Liberal blogger accuses pro-life group of misrepresenting CNN abortion poll by misrepresenting it
A new CNN poll on abortion finds almost no change in America’s desire to remain pro-?choice. The poll finds 78% of Americans want abortion to be legal under any circumstances or under certain circumstances, and only 21% want abortion illegal under all circumstances….
You may be a bit surprised to read this, as right wing extremist “news” sites have decided to reinterpret these numbers to mean the opposite. For example, the “news” site LifeSite News glaringly falsely published an article Thursday, “CNN Poll: 62% Want All or Most Abortions Made Illegal.”
Yes, in the alternate universe of the religious LifeSite News, numbers are fungible.
~ David Badash, founder and editor of the homosexual blog, The New Civil Rights Movement
You decide who is actually “fung”-ing the numbers. Here are CNN’s poll findings….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Just goes to show how careful you need to be about trusting statistics.
Americans are deeply confused and ambivalent about abortion. That is because of the very special nature of pregnancy. They believe a human life exists early in the pregnancy. They also know that pregnancy can impose the most extreme costs on the female who is pregnant — particularly if she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Being pregnant can be the time of a woman’s greatest joy. It can also be the time of a girl or woman’s most horrible misery. Pregnancy is extremely intense both physically and emotionally — but the desire to have a baby leads females to make these sacrifices. If they don’t want to be pregnant, they will risk their lives to end the pregnancy.
Americans don’t want abortion. But they don’t believe that making abortion illegal is the best way to end it because so many will end the pregnancy even if it is illegal — and the result will not be just a dead embryo or fetus but a dead girl or woman.
How do we radically decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies?
Americans don’t want abortion. But they don’t believe that making abortion illegal is the best way to end it
Actually, according to the poll over 60% of respondents do want abortion illegal in most circumstances, but nice try anyway.
Add in the question: For what reasons do you believe abortion should be legal.
To save the life of the mother would account for the majority of those who state “in some circumstances” in spite of this being a very rare circumstance.
Praxedes says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Add in the question: For what reasons do you believe abortion should be legal.
To save the life of the mother would account for the majority of those who state “in some circumstances” in spite of this being a very rare circumstance.
Someone from the legal abortion POV said, “Americans believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest, and their own personal circumstances.” I think there is much truth to that statement. Answering a poll is one thing. Carrying on a debate is another. But carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and giving birth is quite something else.
But carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and giving birth is quite something else.
But carrying an UNPLANNED HUMAN to term and giving birth is quite something else. Yes, it is. It is a wonderful experience. Continue to talk to some of us who have done it and survived. Our children survived to and all is good.
Don’t expect a pro-abort to be rational. Truth to them is how ever they really feel at any given time.
truthseeker says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Don’t expect a pro-abort to be rational. Truth to them is how ever they really feel at any given time.
(Denise) I’m not a “pro-abort.” Abortion horrifies me and I’ve never had one.
Once the baby is here there is a responsibility that comes along with becoming a mother. A responsibility to nurture the baby through to delivery. If a mother wants to give the baby up for adoption at that point then fine. But no killing of children.
truthseeker says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Once the baby is here there is a responsibility that comes along with becoming a mother. A responsibility to nurture the baby through to delivery. If a mother wants to give the baby up for adoption at that point then fine. But no killing of children.
(Denise) How do we prevent those who unwilling to “nurture the baby through to delivery” from getting pregnant in the first place?
Denise, It is a matter of personal responsibility. As much as you can teach a person responsibility; you can end abortion. If you can teach responsibility you can end unwanted pregnancy.
truthseeker says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Denise, It is a matter of personal responsibility. As much as you can teach a person responsibility; you can end abortion. If you can teach responsibility you can end unwanted pregnancy.
(Denise) I believe chaperoned dating is a step toward less sexual activity. More time spent at home, with contact being over the phone or internet, could also prevent partnered activity of the sort leading to pregnancy. Fantasizing over the phone doesn’t lead to pregnancy. Young people shouldn’t often be in one-on-one situations that are tempting.
As much as possible, females should use the most effective hormonal contraceptives or IUDs AND males should use condoms (the hormonal contraceptives don’t prevent disease transmission).
For those who will have in-person sexual contact, we must encourage less dangerous sexual activities.
ah – but IUD’s cause the death of unborn humans, since it renders the uterus unfit generally for the baby while he/she tries to implant into the lining… So people who understand the moral difficulty with abortion – as a threat to unborn human life – should hopefully look at other things that are also a threat to unborn human life. IUD’s are one of those threats.
But they don’t emphasize that when then advertise that on TV or your doctor suggests one. Still a huge difficulty – not to mention that years ago they were yanked off the market since they helped cause infections in the uterus, scarring and even perforations of the uterus.
And other types of artificial-hormone contraceptives helps the lining also be less receptive to the baby for implantation – another form of harming the fetus by destroying the uterine environment.
And don’t get me started about the difficulties to women’s bodies with artificial hormone contraceptive…. Just thought people should know…
Denise Noe: Americans are deeply confused and ambivalent about abortion. That is because of the very special nature of pregnancy. They believe a human life exists early in the pregnancy. They also know that pregnancy can impose the most extreme costs on the female who is pregnant — particularly if she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Being pregnant can be the time of a woman’s greatest joy. It can also be the time of a girl or woman’s most horrible misery. Pregnancy is extremely intense both physically and emotionally — but the desire to have a baby leads females to make these sacrifices. If they don’t want to be pregnant, they will risk their lives to end the pregnancy.
Americans don’t want abortion. But they don’t believe that making abortion illegal is the best way to end it because so many will end the pregnancy even if it is illegal — and the result will not be just a dead embryo or fetus but a dead girl or woman.
How do we radically decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies?
Good post, Denise. Yet I wouldn’t say that “Americans are confused,” I’d say there are differences of opinion, and really, the poll results, year-over-year, are pretty consistent.
“Radically decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies” – good and hard question as there’s no easy answer. I don’t think that banning contraception would do it – heck, it would surprise me, a lot, if the numbers even stayed the same, let alone going up. In any case, “radically decrease” would not be happenin.’
Increase the use of contraception, and the most efficient use of it, among those who don’t want to have a pregnancy result from having sex. There too, I don’t really see that there is the rational possibility of a “radical reduction.”
How do we prevent those who unwilling to “nurture the baby through to delivery” from getting pregnant in the first place?
Making abortion illegal will greatly decrease the number of abortions. Males and females will become much more responsible in a short order.
“The poll finds 78% of Americans want abortion to be legal under any circumstances”
Okay – anybody that is even halfway familiar with the abortion issue in the US would know that is false.
Reminds me of the (infamous) lifenews.com portraying a CBS News poll in 2007 as representative of all Americans when it was taken from “white evangelicals.” ;)
You’re gonna have this stuff….
Praxedes: Making abortion illegal will greatly decrease the number of abortions. Males and females will become much more responsible in a short order.
You are pretending that being “responsible” is in line with your desires, and that, of course, is not necessarily true.
I don’t care about poll numbers when there are still over a million abortions a year. You could have 99% of Americans saying abortion should be illegal but if there are still a million women getting them… well then who cares what that 99% thinks?
The problem is a lot of people say “i’m against abortion” but when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy they panic and run to the clinic. They might really regret that knee-jerk reaction years later but the fact remains a baby paid with his life. I think of people like Laura Hope Smith who was a Christian and was pro-life yet went to a clinic to end her child’s life in the second trimester! Where was the disconnect there between her brain and her heart? When did her values change or get pushed to the back so she could follow through with the killing of her child?
To me, poll numbers don’t mean much.
No, I’m not Doug. I believe that once abortion is illegal, people will be much more careful about who they have sex with. Yes, unplanned pregnancies happened during my grandparent’s generation and yes a small percentage of women illegally aborted (and I also know about the girls who went away). However, there was not the irresponsible sex going on that there is now. My parents were both virgins when they married and are still married. How many virgins marry these days? How many marriages last? How many children live without their fathers?
We have a generation that have Learned Helplessness Syndrome. I can’t control myself. Give me a pill. I can’t become a parent. Abort my baby please. I can’t get married/have a family without the top-of-the-line everything.
As much as possible, females should use the most effective hormonal contraceptives.
I havw to disagree with you here Denise. I don’t trust hormonal contraceptives. That 99% effectice BS that they pas on to kids just gives them a false sense of security and gets them in the mindset that the number of times they have sex will not effect the chances that will get pregnant. I know that sounds silly but that is what they advertise. The studies they used to get their 99% effectiveness number did not even count the number of times these girls had sex. What a crock. The first time the hormones fail and breakaway ovulation occurs the girl gets pregnant because she was told that while taking hormonal birth control having lots of sex does not increase the chances she will get pregnant. Not to mention that ingesting high doses of hormones over extended periods of time is likely to have a lot of negative side effects on these girls who take them. It is just a bad idea. It acually leads them to act out irresponsibly cause they don’t think they can get pregnant while taking hormones.
Teach them that responsibility means carry the baby to term. And then in most cases also means caring for the baby through adolesence. That is teaching them responsibility and teaching them that there are repercussions to their actions.
I married a virgin, Praxedes. I really don’t think it’s quite as rare as all that. She was raised with good parents who taught her about self-respect and self-control, so I do agree with you there. If people are taught more about the bad effects of sleeping around, and if abortion is illegal, that might help. I still think, however, that there will remain a good portion of society that has different sexual ideas, and those people will still require contraception, which is being responsible whether anyone has a moral problem with it or not. Reducing promiscuity isn’t as simple as “make abortion legal, and mostly everyone will behave.”
I’m for sexual abstinence. However, one problem is that abstinence tends to sell best among those whom it matters least. Among people who abstain, it seems that a disproportionate number tend to fall into 2 groups:1) Post-menopausal woman and 2) long married or long cohabiting couples.
I myself remained a virgin to the type of sex that gets one pregnant until I was 24 and had undergone a tubal ligation. I lived with my boyfriend and had enjoyed intimacies with 3 other men a well. However, I’ve never had an abortion because of my abstinence during my fertile years from one particular sex act.
However, one problem is that abstinence tends to sell best among those whom it matters least.
Baloney. Abstinence can’t be sold on the population that most needs it when it’s not being sold to the the population that most needs it. That population hears things like, “get on the pill as soon as you start menstruating” and “more women need to be on more birth control” and “triple-up on b/c methods” and “if it feels good do it but just be ‘safe'”, on and on and on. Our society is selling just the opposite to our young people but some of them are starting to see through the lies — the kids carrying the yellow balloons.
Quit enabling people to remain irresponsible and empower them instead. Taking away their “choice” to kill their children is a great place to start.
Praxedes says:
September 18, 2011 at 6:30 am
However, one problem is that abstinence tends to sell best among those whom it matters least.
Baloney. Abstinence can’t be sold on the population that most needs it when it’s not being sold to the the population that most needs it. That population hears things like, “get on the pill as soon as you start menstruating” and “more women need to be on more birth control” and “triple-up on b/c methods” and “if it feels good do it but just be ‘safe’”, on and on and on. Our society is selling just the opposite to our young people but some of them are starting to see through the lies — the kids carrying the yellow balloons.
Quit enabling people to remain irresponsible and empower them instead. Taking away their “choice” to kill their children is a great place to start.
(Denise) Abortion is currently legal and may be so for awhile. Is reviving chaperoned dating a good way to reduce irresponsible and exploitative sexual activity?
The one thing that leads to sex between young people seems to be being alone with one other person. Thus, we need to encourage more group activities or more solitary activities.
Teen girls and young women who are lonely are often sexually exploited and make up many of those with problem pregnancies. Can we encourage the shy and unattractive girls to be so interested in solitary activities that they are less likely to become the prey of exploitative males?
If people are going to have sexual activity, can we encourage activities that don’t lead to pregnancy?
*sigh* I support gay rights – and it upsets me so deeply that most gay men and women and allies are pro-abortion. Not only that – but they clump it together with gay rights and make it seem like if you are pro-LGBT, that you MUST be pro-abort, too.
I find, however, that they should feel the opposite. They are fighting for freedom – just as pro-lifers fight for freedom for children.
I am pro-life and I am pro-gay rights. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I support gay rights – and it upsets me so deeply that most gay men and women and allies are pro-abortion. Not only that – but they clump it together with gay rights and make it seem like if you are pro-LGBT, that you MUST be pro-abort, too.
Just wait until a ‘gay test’ comes out which can determine someone’s sexual orientation en utero and parents start aborting because they don’t want a gay kid. I’d be willing to bet you that said gay pro-choicers would cry foul.
“*sigh* I support gay rights – and it upsets me so deeply that most gay men and women and allies are pro-abortion. Not only that – but they clump it together with gay rights and make it seem like if you are pro-LGBT, that you MUST be pro-abort, too.”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It’s natural to make common cause with another movement that is in the eternal crosshairs of the American Taliban.
“Just wait until a ‘gay test’ comes out which can determine someone’s sexual orientation en utero and parents start aborting because they don’t want a gay kid. I’d be willing to bet you that said gay pro-choicers would cry foul.”
Then they would be drummed out of the pro-choice movement because you can’t have it both ways. Being pro-choice means supporting the right to choice regardless of why that right is exercised. Speaking of reasons why women have abortions, did you hear about the new DNA tests that are on the verge of being marketed? These tests, unlike amniocentesis, are non intrusive and can be done at the beginning of the pregnancy to determine if a child has Down’s or other developmental/physical disabilities. Thus, the abortion can occur earlier in the pregnancy. From a strictly fiduciary standpoint, this will save state and federal governments a ton of money on providing programs and services to children (and these programs are awesome and it’s money well spent) with severe medical problems as the number of births will, most likely, be reduced. But the pro-life movement cares so much for women that they want them to be forced to give birth, against their will, to medically compromised children. The availability of these tests might increase the percentage of those who support abortion in most or certain circumstances.
hormonal contraception is a carcinogen….specifically THE PILL! Also, that does not protect against ANY STDs.
True abstinence takes self control.
I bet if most of the people who were asked this question saw an abortion IN PERSON on a sonogram, then more would want it ILLEGAL.
Just want to point out – how accurate can polls ever be?
No one has ever polled ME! How many of you have ever been polled?
Ask EVERYONE than we’ll talk. haha.
LizFromNebraska says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm
hormonal contraception is a carcinogen….specifically THE PILL! Also, that does not protect against ANY STDs. True abstinence takes self control.
(Denise) Not necessarily. I have a close friend who is in her 40s and has never engaged in any sexual conduct. She has a condition which arrests people at a pre-puberty level. Thus, she doesn’t experience sexual attraction. The same condition renders her sterile. I have another friend, a gay man, who stopped having sex several years ago when he lost interest. As I pointed out, post-menopausal women and long-together couples often quit having sex. And as I also pointed out, these are the people in whom abstinence is least important.
I am surprised not to see anything here about the recall of several brands of hormonal contraception, due to a “packaging error” which messed with the schedule.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/health/birth-control-recall/
A spokesman for Qualitest Pharmaceuticals said that “there are no immediate health issues currently” because of the packaging problems. Rather, he said, the chief concern is that women may unintentionally become pregnant after taking the oral contraceptive.
“The unintended consequence of pregnancy is really the issue,” spokesman Kevin Wiggins said.
I wonder what actions will be taken if women end up pregnant. Will they sue the company for the cost of an abortion? After all, birth control has risks – but this is a far greater and different risk than “advertised,” so surely the company may be potentially liable for any consequences?
joan says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:40 am The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It’s natural to make common cause with another movement that is in the eternal crosshairs of the American Taliban.
What an interesting look into the mind of Joan. Hmm, let’s break this down: The Taliban is a terrorist organization preying on the weakest in their midst while plotting to kill a multitude of others merely to advance an agenda. They prefer to keep women uneducated, use violence and are unconcerned about “collateral damage” as long as the higher purpose of destruction is accomplished.
The pro-life counselor offering financial, emotional or material support to pregnant women going through a difficult time or (gasp!) those who PRAY for them and their children are, according to joan, equivalent to the Taliban.
Brava, joan! Your hero community-organizer-in-chief would be proud. File this under Saul Alinsky’s Rule #13, accusing the enemy of what you are doing. It is the pro-abort mentality that targets the weakest, most vulnerable human beings in our midst and exports that ideology worldwide. It is the abortion industry that invests time and $ in opposing laws to inform women of what abortion is and does to them and their children. Abortion is lethal violence and the proaborts are strangely silent about the women who are maimed and killed as a result of abortion (unless it’s when it was illegal, then they can be used to further the abortion agenda).
LizFromNebraska says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I bet if most of the people who were asked this question saw an abortion IN PERSON on a sonogram, then more would want it ILLEGAL.
(Denise) Part of the reason it causes so much uneasiness is that many people DO know what an abortion looks like. They know about the decapitated heads and the arms and legs pulled off.
So why do so many support legalization? They have sisters and daughters. They know that the females in their lives might be psychologically unable to carry a problem pregnancy to term. The specter of a sister or daughter dying with a knitting needle or wire clothes hanger up her vagina or bleeding to death because of a back-alley butcher is the reason for the support of legal abortion. In such cases, the unborn are doomed but they believe a legal procedure would leave the sister or daughter alive.
They prefer to keep women uneducated, use violence and are unconcerned about “collateral damage” as long as the higher purpose of destruction is accomplished.
This reminds me of what the population control whackjobs did back in the 60’s when they advanced the idea that culling females would be needed to achieve the “greater good” of population control. In China and Northern India, especially, ultrasound machines, liberalized abortion laws, and coercive 1 or 2 child policies have resulted in extreme male heavy sex ratios which continue to this day. This has resulted in significant increases in crime, rape, sex trafficking, and even little girls being abducted to be sold to families as future brides for their sons. In Mara Hvistendahl’s book, Unnatural Selection, she shows how the pro-abortion, pro-population control crowd foresaw what these policies would do to women way back when and still they forged ahead. In fact, Paul Erlich, the father of the population control movement gave an interview earlier this year where he said that the subjucation of women was just an insignificant consequence. I point this out to show that abortion being trumpeted as a feminist issue is just a front for the evil, elitist, misogynist, racist mindset that really is behind the entire pro-abortion and population control movement.
“It is the abortion industry that invests time and $ in opposing laws to inform women of what abortion is and does to them and their children”
The inconvenient truth being that for many women, abortion is just a minor inconvenience. For those women living in poverty, not bringing another mouth to feed into the world is a blessing for all concerned. Laws that seek “to inform” are laws seeking to shame.
“I point this out to show that abortion being trumpeted as a feminist issue is just a front for the evil, elitist, misogynist, racist mindset that really is behind the entire pro-abortion and population control movement.”
The misogyny is with the anti-choice movement that seeks to control women by forcing them to breed. By robbing women of the means to control if and when they have children, they dominate them and if that ain’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.
So why do so many support legalization? They have sisters and daughters. They know that the females in their lives might be psychologically unable to carry a problem pregnancy to term. The specter of a sister or daughter dying with a knitting needle or wire clothes hanger up her vagina or bleeding to death because of a back-alley butcher is the reason for the support of legal abortion.
Wow, Denise, you don’t think much of women, do you? Just because they have problems during a pregnancy, you think they would just automatically jeopardize their lives with self-abortions? I know you don’t mean it that way, but what exaggerated alarmism.
My mother became pregnant with her tenth child in very bad circumstances, as I’ve spoken about here before. She faced possible medical problems with her pregnancy too. She didn’t just fold or curl up into a fetal position or go crazy with a coat hanger. She was able to carry my sister to term, and she and the whole family is forever grateful she did, because that baby was the light of our lives. I’m proud of her, but I don’t think she was that unusual. People are amazingly able to cope when you give them a chance. A society that doesn’t expect people to be able to cope is the one where people are going to end up psychologically unbalanced; because it’s assumed no one should ever have to suffer the slightest inconvenience, we have ended up with a nation of selfish immature people.
Look, we know the whole coat-hanger illegal abortion thing in the past is wildly exaggerated. There may be something more of a problem with making abortion illegal when it has long been legal. That’s why we need education about the meaning of sexuality for young people; they need to understand that sex is a serious business; it is intended by nature for the begetting young and rearing them by the man and woman who share an emotional bond through sex. Sex is not a game, a recreation, a joke or a toy. No one should be approaching it lightly. At the same time, alarmism about illegal abortions is helping no one.
cc claims:
“The misogyny is with the anti-choice movement that seeks to control women by forcing them to breed.”
And we are to take that comment seriously?
The misogyny is with the anti-choice movement that seeks to control women by forcing them to breed. By robbing women of the means to control if and when they have children, they dominate them and if that ain’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.
Great rant, CC, amazingly true to form. You do realize, don’t you, that no one is systematically forcing women to have sex? Women are not being forced to “breed” against their will. They always have a choice and no one is trying to take it away from them.
Meanwhile, how about addressing the actual issues Denise Maria raised, like the Paul Ehrlich quote? Don’t you think this is misogynistic? If not, why not? Don’t keep dodging the issues.
Lol!!! One of our trolls obviously rolls up tracts of Sanger and Planned P and uses them as tortillas. Rhetoric burrito, anyone?!
“If they don’t want to be pregnant, they will risk their lives to end the pregnancy.”
The woman who is willing to risk death to end a pregnancy is as rare as the woman willing to risk her life to continue a pregnancy.
Human beings do not want to die.
Most women are just not that irrational. Which is why when abortion was illegal they either didn’t even try it, or they went to a bona fide doctor who would do it secretly. Very few went to real and true quacks.
That’s why so few died. They didn’t try it. Women willing to do something as dangerous and stupid as go to a quack or self induce abortion are very rare. Women can make better choices than that.
Praxedes: No, I’m not Doug. I believe that once abortion is illegal, people will be much more careful about who they have sex with. Yes, unplanned pregnancies happened during my grandparent’s generation and yes a small percentage of women illegally aborted (and I also know about the girls who went away). However, there was not the irresponsible sex going on that there is now. My parents were both virgins when they married and are still married. How many virgins marry these days? How many marriages last? How many children live without their fathers?
We have a generation that have Learned Helplessness Syndrome. I can’t control myself. Give me a pill. I can’t become a parent. Abort my baby please. I can’t get married/have a family without the top-of-the-line everything.
Well, I don’t disagree with all of that. ;) But you’re still equating what you want with “responsible.” Your opinion.
Amber Currie: Just want to point out – how accurate can polls ever be?
Pretty accurate – what’s needed is a representative sample, and a sample of enough size to bring the accuracy up. It’s common to see plus or minus 3%, for instance, as the given possibility of error.
Looks to me like both sides are interpreting the statistics reasonably accurately, just from different perspectives.
“The woman who is willing to risk death to end a pregnancy is as rare as the woman willing to risk her life to continue a pregnancy” – yet abortion is 9 times safer than full-term delivery.
Meanwhile, how about addressing the actual issues Denise Maria raised, like the Paul Ehrlich quote? Don’t you think this is misogynistic? If not, why not? Don’t keep dodging the issues.
Don’t count her out yet, Lori. I have seen alot of pro-aborts defend culling of females as a rational solution to population control. Yes, these are the same people who will cry “misogyny” when we defend pro-life principles. It really takes some extreme mental gymnastics to accuse people who defend value and dignity of each and every person, including those unborn, of misogyny, while at the same time defending a practice that targets baby girls in the womb which, in turn, creates a more dangerous world for women who are born.
Denise Noe,
I’d like to gently suggest that your fairly extreme fear of pregnancy (no sex until you surgically sterilized yourself….in your early 20’s!) might be coloring your perception of how many women feel similarly to you. Without question, an unplanned pregnancy can be terrifying, but as someone mentioned above, very few women are willing to risk their lives to end a temporary condition.
“The woman who is willing to risk death to end a pregnancy is as rare as the woman willing to risk her life to continue a pregnancy” – yet abortion is 9 times safer than full-term delivery.”
Not if you control the variables like age and health of the mother and the condition of the pregnancy. Also, the numbers themselves are all well below 1%. So, we are talking the extreme margin.
If the mother has certain conditions, then abortion is statistically much safer because the particular pregnancy or the particular woman has specific problems.
However, a healthy mom with no problems then, no.
But who would ever want to do an accurate mortality or morbidity review of the data when it might render politically dangerous findings?
Better not to know. And much better that the public not know. They might get uppity and feel all entitled to protections or something. Preserving the status quo is what the powerful do.
We live in an anti science age.
“Without question, an unplanned pregnancy can be terrifying, ”
It is really more like humiliating. When a woman is pregnant all her friends and family and even strangers are interested, naturally, and ask all kinds of questions. Well, if the father has basically rejected her and the baby, then it she has to deal with those feelings of rejection and feeling undesirable because rather than loving and supporting her, the guy just wants rid of her. Dealing with that rejection and internalizing the fact that she is less than desirable because the guy isn’t willing to love her and work to pay for the baby is an ego crusher. The fact is kids just aren’t that scary. Facing total rejection and believing that it is due to one’s inherent undesirability is emotionally intolerable for many personalities.
The data is out there hippie, CDC et al. A woman is less likely to die from having an abortion than from full-term delivery – by a large margin.
“Preserving the status quo is what the powerful do……We live in an anti science age” – oh how true! Creation ‘Museum’, Ark Encounter and all.
“Preserving the status quo is what the powerful do……We live in an anti science age”
Abortion is only 3% of PP’s business, (but 50% of revenue). Mothers not allowed to see ultrasound images. They claim they don’t know when life begins. and all.
And let’s not forget the pro abortion creationism: Babies are created at birth.
“Mothers not allowed to see ultrasound images.” – completely untrue.
“They claim they don’t know when life begins.” – no, they just disagree with your interpretation.
“And let’s not forget the pro abortion creationism:” – that’s not creationism :-)
no, they just disagree with your interpretation.
I’m pretty sure they actually say that they don’t know when life begins.
CT says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Denise Noe, I’d like to gently suggest that your fairly extreme fear of pregnancy (no sex until you surgically sterilized yourself….in your early 20?s!) might be coloring your perception of how many women feel similarly to you. Without question, an unplanned pregnancy can be terrifying, but as someone mentioned above, very few women are willing to risk their lives to end a temporary condition.
(Denise) If we’re going to have fewer abortions, we’re going to have to lead more females to live as I did since it did protect me from pregnancy. One of the reasons I waited to have the sort of sex that people often called “normal” until I was sterilized was that I knew I couldn’t be a good mother but didn’t want to have an abortion. I was — and am — horrified by abortion. When I was in high school, mothers expressed envy to my mother for having a “good girl” who spent all her time in her room.
When I read biographies of women in past eras, illegal abortion is a recurrent theme in those who had heterosexual activity. One exception was sex goddess and mother of five Jayne Mansfield who strongly opposed abortion and carried all her pregnancies to term. However, bios of women usually fall into 3 categories: 1) celibates; 2) lifelong committed lesbians and 3) those who had illegal abortions.
I hate abortion. I think all pregnancies should be desired by the female who gets pregnant.
hippie says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:32 pm
“Without question, an unplanned pregnancy can be terrifying, ”
It is really more like humiliating. When a woman is pregnant all her friends and family and even strangers are interested, naturally, and ask all kinds of questions. Well, if the father has basically rejected her and the baby, then it she has to deal with those feelings of rejection and feeling undesirable because rather than loving and supporting her, the guy just wants rid of her. Dealing with that rejection and internalizing the fact that she is less than desirable because the guy isn’t willing to love her and work to pay for the baby is an ego crusher. The fact is kids just aren’t that scary. Facing total rejection and believing that it is due to one’s inherent undesirability is emotionally intolerable for many personalities.
(Denise) So what do we do to prevent this? How do we ensure that pregnancy is a time of joy for the pregnant female?
“Most women are just not that irrational. Which is why when abortion was illegal they either didn’t even try it, or they went to a bona fide doctor who would do it secretly. Very few went to real and true quacks”
Really? How old are you? Reason I’m asking is because those of us who were teens and adults pre Roe are acutely aware that women and girls did desparate things. I know I did. And I know a number of other young women who did similar things. One of my friends douched with an anti-acne medication. If you think this is a ”pro-abort” lie, read “Revolutionary Road” which is a novel written in the 50’s. There is a gruesome scene in which a woman does a desparate thing and dies. This is based on reality. There are many accounts, by emergency room nurses, of occasions in which they treated women who did have back alley abortions. Your attempt to mimimize these things indicates that you are in denial about the harsh realities of forcing women to produce children they don’t want.
And Lori, women are entitled to have sex, on their terms, regardless of possible outcomes. Not every woman chooses to be celibate like you. And not every baby story has a happy ending. Not every mother is a wonderful as yours. If you ever worked in child protective services, as I have, you’d know that. Your mother chose to be fruitful – not every woman makes that choice. But in your happy, pro-life world, women would not have that choice. Before abortion was legal, many children who were born to women who couldn’t keep them were put into orphanages where they were abused and neglected. Are these the happy days that you folks long to return to?
Is it possible to bring about a situation in which females always accept pregnancy and look forward to motherhood?
ROFLMAO – The answer is a resounding NO!
“In fact, Paul Erlich, the father of the population control movement gave an interview earlier this year where he said that the subjucation of women was just an insignificant consequence”
Without the actual quote, I can’t respond to this.
…those of us who were teens and adults pre Roe are acutely aware that women and girls did desparate things. I know I did. And I know a number of other young women who did similar things. One of my friends douched with an anti-acne medication.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
You can make claims that you know such-and-such, who went to Dr. Cleaver McKnifey and nearly died, who’s story became the foundation for a fictional scene that didn’t actually happen in a book you read once all you like. But unless you can produce something like a set of CDC numbers stating that as the “average experience,” then you do not have data. You have anecdotes, and you have therefore not refuted the claim that your experience was the exception and not the rule.
Regarding the criminalization side, it might be true that having abortion illegal has at least SOME effect on prevalence. A woman who might get an abortion when it is legal — and presumably safe — might just “accept the surprise” and have her family start or grown when it is illegal.
By robbing women of the means to control if and when they have children, they dominate them and if that ain’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.
The pro-life movement doesn’t seek to control if and when women have children. The pro-life movement seeks to make women aware that when they are pregnant, they already have a child and to encourage them not to have that child killed. There is a reason pregnancy is also called “being with child”.
And Lori, women are entitled to have sex, on their terms, regardless of possible outcomes
Humans, once conceived, are entitled to live, regardless of possible outcomes.
“CDC numbers stating that as the “average experience,” then you do not have data. You have anecdotes, and you have therefore not refuted the claim that your experience was the exception and not the rule.”
Other than anti-choice hero Bernard Nathanson’s contention that the numbers were exagerrated, we don’t have stats other than estimates based on emergency room visits and actual deaths. The estimated number of illegal abortions was very high.
There is a reason pregnancy is also called “being with child”.
That is a colloquialism. The correct scientific term should be “being with fetus.” And a fetus is not a “child” is the same sense that a post born “person” is a “child.”
And BTW, I do think that both men and women, while having a right to have consensual sex, have a responsibility to practice safe sex so as not to spread STD’s. If a woman does not wish to get pregnant, she should consider contraception which, according to the “pro-life” movement turns women into dirty sluts. But if she gets pregnant, she should have the choice to keep or abort the fetus.
“In fact, Paul Erlich, the father of the population control movement gave an interview earlier this year where he said that the subjucation of women was just an insignificant consequence”
Without the actual quote, I can’t respond to this.
Here is the article where Erlich talks of his support of sex-selective abortion:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/father-of-population-control-movement-supports-sex-selective-abortion-mass/
All of this is explained better in Mara Hvistendahl’s book, Unnatural Selection. She has interviews and documentation showing that Erlich and other population control advocates made sex selection a key goal for population reduction. Hvistendahl also shows how they ALL knew exactly what would happen (increased rape, sex trafficking, etc) when sex ratios became lopsided and yet brushed it off as insignificant.
The estimated number of illegal abortions was very high.
In other words, you know the actual data from the CDC does not support your claim and you are taking the estimate from someone who agrees with you and will, therefore, validate your thinking whether it is true or not. You can’t support this claim and you know it.
The plural anecdote is not data.
If someone is extremely concerned about population growth, it makes sense to target females since they are the ones who bear the next generation. The more you reduce the number of females, the fewer can have babies.
Alice says:
September 19, 2011 at 10:26 am
The estimated number of illegal abortions was very high. In other words, you know the actual data from the CDC does not support your claim and you are taking the estimate from someone who agrees with you and will, therefore, validate your thinking whether it is true or not. You can’t support this claim and you know it. The plural anecdote is not data.
(Denise) Alice, what do you think happened when abortion was illegal?
Did the vast majority of females simply accept a “surprise” and start or grow their families?
“Illegal Abortions Were Common
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.
Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way…”
Whether there was one illegal abortion or a million, the reality is that women had abortions and some women died. While you claim to care about women, the reality is that deaths from illegal abortion are just collateral damage in your playbook.
Those of you who came of age after Roe should ask older women about what went on pre Roe. The stories of illegal abortion might have been a way to scare us - but scare stories are based on facts.
If someone is extremely concerned about population growth, it makes sense to target females since they are the ones who bear the next generation. The more you reduce the number of females, the fewer can have babies.
So you think that it is OK to sacrifice females for a “greater good”(Never mind the fact the the overpopulation is total propaganda)?
If that is not misogyny then I don’t know what is.
Denise Maria says:
September 19, 2011 at 10:49 am
If someone is extremely concerned about population growth, it makes sense to target females since they are the ones who bear the next generation. The more you reduce the number of females, the fewer can have babies.
So you think that it is OK to sacrifice females for a “greater good”(Never mind the fact the the overpopulation is total propaganda)?
If that is not misogyny then I don’t know what is.
(Denise) I didn’t say I personally approve of it. I’m not even that concerned with either population or environmental issues. I don’t believe the earth is particularly fragile.
I was just pointing out what people with that perspective would tend to think.
People who are extremely concerned with population might sometimes have a tendency toward misogyny because females are the ones with the wombs.
There seems to be an anti-choice argument that the availability of abortion induces women to have unprotected sex. That, in part, could be true. But then we could say that liposuction and stomach stapling surgery induces people to eat more. Should we crimininalize those surgical procedures to reduce obesity?
And while I think that Ehrlich’s comment about “unintended consequences” was insensitive, the reality is that the consequences of unfettered reproduction as a result of lack of access to contraception and abortion is just as bad. A British journalist recently said, on a morning talk show, that the one child policy has been beneficial to Chinese women who now have access to career ladders that they didn’t have in the old system where too many people favored males in the job market.
I didn’t say I personally approve of it. I’m not even that concerned with either population or environmental issues. I don’t believe the earth is particularly fragile.
I was just pointing out what people with that perspective would tend to think.
OK, but it sounded like you were trying to rationalize their thinking.
People who are extremely concerned with population might sometimes have a tendency toward misogyny because females are the ones with the wombs
Believe me, they have more than a tendency. Anti-life and anti-female is the very heart and soul of the population control movement.
I’m slowly becoming wary of data taken from Guttmacher.
One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
My first inclination was to ask “What analysis?”, but I’m going to refrain from doing that. Such a claim is de facto ridiculous. In 1973, there were an estimated 744,610 abortions. In 1974, there were an estimated 898,570 abortions. Assuming there were 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions in 1967, where did the other 84,000 or so go in 1973? To believe that there were 829,000 illegal abortions in the U.S. in 1967, or any more abortions than occurred in 1973 in the U.S. in any year prior to that, would require one to believe that nationwide abortion legalization reduced the instance of abortion. But who would actually believe that?
Whether there was one illegal abortion or a million, the reality is that women had abortions and some women died. While you claim to care about women, the reality is that deaths from illegal abortion are just collateral damage in your playbook.
In the same vein, I offer up the following rationalization.
The reality is that nearly every day, if not every day, some would be female thief is maimed, injured or killed in her attempt to rob or burglarize someone. Therefore, theft should be legal to protect said women from injury, or else you don’t care about women.
Now tell me why that argument is any less ridiculous than the one you just offered up?
Those of you who came of age after Roe should ask older women about what went on pre Roe. The stories of illegal abortion might have been a way to scare us - but scare stories are based on facts.
What’s the point? Those most likely to remember the “good old days” of back alley abortions (you’re citing the 30’s and 40’s as reference) are the least likely to support access to abortion. If you were to ask them as a whole what went on before Roe v. Wade, I’d be willing to bet that they wouldn’t say what you think they’d say. This idea of back-alley coat hanger abortions wasn’t a mainstream idea until pro-choicers tried to use the Geraldine Santoro case as being the ‘norm’, after which every pro-choicer and their grandmother seemed to know someone who had died from an illegal abortion. Of course, as someone else said, anecdote does not trump the evidence we do have.
——————–
Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 per cent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist.
Link
——————–
Point being, sure women died from illegal abortions, but that death rate had been dropping long before Roe v. Wade came around, due primarily to advances in medical technology. The year before Roe v. Wade (1972), the CDC reported that 39 women died from illegal abortions (88 died total). Anyone who takes a simple five minutes to search can see this. The idea that Roe v. Wade somehow caused abortions to be safe is incredibly ridiculous, or the idea that hundreds, if not thousands, of women will die if abortions are made illegal is simply not borne out of fact, and is borderline fearmongering.
So what DID happen pre-Roe v. Wade? Do you believe that the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies were simply accepted by the pregnant female who either began or grew her family?
But then we could say that liposuction and stomach stapling surgery induces people to eat more. Should we crimininalize those surgical procedures to reduce obesity?
Only when your globs of fat become distinct human beings with their own separate DNA. Until then, stuff your face with burgers and suck out the resulting lard to your heart’s content (though your heart will most certainly NOT be content, but that’s up to you).
and that does not cause death to another human. Risk for yourself, perhaps, but not certain death for another.
No matter how we look at abortion or how we try to wipe away the words, simply every abortion is a purposeful death of another human. That is a biological and scientific fact.
We can help women with what ever problems she has and avoid the intentional killing of another. It’s called love and compassion and proper help. No need to resort to ultimate violence to have the life one wants. Women grow, women are resourceful and women are strong. They should not have to end a life to be that way. In fact, many times having children helps us to grow up and become better people, if we let it.
Love big, think with hope and help others. We can do it without abortion.
CC, you reject pro-life Bernard Nathanson’s version of the statistics, but you cite Planned Parenthood flunky the Guttmacher Institute as gospel. On what grounds? Certainly not because they are non-biased.
A British journalist recently said, on a morning talk show, that the one child policy has been beneficial to Chinese women who now have access to career ladders that they didn’t have in the old system where too many people favored males in the job market.
Geez, CC, you actually support the one child policy? It has been a human rights disaster especially for women. Read Hvistendahl’s book to see how the male heavy sex ratios have subjucated women (NOT only in China, but in surrounding countries as well) and is getting worse every day. Also, please read Steven Mosher’s book about population control in China which will outline the roots and consequences of this pernicious policy.
Population control has been getting some bad press lately, so it does not surprise me that those on the other side are out there promoting the idea that the policy has been beneficial even when this assertion is NOT supported by evidence. Interestingly, there is an article about this very subject out today:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lost-girls_593650.html?page=1
and a repentant man tries to set the record straight, as Bernard Nathanson did. He wanted the world to know that those numbers were contrived, and that he was part of the lie.
Unfortunately, when we want what we want when we want it (in this case abortion) – no amount of the truth will sink in until the heart is open to a change, is open to love. When we love big and think of others in the truest sense, then we are open to change.
Love all. Love big. Be inventive to find solutions to women’s problems without hurting another thru abortion. We can do it. We are creative, loving and can act with love.
“The reality is that nearly every day, if not every day, some would be female thief is maimed, injured or killed in her attempt to rob or burglarize someone. Therefore, theft should be legal to protect said women from injury, or else you don’t care about women.Now tell me why that argument is any less ridiculous than the one you just offered up”
It’s ridiculous because theft is a crime as it involves the taking of somebody else’s property. Abortion is a legal surgical procedure that involves what a person does with their body. You have no right to determine what I do with my uterus or any other part of my body as much as you have no right to steal my kidney or any other body part. As determined in Roe, it’s the right to privacy and, I would add, the right of private property. My body is my private property.
“What’s the point? Those most likely to remember the “good old days” of back alley abortions (you’re citing the 30?s and 40?s as reference) are the least likely to support access to abortion.”
Because they were raised in an era of taboos and shame based on strict religious codes and repressive attitudes about sex. They were still aware of what women did, how they did it, and what happened. But you’re “some guy” and you don’t have a uterus so you really don’t have any skin in the game at all.
And BTW, Geraldine Santoro died in 1964. I heard about the coathanger when I was about 10 and that was 1958. Actually, the douche was considered one of the weapons of choice (pun intended) and these devices (used mainly for contraception) were a standard fare in bathrooms in the 50’s. There were also underground tonics that were available. Ah, good times that many guys want to take us back to – when poor women had to resort to extreme measures but those with money and the right connections had D&C’s (the procedure of “choice” for the nice, affluent Irish Catholic women in my childhood parish!)
Abortion is a legal surgical procedure that involves what a person does with their body.
And it involves the body of the fetus. The target of an abortion is not the woman’s body at all. It’s the body of another human that is destroyed in an abortion. But you already know that. It’s just so much easier to pretend this is all about what a woman does with her body.
“The reality is that nearly every day, if not every day, some would be female thief is maimed, injured or killed in her attempt to rob or burglarize someone. Therefore, theft should be legal to protect said women from injury, or else you don’t care about women.Now tell me why that argument is any less ridiculous than the one you just offered up”
It’s ridiculous because theft is a crime as it involves the taking of somebody else’s property. Abortion is a legal surgical procedure that involves what a person does with their body. You have no right to determine what I do with my uterus or any other part of my body as much as you have no right to steal my kidney or any other body part. As determined in Roe, it’s the right to privacy and, I would add, the right of private property. My body is my private property.
CC, your uterus is yours, but what is in it is the body of another distinct human. If you kill another human, you are taking away their property – hence, the fetus’ property is his/her body.
If you’re pro-killing fetuses, just own it. Please do not disregard the fact that when pregnant, a woman carries the body of another individual within her uterus, and abortion ends that human life. It does not remove a kidney or another of your body parts. Abortion removes human offspring, through dismemberment or suction, from a body part, the uterus. If there were not another human residing in the uterus, (which you attempt to ignore), there would be no abortion.
Lrning says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Abortion is a legal surgical procedure that involves what a person does with their body.And it involves the body of the fetus. The target of an abortion is not the woman’s body at all. It’s the body of another human that is destroyed in an abortion. But you already know that. It’s just so much easier to pretend this is all about what a woman does withher body.
(Denise) This is precisely the source of confusion and ambivalence. A human being is in place early in the pregnancy. But that human being, in order to survive, must have the most extreme, intimate, yet public use of another human being’s body. People are always uncomfortable with abortion because they know a life is ended. They often feel they have to accept the legality of it because at least some females are going to be psychologically unprepared and unable to allow this extreme use of their bodies. If the female dies because she commits suicide or is butchered, the unborn AUTOMATICALLY dies with her. That’s why some people perceive abortion’s illegality as futile.
It’s ridiculous because theft is a crime as it involves the taking of somebody else’s property. Abortion is a legal surgical procedure that involves what a person does with their body. You have no right to determine what I do with my uterus or any other part of my body as much as you have no right to steal my kidney or any other body part. As determined in Roe, it’s the right to privacy and, I would add, the right of private property. My body is my private property.
So your argument isn’t really one in which we, as a society, should do those things which would result in the ‘safety’ of a certain group of people, but rather on some nebulous concept of privacy. Even granting you that your body is yours, whose body does the unborn belong to?
If you want to assert that the unborn’s body belongs to the unborn, then how can abortion be permissible since that requires the woman to act against someone else? You will undoubtedly respond “because it’s in her body”, but this is an empty statement. I say, “So what?”. The only instances in which it is permissible to act against someone else is if they are acting against you, and even then you can only use an equal amount of force as is being exerted upon you. Why should location change this standard?
If you want to assert that the unborn’s body belongs to the woman, then your argument necessitates, that as some point in your life, you didn’t have the right to your own body, since at some point in time you were a fetus, and you assert that the fetus has no right to its own body and/or to not be acted against. Apparently, your body isn’t private property, since at some point in your life someone could have ended it if it suited them to do so.
As it is, you’r engaging in a straw man. You can jab a pencil into your eye, your ear, your nose or even your uterus for all I care. I think that’s crazy, but you harm only yourself by doing so. I care when you have an abortion, because you’re not bringing harm to yourself. You’re not doing anything to your uterus, but rather you’re bringing harm to someone else. It’s really no simpler than that, and no amount of obfuscation will change this fact.
(And I won’t even touch on the fact that the majority of abortions are done for a reason completely independent of it being the woman’s body. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, for the majority of abortions, the only part “her body” plays into the reasoning is that by virtue of it being her body she can abort.)
Because they were raised in an era of taboos and shame based on strict religious codes and repressive attitudes about sex. They were still aware of what women did, how they did it, and what happened.
So they’re all/mostly aware of it, but because of the era they were raised in, they won’t admit it? That seems a rather convenient rationalization for you, CC. Even assuming this were true, shouldn’t they be quietly pro-choice? There seems to be a moderate disconnect between what you state and reality, and the reality is that the people who would be most likely to remember “the good old days” are the least likely to support legalized abortion.
But you’re “some guy” and you don’t have a uterus so you really don’t have any skin in the game at all.
Since you want to go down this road… It could be argued that I have more “skin” in the game than you, since I can get someone pregnant, whereas you’re post-menopause and can’t have any children. So I guess that makes my opinion on abortion more relevant than yours, right?
And BTW, Geraldine Santoro died in 1964. I heard about the coathanger when I was about 10 and that was 1958.
Right. She died in 1960-whatever it was. The famous photo of her sprung up in 1973 and formed the basis of the pro-choice rallying cry (“Keep abortion legal or else women will die!”). The “coat hanger” abortion rhetoric didn’t pop up until the 1970’s.
Actually, the douche was considered one of the weapons of choice (pun intended) and these devices (used mainly for contraception) were a standard fare in bathrooms in the 50?s. There were also underground tonics that were available. Ah, good times that many guys want to take us back to – when poor women had to resort to extreme measures but those with money and the right connections had D&C’s (the procedure of “choice” for the nice, affluent Irish Catholic women in my childhood parish!)
I’m quoting this, but really. I have no real desire to respond to this, since I’ve noticed that you repeat the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times I respond to it.
cc’s racist, supremist rants are quite tiring, are they not? Abortion fans have entirely run out of rhetoric, much like dogs that re-consume their own vomit, then spit it back out again.
I admire the tenacity of pro-life commenters, because really there are days that the abortion advocates try the very limits of my patience. I mean, here we are, trying to save human lives and all they can do is talk in circles and repeat lies in order to defend murder for money. If Nathanson had continued to promote abortion, if Nathanson had never joined the fight to save lives, at his funeral Cecile Richards would have dutifuly wiped a tear while calling him a hero. But he betrayed the cause, didn’t he? Poor abortion advocates, I pity you to the marrow of your bones.
“Even assuming this were true, shouldn’t they be quietly pro-choice?”
Given that Planned Parenthood came about as a result of efforts of those who advocated for women’s reproductive rights, many of them *Ivy League educated Republicans, many of them were pro-choice some quietly some not. Many of the feminists of the 60’s, who brought us the reproductive freedom that you seek to deny us, grew up in the 40’s.
*Clearly not members of the Catholic church but rather the more socially liberal UCC and Episcopalian Church. I, personally know, a number of elderly pro-choice women. Guess you and I don’t travel in the same circles.
And abortion is hurting “someone” else but a fetus is not a “someone” but an appendage of a woman’s body. You call it “killing.” I call it removal of an unwanted body part.
Paladin and I are both Ivy League graduates and Catholic. In addition, I left a good dozen of seriously, staunch Catholics at my Ivy League school last year. So we are definitely there.
A million and a half abortions each year is appalling. It seems to me that abortion will decrease when unplanned pregnancy decreases.
Neither celibacy nor lesbianism seem to sell well among most reproductive age females. But is there a way to increase either or both?
Can we persuade people who are sexually active to eschew the sort of sex that leads to pregnancy?
when poor women had to resort to extreme measures but those with money and the right connections had D&C’s (the procedure of “choice” for the nice, affluent Irish Catholic women in my childhood parish!)
Do you have proof of this CC? What are the numbers for your childhood parish of live births vs. D&Cs? Who were the “right” connections?
“.. but an appendage of a woman’s body. You call it “killing.” I call it removal of an unwanted body part. ”
Oh, please do tell us which medical textbook you can cite for this whopper! Good thing I had swallowed my tea or I would have spewed it all over my keyboard laughing at this stinkbomb of a comment. Doesn’t this same abortion fan always brag about her higher edjamacation? Better get a refund on your diploma! LOL!!!
:) Okay, I’m in a true mix/muddle of emotion, here: touched that I was mentioned, nonplussed about the mention being troll-fodder. I don’t need these moral dilemmas…
(*tongue firmly planted in cheek, by the way!*)
Can we persuade people who are sexually active to eschew the sort of sex that leads to pregnancy?
Since decades of education and hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into birth control propaganda can’t even get them to use birth control consistently or correctly, I’m going to go out on a limb and say “no”.
“It seems to me that abortion will decrease when unplanned pregnancy decreases.”
Even if you had a world in which unplanned pregnancies were reduced by half (which would be absolutely shocking), that still leaves a LOT of unplanned pregnancies. I would like to reduce unplanned pregnancies as much as the next person, but the reality is I cannot control what people do sexually. They are going to have sex – regardless of the risk of STDs and pregnancy. All we can do as a society is make sure that they can’t deal with the consequences of their decisions by killing their offspring.
“Neither celibacy nor lesbianism seem to sell well among most reproductive age females. But is there a way to increase either or both?”
Denise, I’m sorry but when you say things like this it makes me wonder about you. Trying to sell people on lesbianism as a birth control? It doesn’t “sell” well b/c most women are not just trying to scratch a sexual itch with anyone or anything that appears to do the job while not getting them pregnant. That is not a normal way of thinking and no, I don’t believe there is anything you can do to convince the majority of people to view sex in this very strange way.
Yeah, sorry about that Paladin, but the whole “pro-choice seculars are well educated and Catholics are dumb” gets tiring. Let’s come to conclusions about specific questions based on the plausibility of the arguments, not on the education of those who hold certain positions.
I walked up a lot of stairs this weekend, and, oh, my mother’s knees are hurting me…
CT,
Denise continues to ask these types of questions over and over again.
OK, I’ll throw one more scoop of chow at cc:
How are abortion fans going to convince all the biologists and scientists when the transformation occurs in the babies’ DNA that changes it from the mothers’ to the babies’ own? Does the DNA fairy swoop down and touch the baby with her magic wand and POOF! the DNA transforms into a unique code inherited from both parents? Or, is it the Earth’s rotation that causes the DNA to transform? Yes, yes, that’s it, it’s the rotation of the earth! On his first day outside the womb, as soon as the earth makes one full rotation, the magnetic poles pull and warp the DNA into a new double helix that now is no longer 100% the mothers’. Amiright? huh?
“I would like to reduce unplanned pregnancies as much as the next person, but the reality is I cannot control what people do sexually. They are going to have sex – regardless of the risk of STDs and pregnancy. All we can do as a society is make sure that they can’t deal with the consequences of their decisions by killing their offspring.”
In that case, it sounds like you haven’t given much thought to the social consequences of your moral crusade, or if you have, you’re indifferent to them. What happens to rates of crime (violent and otherwise), homelessness and drug use when millions of unwanted children are born each year to mothers who previously would have simply terminated the pregnancy? Mothers who were irresponsible enough not to look that far ahead in the first place? It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen that would stretch the limits of the criminal justice system and our social safety nets.
joan, try to think with a more positive thought process. Can you imagine how many new jobs will be created once abortion is eliminated?!
“Do you have proof of this CC? What are the numbers for your childhood parish of live births vs. D&Cs? Who were the “right” connection.”
Obviously it is anecdotal because there is no hard data other than experience. I am just relaying what was a reality as you folks relate your reality of all women having been forced into abortion and regretting it. The “right” connection was a certain Irish Catholic doctor, very popular amongst the ladies, who knew how to take care of a problem. My mother’s abortion was a “D&C” by that doctor. You’re a nice, Catholic fella, Paladin, so you probably aren’t aware of the networks that we gals have always utilized since time immorial and despite your church. But if you and “some guy” want to call me a liar, fine. The reality is that Ivy grads, one of whom was my deceased mother-in-law (Pembroke – merged into Brown), did door to door work for the organization that became Planned Parenthood and paved the way for the acceptance of that organization to come to RI in the early 60’s – despite the protestation of the Roman church (which was when I walked out never to return). And it wasn’t just older Protestant women who were on the line. NY relaxed its abortion laws pre Roe thanks, in part, to some wonderful pro-choice Jewish women. When I was a young feminist, working for the passage of the ERA (the same zealots who fought the ERA are still around), I met some older feminists including the awesome Bela Abzug. So while you claim that I’m just making stuff up, I assure you that I speak from my experience which, of course, you discount as it doesn’t square with your view of reality.
“Can you imagine how many new jobs will be created once abortion is eliminated?!”
We are losing jobs as we speak. More unwanted, poor children will increase the jobless rate. And unlike Victorian England, we won’t have “work houses.” Oh right, let’s do away with child labor laws and put these kids into factories. Oh, right, we don’t have factories. Oh well, they can work as servants for all those ”pro-life” clergy. And there’s always child prostitution which was prevalent in the good old days before effective contraception. Just think of all the money that these kids can bring into the family coffer. Ah, the good old days of families living in crowded slums. Lots of babies. Ah, the good old days when “the rich got rich and the poor got babies. Ain’t we got fun!” as that great old song said.
“Oh, please do tell us which medical textbook you can cite for this whopper!”
And please cite the textbooks that say that abortion is the “killing” of a ”pre-born baby.” You do realize, I hope, that as we speak, abortion, as a surgical technique is being taught at colleges. You do realize the science of the embryo is being taught, in biology classes across the country, without any mention of “killing babies.” I didn’t source my comment from a text. It’s as much my opinion as your opinion that abortion is murder. I, and many other politicians, scientists, and members of faith communities, don’t believe that. I know that it’s hard for you, Ninek, to accept that inconvenient truth mais c’est la vie, n’est-ce pas?
And so what about the DNA. The fetus is still dependent on its host and might not have a soul, according to certain faith traditions, until it vacates the host’s body. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not a “human being.”
But it would be nice if you could show the same concern for those who are sentenced to death and those whose post born lives are lost by American troops and bombs. Oh, right.
Another inconvenient truth. In pro-choice areas of the country, the number of students in Catholic schools is decreasing as parishes are closing. The pro-life message is getting more muted in areas which have always been pro-choice. So even if Roe is overturned, the West Coast and a good chunk of the North East will remain, proudly, pro-choice. Hey, way to help our economy – abortion tourism. Come to New England and take in a show and some skiing post abortion!
joan @ 6:47 said: “…it sounds like you haven’t given much thought to the social consequences of your moral crusade, or if you have, you’re indifferent to them. ”
Anyone else hear the echoes of those who opposed the abolition of slavery?
CC, I’m sorry your sibling met a violent death at your mother’s request. Your brother or sister was not an appendage of her body (I’d have commented earlier but had to go and pick up my “severed appendage” at her bus stop); do you even listen to yourself? Your child was not the equivalent of a sixth toe, either (if you HAD a sixth toe, as Ninek points out, it would possess your DNA, your child had only half of yours).
I quote CC’s “You’re a nice, Catholic fella, Paladin, so you probably aren’t aware of the networks that we gals have always utilized since time immorial and despite your church. ” in order to clarify (and I say this as a Protestant believer) it is not “Paladin’s church”, he’s a part of it, it is Christ’s Church, and I can assure you He knows very well what ‘you gals’ have done.
Pauvre cc, elle pense que je ne peut pas comprendre. What I do understand is that you have no facts. None. Nada. Rien. All you have is your bitterness and your hatred for all things human and hatred specifically for the very smallest humans alive in their own mother’s wombs. Like I said, I pity you to the very marrow of your bones. I can’t even imagine how you could despise your own mother so very much that you daily belittle her role in your life and weekly do all you can to make sure no other mother actually nurtures her own child.
Your mother must have been very disappointed to have raised such a cold-hearted and cruel human being. I’m guessing you take after dad?
just because it is taught does not end what it is: the ending purposefully of a pre-born human. If the Hippocratic oath had stayed as it was originally, no doctor could purposely harm any human and no doctor could give drugs or try to perform abortions. Too bad the medical community changed that language and relaxed their standards.
Truth is. What we have when we have abortion is a pre-born human, at any stage at the time, lives no more.
I hope that one day all of us will recognize our fellow humans – no matter where they are, no matter their size or functionality or their ‘wanten-ness.’ Part of the human family – I say ‘welcome!’
and CC – as a person so unabashedly anti-Catholic – please save the comments. Hospitals, higher education and concern for the poor have firm roots in the Catholic system. We help the poor and down-trodden in all kinds of situations, in all places. We root for the underdog, help those who are homeless and feed the hungry. It’s our happy duty to help others.
I hope that one day you will join with us as we help the needy. Champion death via abortion does not elevate humanity, does not help the hopeless. It just causes death, as you well know.
Don’t waste your time here Catholic-bashing. Help in a soup kitchen. Help in a CPC. Read to youngsters. or even read the Catechism with an open heart. You might be surprised what you find there.
I know, she’s going to throw up a comment that all post-abortive mothers are bad mothers, but as we can see by how loving post-abortive moms can be. My mother may even have had an abortion that she didn’t tell me about, who knows? But despite her being very human, every day I am thankful for both my parents. Were they perfect? No, of course not. Did they make mistakes? Yes, at least as many as I make in my own life. Being pro-life is something I do that honors my mother’s role in my life (even though my mom waffled on the issue back and forth over the years).
When I say, “Moms: let your babies live out their natural life span without deadly interference” I am also saying, “Mom, your contribution to my life is unfathomable.”
The “right” connection was a certain Irish Catholic doctor, very popular amongst the ladies, who knew how to take care of a problem. My mother’s abortion was a “D&C” by that doctor.
oops, rereading my above comment, I had a sentence fragment!
I meant to say that many post abortive moms can still be very loving as demonstrated by how hard they work to raise their kids and how hard many post-abortive moms work to end abortion.
CT,
Denise continues to ask these types of questions over and over again.
I see that Carla, and I’ve been trying to put my objection into words for a long time. It’s like asking, “What can we do to create an alternate reality where human nature is something other than it is?” Because somehow this non-existent world is linked to our ability to tell people they can’t kill their children as a solution to poor decisions.
In that case, it sounds like you haven’t given much thought to the social consequences of your moral crusade, or if you have, you’re indifferent to them. What happens to rates of crime (violent and otherwise), homelessness and drug use when millions of unwanted children are born each year to mothers who previously would have simply terminated the pregnancy? Mothers who were irresponsible enough not to look that far ahead in the first place? It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen that would stretch the limits of the criminal justice system and our social safety nets.
Joan, this is the same fallacy that leads population control people astray. It views the world as static instead of flexible. In any case, even if the dire consequences you mention were certain to happen, we can’t support ending some human lives so that others can be more comfortable. The cure for social problems is not murder. To quote Pope Benedict again: “A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through compassion is a cruel and inhuman society.”
Given that Planned Parenthood came about as a result of efforts of those who advocated for women’s reproductive rights, many of them *Ivy League educated Republicans, many of them were pro-choice some quietly some not. Many of the feminists of the 60?s, who brought us the reproductive freedom that you seek to deny us, grew up in the 40?s.
Please, spare me. You might be far older than I am, but you don’t seem to understand much of what you type.
1.) Up until around the late 1960’s/early 1970’s, Planned Parenthood didn’t advocate for abortion. To equate those who worked with Planned Parenthood, or whatever it was called back then, before they began advocating for abortions to automatically be pro-choice is intellectually dishonest. Even Margaret Sanger, who pro-lifers love to vilify, didn’t advocate for abortion and considered it– for lack of a better word– a detestable thing.
2.) First of all, about a quarter of all females self-identify as feminists, and not all feminists advocate for abortion. As I’m sure you’re well aware, the abortion issue caused a split in feminist organizations during the 1970’s with those feminists who spoke out against abortion leaving to create their own groups. Second of all, what about the other 75% of women who don’t identify as feminists? Do they not count in your world?
*Clearly not members of the Catholic church but rather the more socially liberal UCC and Episcopalian Church. I, personally know, a number of elderly pro-choice women. Guess you and I don’t travel in the same circles.
This doesn’t address my comment. I said that the people who would remember “the good old days” of illegal/back-alley abortions are the least accepting of legalized abortion. That’s a fact, whether you want to accept it or not. It’s also a fact that the whole “coat hanger” thing was started in the 1970’s by pro-choice advocates.
And abortion is hurting “someone” else but a fetus is not a “someone” but an appendage of a woman’s body. You call it “killing.” I call it removal of an unwanted body part.
You know, I’ve seen you– on more than one occasion– make reference to education, insinuating that pro-choicers are generally more educated than pro-lifers (i.e., see one of your “educated, liberal northeast comments). With a statement about how the fetus is an appendage of the woman’s body, you really would have to call into question that assertion. Surely, you took sixth grade biology?
And exactly what part of my mother’s body am I? 9_9
“Joan, this is the same fallacy that leads population control people astray. It views the world as static instead of flexible.”
Ah yes, the “think about the broader consequences of your social engineering” fallacy. Silly me. Some things are, of course, static and not flexible and you seemed to admit as much by pointing out that unwanted pregnancy is a constant regardless of whether abortion is legal and accessible or not.
“In any case, even if the dire consequences you mention were certain to happen, we can’t support ending some human lives so that others can be more comfortable. The cure for social problems is not murder.”
But “we” are not supporting anything, per se. The government isn’t forcing women to have abortions. At worst, it’s allowing something immoral to happen by not intentionally preventing it, but so what? Why, in this particular case, must the government use the force of law to prevent immoral behavior, but not in other cases of arguably immoral behavior (adultery, for example)? You want the state to nationalize a private decision where the moral responsibility is entirely upon the heads of the persons directly involved, and without any justification that is germane to the interests of government or society as a whole (which is traditionally the standard by which the government would choose to involve itself in an otherwise private affair). In fact, moreover, doing so would actually be harmful to those interests.
“Why, in this particular case, must the government use the force of law to prevent immoral behavior, but not in other cases of arguably immoral behavior (adultery, for example)”.
Because a human life is being permanently extinguished. There are many debates about what purpose law should serve, but almost everyone agrees that the force of law should be used to prevent people from exerting deadly force against others. It’s not a ‘private affair’ just b/c it happens behind closed doors any more than domestic violence is a ‘private affair’. It’s two human beings and the law should stop one from killing the other.
Like the death penalty CT?
I don’t support the death penalty b/c I think it’s nearly always unnecessary in modern society. But when it is used justly it is done b/c there is no other way to protect society from an individual who refuses to abide by the laws. I assume your point wasn’t to actually make a point but just to imply that you think people who support the death penalty for convicted criminals are somehow hypocrites b/c they don’t support the death penalty for innocent human beings.
“I don’t support the death penalty” yet “I think it’s nearly always unnecessary in modern society.” Maybe, almost, sometimes?
“But when it is used justly (who decrees ‘justly’ and are we ever 100% sure?) it is done b/c there is no other way to protect society from an individual who refuses to abide by the laws.” – life sentences in high security facilities??
My point was that you said “the force of law should be used to prevent people from exerting deadly force against others”.
“Being pro-life is something I do that honors my mother’s role in my life (even though my mom waffled on the issue back and forth over the years).”
Wow, spit out my tea reading that one. Shall we do some rephrasing? “Being pro-life is something I do that honors my mother’s role as human incubator, since it’s neither here nor there whether she wanted to share her genetic material, give up her body for nine months and endure lasting consequences of my creation and birth.”
joan says:
September 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“I would like to reduce unplanned pregnancies as much as the next person, but the reality is I cannot control what people do sexually. They are going to have sex – regardless of the risk of STDs and pregnancy. All we can do as a society is make sure that they can’t deal with the consequences of their decisions by killing their offspring.”
In that case, it sounds like you haven’t given much thought to the social consequences of your moral crusade, or if you have, you’re indifferent to them. What happens to rates of crime (violent and otherwise), homelessness and drug use when millions of unwanted children are born each year to mothers who previously would have simply terminated the pregnancy? Mothers who were irresponsible enough not to look that far ahead in the first place? It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen that would stretch the limits of the criminal justice system and our social safety nets.
(Denise) It is possible that a change in the female’s attitude occurs simply because she is forced to complete the pregnancy. The process of pregnancy is dramatic and can dramatically change her viewpoint. Quite often, the unwanted pregnancy turns into a much-wanted baby as it progresses and the baby born becomes dear to his or her mother and well-cared for as a result. This is something that CAN happen and does happen and something many people hope is the norm. Also, yesterday’s irresponsible and promiscuous teenager is frequently today’s most devoted mother.
CT says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Can we persuade people who are sexually active to eschew the sort of sex that leads to pregnancy?Since decades of education and hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into birth control propaganda can’t even get them to use birth control consistently or correctly, I’m going to go out on a limb and say “no”.
(Denise) Then it would seem that problem pregnancies are inevitable — unless contraceptives are invented that every fertile female can take without serious side effects and that are 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. And if problem pregnancies are inevitable, it seems likely that many females will be psychologically unable to carry to term and that horrors will inevitably follow: abortions, whether legal or illegal, and suicides. “It seems to me that abortion will decrease when unplanned pregnancy decreases.”Even if you had a world in which unplanned pregnancies were reduced by half (which would be absolutely shocking), that still leaves a LOT of unplanned pregnancies. I would like to reduce unplanned pregnancies as much as the next person, but the reality is I cannot control what people do sexually. They are going to have sex – regardless of the risk of STDs and pregnancy. All we can do as a society is make sure that they can’t deal with the consequences of their decisions by killing their offspring.>>
(Denise) How do we make it that all females who have unplanned pregnancies are psychologically able to carry to term and give birth? If the female is devastated by her pregnancy and acts self-destructively or commits suicide, the unborn automatically die with her. Law prohibiting abortion fail in their objective of leading the pregnant female to carry to term and lead to a second death — that of the girl or woman who is pregnant — if she is so upset by the pregnancy that she dies.“Neither celibacy nor lesbianism seem to sell well among most reproductive age females. But is there a way to increase either or both?”Denise, I’m sorry but when you say things like this it makes me wonder about you. Trying to sell people on lesbianism as a birth control? >>
(Denise) Both a lesbian lifestyle and a celibate lifestyle guard against problem pregnancies and, therefore, guard against abortion. I read about a teenaged girl who said, “My father doesn’t want me to get pregnant now so he’s very supportive of the girl thing.” She is attracted to both sexes but is limiting sexual activity to lesbianism in order to avoid an irresponsible problem pregnancy.
Celibacy protects against pregnancy — and also against the emotional upheavals associated with lesbianism or any other kind of romantic and sexual relationship. However, lesbian relationships have high rates of violence so a female engaging in them has to deal with some dangers. Celibacy appears the safest guard against pregnancy as well as battery, jealousy, and all of the difficulties inherent in romantic/sexual relationships. However, a celibate lifestyle can be a lonely one and lack excitement and flavor which is why celibacy isn’t taking the country by storm.
<<It doesn’t “sell” well b/c most women are not just trying to scratch a sexual itch with anyone or anything that appears to do the job while not getting them pregnant. That is not a normal way of thinking and no, I don’t believe there is anything you can do to convince the majority of people to view sex in this very strange way. >>
(Denise) The problem is, if a girl or woman is upset enough about her pregnancy, she is probably going to do something to end it. I believe as you do that a human life exists early in a pregnancy. Very early in the pregnancy, a fetus has arms, legs, a head, a heartbeat and brain activity. I don’t want fetuses to be suctioned out of female wombs, their arms and legs torn off in the process. However, making abortion illegal doesn’t remove the mental state of pregnancy rejection that makes such horrors inevitable.
Regarding the perception of an embryo or fetus as an “unwanted appendage,” is it the act of a physician to remove healthy body parts?
Something with a head, arms, legs, and a beating heart is more than an appendage.
@ megan: My mother did raise me. Her politics would change, depending on what she saw and experienced. Mine too. Some folks are deeply entrenched in their political positions but some of us are open-minded. I was pro-choice for a few years, as was my mother. I am pro-life now, have been for quite a long time. I didn’t know about embryos’ development when I was pro-choice, and frankly, I didn’t want to know. I acknowledge now that I deliberately avoided looking at those pictures in Life magazine of the developing child.
It would not have honored my mother to be pro-choice even if she was pro-choice because it was her contribution to the very fabric of my human life that was most valuable. Politics are merely politics. My mother also didn’t really understand much about abortion or the abortion industry. I’m sure that if she knew then what we all know now, she nor I would ever have been pro-choice. A birth mother and a mother who raises her child both help create a life, an awesome and immeasurable thing. Abortion belittles that in the most violent and degrading way.
Life wins.
WAIT A MINUTE! Those things that came out of me and now occupy the upstairs of my house were appendages??? And I was merely their incubator???
Huh, I learn so much from the trolls.
Wait, I want to be called and incubaTRIX.
“I don’t support the death penalty” yet “I think it’s nearly always unnecessary in modern society.” Maybe, almost, sometimes?
I don’t suppport the death penalty as a routine punishment that exists for a given crime. I do think that there are times when there is no other way for a society to protect itself and in such cases, I would support its use.
“But when it is used justly (who decrees ‘justly’ and are we ever 100% sure?) it is done b/c there is no other way to protect society from an individual who refuses to abide by the laws.” – life sentences in high security facilities??
Yes – life sentences in highly secure facilities should be adequate for 99.99% of criminals. Agreed. I don’t support having it as a sentence available as a matter of course for certain crimes. But a society has a right to insure its safety from people who commit and breed violence. There is such a thing as justified killing in self defense and I think that this justification can exist on both an individual and societal level.
My point was that you said “the force of law should be used to prevent people from exerting deadly force against others”.
I didn’t think the clarification was necessary, but apparently it is. The force of law should be used to prevent people from exerting unjustified deadly force against others. People should be allowed to defend their lives with deadly force.
(Denise) Then it would seem that problem pregnancies are inevitable — unless contraceptives are invented that every fertile female can take without serious side effects and that are 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. And if problem pregnancies are inevitable, it seems likely that many females will be psychologically unable to carry to term and that horrors will inevitably follow: abortions, whether legal or illegal, and suicides.
Yes – problem pregnancies are inevitable. Even if such a birth control existed, not every woman would take it. Once again – I take issue w/ the word “many”. Some women who are very mentally unstable may prefer death to pregnancy. That is very tragic and I would hope we could reach them, but I’m not allowing women of perfectly stable mental capacity to kill their children with legal impunity b/c *some* women might resort to self-harm.
(Denise) How do we make it that all females who have unplanned pregnancies are psychologically able to carry to term and give birth?
This is not possible. You can work to reach women in crisis, but you are never going to be able to reach all or accommodate every mental idiosyncrasy.
If the female is devastated by her pregnancy and acts self-destructively or commits suicide, the unborn automatically die with her.
So we should let her kill him/her? Legally?
Law prohibiting abortion fail in their objective of leading the pregnant female to carry to term and lead to a second death — that of the girl or woman who is pregnant — if she is so upset by the pregnancy that she dies.……
However, making abortion illegal doesn’t remove the mental state of pregnancy rejection that makes such horrors inevitable.
That is not the objective of making abortion illegal. No law can lead someone to psychological well being or virtue, or make them happy not to commit the prohibited act. All the law can do is impose standards of behavior to maintain a civilized interaction between people. Other pro-life efforts (CPCs, adoption, counseling, etc) are aimed at helping the woman psychologically, but I’m afraid you are going to have to find a way to come to grips with the fact that some women are going to refuse to be helped. We cannot sanction the legal slaughter of 1.3million children a year b/c a tiny fraction of the mothers will consider no option but murdering her child or killing herself.
As human beings, as cooperative mammals, it is in the best interest of our species to value and nurture every single human being alive. Working together, we can solve our problems and overcome our challenges without ever resorting to killing anyone at all.
We don’t need to prevent a single pregnancy. We need to value every pregnancy, every human child. Yes, it’s that simple.
“Working together, we can solve our problems and overcome our challenges without ever resorting to killing anyone at all.”
So when do you plan to offer your uterus up to all those frozen embryos in limbo?
“Both a lesbian lifestyle and a celibate lifestyle guard against problem pregnancies and, therefore, guard against abortion.”
Too true, Denise! If the pro-life cause is really so woman-centered, then maybe they can change tack: lesbianism 4 life!
Too true, Denise! If the pro-life cause is really so woman-centered, then maybe they can change tack: lesbianism 4 life
I’m sure lesbians will be pleased to know you think you can choose to be attracted to women b/c it’s convenient birth control.
Re: Bobby: :) No problem. I’m actually reminded of a friend of mine who quipped, “Seriously? Academic credentials? I’ve known Ph.D’s who could get lost in a crosswalk! Relevance, anyone?”
Paladin, I work in the library at a university. Amen, amen, amen.
Megan points out the reason so many pro-lifers oppose IVF and the creation and storage of human embryos. Embryos are not products, they’re people. If I were able, yes, I would gladly adopt embryos and give birth to those children. But! IVF needs to end, just like abortion needs to end, and for some of the same reasons. It is brutal and slavery-like to kill one set of children while deliberately creating another set, many of whom will also be killed. It’s a terrible mess and ought to stop immediately. Thank you so much Megan for pointing this out.
Now, I’m sure my lesbian friends would just love to be run through an emotional wringer for the sake of some lazy straight girls looking for an easy sexual hook-up. Real nice, Megan, you’re just so compassionate.
Speaking of the strange world of academics, here is one of my favorite mathematician (my peeps) jokes:
How do you tell a social mathematician from an anti-social mathematician?
The social mathematician looks at YOUR shoes when he is talking to you.
In relation to the comment I posted before….
Please take my poll about homosexuality and abortion, it’ll only take a minute :)
http://myrevelation.weebly.com/
Thanks!
IVF needs to end, just like abortion needs to end, and for some of the same reasons. It is brutal and slavery-like to kill one set of children while deliberately creating another set, many of whom will also be killed. It’s a terrible mess and ought to stop immediately
Not to mention that IVF and abortion usually go hand in hand under the euphemism of reduction, of course. Doctors refuse to release the statistics about how many are done a year so you know it must be ALOT! Also, dangerous fertility drugs, which almost always go along with artificial reproduction, are a known cancer risk for women and recent studies have shown that children conceived via IVF have increased risk of cancer and genetic abnormalities. Yet, the fertility industry in this country is largely unregulated and it boggles my mind why there has been no pro-life politician to introduce legislation to regulate, restrict, and/or ban. These “technologies” are getting cheaper every day and I just hope that the pro-life movement would stop being so “asleep at the switch” on this issue. (The “pro-choice” side would never dare to tackle these issues lest they risk endangering their precious “reproductive rights”)
To get back to the original point of this thread:
62% want abortion illegal in most or all circumstances
37% want abortion legal in most or all circumstances
We are still a majority pro-life nation so I wish that all of the politicians on our side (especially the ones running for President) would take a look at these numbers and realize that this is an issue to take head on, not to run away from.
“There is such a thing as justified killing in self defense and I think that this justification can exist on both an individual and societal level.” – can of worms, open. Slippery slope anyone? What’s that I smell in the air, ah, moral relativism.
When I look at the stats Denise I see in the first table that 78% support abortion in some or all circumstances. In the second table 78% support abortion in a few, many or all circumstances. In both tables only 21% are against abortion completely. Not what I’d call a majority complete opposition to abortion at all.
When I look at the stats Denise I see in the first table that 78% support abortion in some or all circumstances. In the second table 78% support abortion in a few, many or all circumstances. In both tables only 21% are against abortion completely. Not what I’d call a majority complete opposition to abortion at all
25% want abortion legal in all circumstances and 21% want abortion illegal in all circumstances. 53% want it legal, but only in certain circumstances. When that 53% is broken down you find that only 12% want it legal in most circumstances and a much larger 41% only want it legal in a few circumstances. Only 37% want abortion legal in most or all circumstances. The interpretation of the data could not be more clear.
I’m still waiting to find out what part of my mom’s body I am. Seriously, I’ve been on the edge of my seat for days. XD
“The interpretation of the data could not be more clear” – yes, that the vast majority of people do not want abortion banned in all circumstances. Will you settle for that?
And I’ve been on the edge of my seat waiting for you to tell me the title of obama’s second autobiography xalisae, or is there still a third one?
“The interpretation of the data could not be more clear” – yes, that the vast majority of people do not want abortion banned in all circumstances. Will you settle for that?
Myself nor Lifesitenews claimed that 62% of Americans want abortions banned in ALL circumstances. However, the 53% who are not on either extreme are NOT evenly divided between the choices “most” or “few” in regards to the circumstances where abortion might be allowed. A whopping 41% of that 53% only want abortion legal in a few circumstances. This means that they would want abortions severely restricted to a small number of cases. A majority of Americans do not support abortion-on-demand. Period.
A majority of Americans do not want abortions banned. Period. The door is open.
A majority of Americans do not want abortions banned. Period. The door is open.
A majority of Americans do want abortion banned if a small number of exceptions are allowed. You are in major denial about this poll.
Table 1 – legal under any circumstances 25%, illegal in all circumstances 21%.
Table 2 – the same results.
More people agree with full freedom than a complete ban.
And even more want it to be available at least in some circumstances.
Most people support abortion to some extent. The door is open.
More people agree with full freedom than a complete ban.
And even more want it to be available at least in some circumstances.
Most people support abortion to some extent. The door is open.
21% want all abortions banned and an additonal 41% only want it legal in a few circumstances (Few basically means “a small number”). This is a significantly larger percentage of Americans than those who support legalized abortion in most or all circumstances. Keep thinking whatever you want about this poll, but I bet most Americans would be very supportive of abortion bans which made exceptions for rape, incest, severe fetal abnormalities, and a life threatening condition for the mother.
“legal in a few circumstances (Few basically means “a small number”).” – and what are those few circumstances? What do they include? The poll doesn’t tell us.
“Keep thinking whatever you want about this poll” – what, that most people don’t want abortion completely banned, which is the desire of most of you here?
“and a life threatening condition for the mother” – pandora’s box.
“legal in a few circumstances (Few basically means “a small number”).” – and what are those few circumstances? What do they include? The poll doesn’t tell us.
The poll does not list the exceptions, but since the choice is “few” then this means that they only support a small number of exceptions.
“Keep thinking whatever you want about this poll” – what, that most people don’t want abortion completely banned, which is the desire of most of you here?
I know of no one on this board who does not support the exception of a life threatening condition affecting the mother. It is hard for me to believe that the 21% who want an outright ban would not support this one exception. I’ll assume that they do and that 21% does represent many people (but, not all) who post here. Many pro-lifers are divided on exceptions like rape and severe fetal abnormalities, but most ardent pro-lifers do not because the murder of an unborn child can never be justified unless it is too save the mother’s life. I am perfectly aware that most in the mushy middle would want a ban on “convenience” abortions, but would never support bans for the “hard” cases. However, these types of cases only make up a very small percentage of all abortions so keeping them legal would still criminalize most abortions. This would be a major win for our side and I bet a majority of Americans would support this.
The results of this poll were not at all surprising to me. Yes, most of us on this board are more “pro-life” then many in the general population, but that does not mean we are wrong. Morality is not a popularity contest. But, according to this poll, most in the middle tilt toward the pro-life side far more than tilt toward your side. And I bet that a militant “pro-choicer” like you, who wants few or no restrictions on abortion, won’t change your opinion just because you find out yours is the minority view.
“this means that they only support a small number of exceptions.” – yes but what are they? It might be bad for her mental health? She’s half way through her degree? She already has four children?
Ah, so pro-lifers fit on a scale ranging from a little bit to fervent. We have a tug of war going on.
Militant? I have no arms, just words.
this means that they only support a small number of exceptions.” – yes but what are they? It might be bad for her mental health? She’s half way through her degree? She already has four children?
Why would someone choose “few” over “most” when they support every convenience abortion under the sun including the mental health exception, which is a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it? It makes no sense.
Different people will have differing ideas of what those ‘few circumstances’ are. Just because they may make no sense to you, or to me, does not negate them.
Indeed, it is a big loophole, but that does not preclude it being part of some peoples’ ‘few’. They consider it to be a singular.
I want to clarify something: I don’t support Roe v. Wade. I believe every female seeking an elective abortion should have to see a picture or be told what the embryo or fetus looks like at her stage of pregnancy. She should be told exactly what the abortion will do to the embryo or fetus. Finally, she should have to sign a document stating she had this information.
I believe this system will radically reduce the number of abortions and that only those who truly cannot tolerate to complete the pregnancy will abort.
Denise Noe,
I would add that a woman should also be told the risks of abortion to her future fertility and mental and physical health.
Those that cannot “tolerate” a pregnancy need all of the help and support that WE can offer.
How about you write these kinds of comments more than the ones on lesbianism, sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy and your adoption/serial killer rants? I do the best I can to delete those.
Carla says:
September 21, 2011 at 8:47 am
Denise Noe,
I would add that a woman should also be told the risks of abortion to her future fertility and mental and physical health.>>
(Denise) I’m not against any information providing it is valid information and not controversial maybe sorts of connections like the breast cancer link.
The most important information is that about what the embryo and/or fetus looks like and IS like at the stage of pregnancy the woman is at. The late sex goddess Jayne Mansfield never had an abortion. She carried all 5 of her pregnancies to term. The reason she gave for opposing abortion was how early in the pregnancy the unborn is “formed,” that is, looks recognizably human and how early it has a heartbeat, brain activity and digestive activity. I believe that many females will be dissuaded from abortion — and persuaded to exercise greater caution in future sexual activity — if it is mandatory to receive this information prior to abortion. Having abortion enshrined as a “Constitutional right” makes this difficult which is why I want Roe v. Wade overturned.
<<Those that cannot “tolerate” a pregnancy need all of the help and support that WE can offer.
How about you write these kinds of comments more than the ones on lesbianism, sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy and your adoption/serial killer rants. I do the best I can to delete those.>>
(Denise) It seems to me that if we’re going to diminish the horror of abortion, we have to reduce the number of problem pregnancies!!!!! Yes, I’m for abstinence but, as I said, it doesn’t seem to be likely to sweep the nation.
Megan, I’m still waiting and hoping you will define “sacred and inviolable”.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/08/proliferations-8-30-11/
Different people will have differing ideas of what those ‘few circumstances’ are. Just because they may make no sense to you, or to me, does not negate them.
Abortion for any reason is currently the law of the land. If abortion were limited to just a “few” circumstances then most abortions done today would be illegal. If those responders do indeed support a long laundry list of exceptions outside of the “hard” cases then they have no concept of what “few” means.
Indeed, it is a big loophole, but that does not preclude it being part of some peoples’ ‘few’. They consider it to be a singular.
I have often heard people say that they would support an abortion ban as long as it would allow for rape, incest, severe fetal abnormalities, and a life threatening condition for the mother. I have never heard anyone mention the “mental health” exception. If those 41%, who did say they want abortion legal only in a few circumstances, do think “mental health” is a valid exception then they are completely unaware of how it is used as a giant loophole to allow for any abortion.
Most people support abortion to some extent. The door is open.
Most Americans support abortion to the extent that pro-choicers would find wholely unacceptable, since it would result in over 90% of abortions being illegal.
——————–
With respect to circumstances, most Americans agree that abortion should be available when there is a medical problem, whether involving the woman or the fetus. They generally disapprove of abortion in cases involving lifestyle decisions. Public opinion surveys indicate the following rank order of approval for abortion under specific circumstances:
Life of the woman: 84%
Physical health of the woman: 83%
Rape or incest: 79%
Mental health of the woman: 64%
Baby would be mentally impaired: 53%
Baby would be physically impaired: 51%
Would force teenager to drop out of school: 42%
Woman/family can’t afford the baby: 39%
Woman/family want no more children: 39%
Couple does not want to marry: 35%
Fertility selection (when fertility process creates multiple embryos): 29%
Would interfere with woman’s career: 25%
Link
——————–
Should Be Legal/Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases: 57%/42%
To Save Woman’s Life: 88%/10%
To Save Woman’s Health: 82%/14%
In Cases of Rape/Incest: 81%/17%
Physically Impaired Baby: 54%/40%
To End Unwanted Pregnancy: 42%/57%
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions: 23%/69%
Pregnancy is 6 Months+: 11%/86%
Link
——————–
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations…”
Legal/Illegal/Unsure
If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest:
10/23 – 24/07: 70%/21%/9%
2/28 – 3/1/06: 74%/21%/6%
If the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk:
10/23 – 24/07: 73%/15%/12%
2/28 – 3/1/06: 83%/12%/5%
If the pregnancy puts the mother’s mental health at risk:
10/23 – 24/07: 56%/28%/16%
2/28 – 3/1/06: 62%/30%/8%
If the baby has a fatal birth defect:
10/23-24/07: 53%/30%/18%
If the pregnancy is unwanted:
10/23 – 24/07: 39%/50%/11%
2/28 – 3/1/06: 43%/49%/8%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below]?
Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure
When the woman’s life is endangered:
85%/11%/2%/2%
When the woman’s physical health is endangered:
77%/17%/4%/2%:
When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest:
76%/19%/2%/3%
When the woman’s mental health is endangered:
63%/32%/3%/2%
When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired:
56%/37%/4%/3%
When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired:
55%/39%/3%/3$
When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child:
35%/61%/2%/2%
Link
——————–
Please tell me if you think abortions should be legal or illegal in your state under each of the following circumstances (RANDOMIZE):
LEGAL/ILLEGAL/DON’T KNOW
• The pregnancy endangers the life of the woman: 75%/18%/8%
• The pregnancy poses a threat to the physical: 70%/21%/9%
• The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest: 70%/24%/6%
• The fetus has a serious physical or mental: 55%/36%/9%
• The woman does not like the gender of the fetus: 17%/79%/4%
• The woman thinks a child would interfere with her education or career plans: 24%/72%/4%
• The fetus has a physical abnormality that could be repaired, such as a cleft palate: 28%/66%/7%
• The woman feels she cannot afford to raise a child: 31%/65%/5%
• The woman feels she is not yet ready to raise a child: 32%/63%/5%
• The woman is not married: 32%/62%/6%
• The pregnancy could cause depression or pose other mental health problems: 42%/51%/7%
Link
——————–
Can we close the door now? Both you and I know that organizations like NARAL, PPFA, NOW and the ACLU, among others, would NEVER accept limiting abortions to the following circumstances. They’d fight tooth and nail against it, labeling those who would seek such restrictions as extremists.
Again…those “most cases” (such as rape, incest, life of the mother) account for about 5% of abortions. Most Americans seem to want to keep abortion legal in those 5% of cases, but NOT the other 95%, which encompass purely elective abortions. That majority opinion is obviously more permissive than some want, and more stringent than some others want, but there you have it.
When pro-choicers say, “Ha! Most Americans want abortion legal in most cases!”, they’re conveniently leaving out that those same Americans want most ABORTIONS, themselves, illegal.
The different approval ratings show just how situational it is.
For that matter – huge numbers of people who would describe themselves as “pro-life,” when finding out they have a Down’s Syndrome pregnancy, choose to have an abortion. Looks to me like *even among pro-lifers* this is a higher percentage than what is the case among the general population as far as “impaired baby” being a good enough reason for abortion.
The different approval ratings show just how situational it is.
For that matter – huge numbers of people who would describe themselves as “pro-life,” when finding out they have a Down’s Syndrome pregnancy, choose to have an abortion. Looks to me like *even among pro-lifers* this is a higher percentage than what is the case among the general population as far as “impaired baby” being a good enough reason for abortion
I have read that 90% of people who get the Down Syndrome diagnosis from amnio go on to abort. Don’t you think that these people, who choose to have such an invasive test, have a propensity to abort if an abnormality is found? Many pro-lifers do not opt for these tests because they will not abort under any circumstance.
Absolutely Denise Maria. Many who have those tests have them because they will abort if Down Syndrome or something other is found. I refused these tests. Why take an unnecessary risk for no reason?
Denise Maria: I have read that 90% of people who get the Down Syndrome diagnosis from amnio go on to abort. Don’t you think that these people, who choose to have such an invasive test, have a propensity to abort if an abnormality is found?
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. They want to know what’s going on.
____
Many pro-lifers do not opt for these tests because they will not abort under any circumstance.
Do we know what “many” is, there? Even if there will be no abortion, period, many people would want to know what to be prepared for.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. They want to know what’s going on.
It is not reasonable to have a test with the intention of aborting if you find something you do not like.
Do we know what “many” is, there? Even if there will be no abortion, period, many people would want to know what to be prepared for.
It is self-selection bias. Most (but NOT all) who request the test do so because they want the option of ending the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. These tests are invasive and carry the risk of miscarriage. There are some people who will have these tests ”just to know”, but they are the minority. I have met many people, who are against abortion, who opted out of the test because their Doctor told them that abortion was the only solution to any “problem”.
Wow, someone revoke that doctor’s licence. They’re supposed to HELP.
Absolutely Denise Maria. Many who have those tests have them because they will abort if Down Syndrome or something other is found. I refused these tests. Why take an unnecessary risk for no reason
Thanks, Praxedes. It infuriates me how this 90% statistic is often used to slander pro-lifers as to say that we will talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Anyone with common sense knows that ardent pro-lifers are much,much more likely to opt out of risky amniocentesis than are those who think abortion is justified for any reason or even just for some exceptions.
Wow, someone revoke that doctor’s licence. They’re supposed to HELP.
Well, from what I have heard from people, Doctors do not come out and say it right away, but when pressed they have to admit that the test is unneccessary if abortion is not an option.
Anyone with common sense knows that ardent pro-lifers are much,much more likely to opt out of risky amniocentesis than are those who think abortion is justified for any reason or even just for some exceptions.
Great point, and so true. I know of pro-life individuals who opted out of amnio and waited until birth to see if their baby’s DS diagnosis was correct.
And when I was pregnant, I refused all the early prenatal diagnosis tests. My doctor told me the tests are notoriously inaccurate, and she actually said to me, “If you wouldn’t do anything different, don’t take the test.” In other words, “if you’re not thinking of aborting, there’s really no reason to do it now.”
Oh, and my OBGYN was not what I’d consider a “pro-lifer” and she didn’t know I was pro-life when she said that, so that’s saying something.
If 90% of Down Syndrome babies are being aborted, people aren’t having these tests to see “what’s going on.” They are looking to find out if their child will be “perfect” or not. There would be no other reason to risk a miscarriage. Knowing what’s going on is not going to change anything.
It was recommended that I have these tests with my last pregnancy because “you are an older mother.” Yup, I was the big 3-0. These tests are about making money just like abortions are about making money. It is frightening to think that some of those who we expect to help and care for us and our families really don’t give a crap about us one way or another.
I hope the medical schools start pumping out some prolife doctors and nurses or we are in real trouble.
It is self-selection bias. Most (but NOT all) who request the test do so because they want the option of ending the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. These tests are invasive and carry the risk of miscarriage. There are some people who will have these tests ”just to know”, but they are the minority. I have met many people, who are against abortion, who opted out of the test because their Doctor told them that abortion was the only solution to any “problem”.
Very good posts, Denise Maria. Agreed that most would be willing to end the pregnancy if a severe enough abnormality would be found. I’ve never seen any data on how many “pro-lifers” have the test done, regardless of the outcome or their willingness, when all is said and done, to have an abortion.
Praxedes: If 90% of Down Syndrome babies are being aborted, people aren’t having these tests to see “what’s going on.” They are looking to find out if their child will be “perfect” or not. There would be no other reason to risk a miscarriage. Knowing what’s going on is not going to change anything.
Agreed, P. But it’s not really that 90% of DS babies are being aborted – that 90% (or even higher numbers I see some places) are for people who have the test, so it’s only among a portion of DS pregnancies.
I didn’t know the test brought significant risk of miscarriage. Also don’t know the total numbers as far as DS babies and abortion – that’s my question now.
I believe that white americans as a majority should outlaw abortion of fellow white American children and instead opt for placing the child in an adoption agency because it is difficult to adopt a whte american child.
I am okay with african americans choosing to have abortions. Blacks should not be constrained by others to choose abortions if they wish.