to be another abortion. The difference is, how we get there. One side wants to pass laws against abortions and hope they go away, which seems less than reasonable considering the success rate of other prohibition laws. The other side wants to hand out condoms and morning after pills at middle schools, which also seems a bit off the mark. If you resolve that people are not going to stop having sex, you can't ban abortions AND block access to birth control and expect there to not be unwanted pregnancies. What is an abortion, anyway? It's the early termination of an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy, and the death of a fetus. Seems reasonable to me to attack the causes of the problem and not focus on the effects. "No more abortions" should be the goal that both sides pursue. But, overturning RvsW, passing prohibition laws and then sticking our head in the sand as to the black market those laws create does not get us closer to our goal, and will likely cause more problems than it solves. Similarly, handing out condoms to 8th graders and telling them to figure it out for themselves is a recipe for failure as well. I don't have the answers, but labeling people who AGREE on their goals as 'baby killers' or 'totalitarians' or whatever is not productive.
The answer lies in not just handing out condoms to 8th graders and telling them to get on with it, it lies is educating those 8th graders in ALL aspects of sex education (and yes I include abstinence in there), educate them in the mechanics of sexual reproduction, educated them in the emotional aspects of sex, educate them that it is ok to say no, educate them that being peer pressured into sex isn't 'cool', and even show them videos of what birth and abortion entails .. but .. give them the education on how to have as safe as sex as possible, and supply them the tools they need if they do decide to indulge in sex. The fact remains that in countries with very liberal views on sex have far lower rates of teenage pregnancy and abortions than the USA eg. The Netherlands - The United Nations reported that in 2009, the Netherlands had a teen birth rate of 5.3 per 1,000 compared to 39.1 per 1,000 in the United States that year (teen birth rates provided by the United Nations, the Guttmacher Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Advocates for Youth and other organizations typically look at females in the 15–19 age group). Advocates for Youth has reported that the Netherlands had an abortion rate of 8.8 per 1,000 in 2006 compared to 14.8 per 1,000 in the United States in 2007 (abortion rates, as a rule, are based on the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44). And Advocates for Youth has also reported that in 2009, the United States had three times as many adults living with HIV or AIDS as the Netherlands (0.2 percent in the Netherlands compared to 0.6 percent in the United States). Also, in 2006, there were roughly 13 cases of gonorrhea per 100,000 Netherlands residents in the 15–19 age group compared to roughly 458 per 100,000 in the United States that year.
Actually old chap I did - just was not the answer you expected. It is a hypothetical and in that case I am happy to give a hypothetical answer - would not change my ideas on abortion - especially since they are based on medical fact not hyperbole
Same with murder 50 million have died since from abortionists. Less then 9% of abortions. 91% are for convenience reasons. No one is fighting you when the life of the mother is at real risk. No, she is older. Which one of these women were not a fetus earlier in their own life cycle? Yes, they can give the child up for adoption, waiting lists in America are years long. God forbid you lose 3 months of work, and 8 months of inconvenience. Better to kill I guess? Fine, high income women can't get them either then. They are the most likely to get them anyway, the poor still have their kids. They are broke money wise, but not morally. No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant. If a woman can kill her child, when will the violence stop? Good news for Social Security, they need more taxpayers. Glad to hear once we outlaw abortion that will cause these now aborted children to go on to live full lives. That isn't true at all. What a weird stat anyway, why not say 40% of women will become pregnant before 20? No one is forcing anyone to become pregnant. Rape does lead to the right to use deadly force to protect oneself. There are many crimes that would be less dangerous if legalized, do you think armed robbery should be legal so people dont have to worry about getting shot at or flee afterward? Wow. Pretty dramatic. Why can't she just give the baby up for adoption again? If she doesn't want them, the long line of adoptive parents sure do. Adoption? Nothing like killing a family member to bring everyone closer. And people should have to pay the consequences that result, even if they didn't intend them. Just like with everything else in this world. Drop a banana peel on accident and someone slips, you have to pay for your mistake. Why would it be catastrophic? Walk me through, step by step. Convenience and money from your post. Do they have a right to kill other people and smash up their reproductive systems? Only because of the law, that is begging the question.
A conceptus will be a person only after the woman sacrifices her body and life to make it one. What do you think gestation is for? A woman who is expected to sacrifice her body and life to gestate a fertilized egg has no higher status than that fertilized egg? Sad that you have so little regard for women.
Why? Because I see them as capable of accepting responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Why do you think they have no choice in the matter, why can't you accept that actions have risks and sometimes you have to act an adult and accept the outcomes of your actions without making someone else sacrifice for your decisions?
Who decided it was a woman's "responsibility" to carry a pregnancy? It will be a "someone" after it has gestated for nine months.
The woman who got voluntarily pregnant. (We aren't talking about rape cases here) Not according to science, only feelings and magic and other hocus pocus. Every animal, including humans, has this stage in their life cycle. Killing humans is killing humans.
No, obviously many women DO NOT consider pregnancy to be their responsibility. So again, who decided it is? Sorry, personhood is not a scientific concept. We know a human conceptus is human, but whether it is "a" human (being) is a matter of opinion.
I was wondering when the usual suspects with the usual soundbites would turn up Not in the slightest, in murder there is usually only one victim, if we adhere to the pro-life proclamation of "person at conception" then in an illegal abortion you have two victims .. but hey that doesn't really bother some pro-lifers just so long as they have their feel good law where they can stand so high and mighty stating how moral they are, shame is that that law won't 'protect' the unborn. 50 million what, embryo's, fetuses, newborns, children .. you need to be a little more specific. Ahh yes that word again - convenience, is that what you perceive as convenience or do you know the facts behind every single abortion performed since they were made legal, and despite the flippant nature of your response EVERY pregnancy causes injuries to a woman, injuries to the extent that the courts have declared the, as serious literal injuries in some cases. It is quite revealing the nonchalant attitude to pregnancy that pro-lifers have. She is also born, independent, doesn't need to live inside of another person, sentient, feels pain AND, funny enough, has the right to control over her bodily parts. and this is relevant how exactly. Yes the waiting list for nice little cute white babies, shame about all the others though .. but hey "white is right" Pretty obvious you have absolutely no idea about pregnancy and how are you going to stop them .. come on, lets see it in black and white exactly how you are even going to find out if a woman is pregnant in the first place, let alone arrest and convict , and of course the conservative pro-lifers will be the first to moan about the increase in welfare .. hell they do it already. But you are trying to force them to remain so. slippery-slope fallacy But of course you'd be happy to have a nice supply of cannon fodder for your wars and a low cost workforce .. just so long as they don't expect any more welfare, can't have your profits hit can we. So if it isn't true provide the evidence to show it isn't true, your denial isn't really worth anything without it. As does any pregnancy, would you care to disagree and state why? and why is rape different, is the sperm different, does it produce a different type of conception, a different fetus? Armed robbery has an overall detrimental effect on society as a whole, please do explain how abortion has the same effect? Just so long as she is white and her born child is then it'll be ok, and why should a teenager suffer 40 weeks of unconsented injury just to please your moral viewpoint. So this is about the third time you have mentioned adoption, now how about actually putting to proof to your premise, because so far all I've seen is an opinion. See above Yep that's right we all celebrate our conception day Do they, do you pay the consequences of the injuries sustained in a sport of a car accident or do you receive medical attention in order to alleviate those injuries. Do you smoke or drink .. then please don't go running to the doctor should you get any one of the number of diseases associated with those two items, after all your should pay the consequences even if you didn't intend them. Already there in black and white, do you have trouble reading through the pro-life zealous fog. If you say so .. shame the comprehension of the OP went right over your head. Yes they do, it's called self-defence. Begging what question, that a woman will get an abortion whether it is legal or not .. well the proof is they will. Now that you have paraded almost every single pro-life soundbite would you like to actually take the time to supply some intelligent relevant rebuttals, or will it be more of the same .. I know where my bet lies.
How did they get to that result? Common sense and nature decided that. You know how kids are made right? Some lefter must have told them that, probably the same people who tell them "do whatever you do, the government will care for you", socialists and lefters never want to pay for their own actions or take any responsibility for themselves. Childish really. I know, it is some hocus pocus stuff that the left uses to determine who should die, and whoshould be a slave etc... You all have had a history of declaring some humans are not people and can be disposed of as necessary. Did the same with the American Indians too, the father of your party was the worst. The Democrats have a long history of qualifying "people", and it is always a disgusting act when they do. Human is human. Killing humans is killing humans. What don't you get? What magic day for you does a human life begin? Science has a definitive answer based on observation, and data - but what do you feel and believe in? lol... The super religious satanic types are just as biased about their rabid secular beliefs of killing for money and convenience as the religious are about the sanctity of life over property. For me, I like to keep objective and scientific, that is why I am anti-abortion. Why do you like abortion?
Those women CHOSE to break the law. No pro-lifer forced them to have an illegal abortion. Don't blame the LAW for people CHOOSING to break the laws. You're just like those people who argue that "drugs should be legalized so they could be regulated and safer", blaming the law for people choosing to do the wrong thing.
Your whole argument is based on the faulty premise that the woman wasnt in control of her reproductive organs when she conceived. Do you believe this, yes or no? I don't need a long diatribe or a dodge lets just get an honest answer to an honest question. 91% of abortions are done for convenience reasons. Black babies are adopted too, again a long line for adoptive parents and even more if the gays can adopt. I would rather be adopted by gays then poisoned and dismembered how about you? "Abortion reduction = education not legislation." What do you mean by that, what is the goal and why would that be a good goal? (Let me play the devils advocate side for a minute)
