New abortion poll suggests "a weeding out process" of nonregenerating pro-aborts

UPDATE, 9:15p: Read also The Roe Effect on Wikipedia.

[HT: Facebook friend Christopher R.]

5:51p: The Charleston Daily Mail blog posted new abortion poll results on January 23 with a couple interesting observations. Click to enlarge...

abortion poll 2010.png

"... a weeding out process as women who favor abortion do not have as many children to raise to continue their beliefs" - Great analysis.

"... remarkable tolerance on one side" - Ow. Perhaps that's true, but I think it's more that the growing numbers we find in our camp are still reticent to impose their beliefs, having grown up with the "choice" mantra in their heads. Or it could indeed mean a large segment of pro-lifers aren't truly committed to stopping abortion. It's likely a combination of both.


Comments:

Sorry, but as a Millennial I disagree. Students are more pro-life because they are thinking about the issue for themselves, not because they are "inheriting" pro-life convictions. We're seeing our peers face the aftermath of abortion, we're being supported by the work of groups like Students for Life of America, and we're aware of the fact that a third of our generation is missing. Many of us are engaged in pro-life activism in direct opposition to our parents.

Posted by: Kelsey at January 25, 2010 6:04 PM


So if the "pro-aborts" aren't reproducing, shouldn't you anti-aborts be praising and thanking your mythical, Middle Eastern sky god. If the "aborts" don't reproduce (love the use of the verb) and multiply, that means the world is safe for babies because the wimmins who are "left behind" will be reproducing like rabbits. And naturally, their issue will be, in turn, happy breeders. And if the liberal "aborts" stop breeding, there is less chance of babies being tainted with teh gay. So don't worry, be happy.

But a Knights of Columbus poll - puleeze. That's about as credible as a poll by the KKK. But whatever....

Posted by: Artemis at January 25, 2010 6:08 PM


Artemis,
You must know by now that religion is not a pre-requisite for the pro-life stance.

Kelsey,
I agree with you! Great job at SecularProLife.org!


Posted by: Janet at January 25, 2010 6:16 PM


Thank you Janet!

Posted by: Kelsey at January 25, 2010 6:24 PM


Kelsey, I agree; that was a fantastic comment -- you have insight into the genocide of our time. One third of my children's generation has been killed before their first breath. Heartbreaking.

My daughter - 17 yo - was in DC for the March for Life. Inspiring!!

Posted by: A mom at January 25, 2010 6:48 PM


I wouldn't call the 56 to 19% difference "tolerance" by the majority opinion. I would call it apathy expressed through inaction and ignorance.

We pro-lifers must do a better job in harnessing the power of this mandate and get on with repealing Roe v. Wade once and for all.

Speak to everyone you know about abortion. Tell them how it is wrong. Tell them why we have to stop it. Shout it out my friends. The time is now to slay this monster.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 25, 2010 7:14 PM


Hey Artemis:

Blasphemy is not allowed on this site.

Calling Jesus Christ a "Middle Eastern Sky God" is close to slitting your own spiritual throat and I suggest you cease and desist the use of this vile language on this site or risk being banned.

Further, continuing in this darkness will result in your eternal damnation.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 25, 2010 7:17 PM


dont you guys know how to do math? 44 vs 56 is not a tremendous difference, especially since all data like this has a margin of error. its certainly not the difference between 19 and 56.

also, phil, you dont have the legal right to force your religion down anyones throat, despite your clear (and delusional) sense of entitlement. last i checked, it doesnt say anywhere in the bible that you personally get to decide who goes to hell and who doesnt.

Posted by: l at January 25, 2010 7:37 PM


sorry, have a margin of error (data being plural)

Posted by: tom at January 25, 2010 7:40 PM


While I believe, there is an effect of pro-aborts having less children, there is probably a greater effect from both science and personal experience.
I have an 18 year old daughter, she and her friends are definitely pro-life. This group of boys and girls offer a cross-section of religion and politics; they don't agree on everything.

Ultrasound and neonatal technology, have a profound effect. Almost all these kids have seen an excited expectant mother show a picture a child in-vitro which reinforces that fetuses are babies. Many saw their siblings in those ultrasound pictures. They have also seen documentaries which show the development. Additionally, many of today's young adults were either preemies or know a preemie. It is very obvious to them that abortion ends a life and that it isn't a 'blob of tissue' anymore.

A further factor may be the integration of young mothers in schools. Seeing their peers carrying on and raising loving children also brings home that life isn't over with a pregnancy. Many, many young girls had abortions in the past because of the shame involved -- much of that is gone now.

In so many cases pro-aborts are overing a choice of either believing them or trusting our 'lying eyes'. I'm encouraged that the pro-death viewpoint is being undermined by reality.

Posted by: LB at January 25, 2010 7:47 PM


The only numbers that matter are the ones turned in the voting booths - and both SD and Colorado soundly defeated the measures before them. The polls are very weird - more and more people are equating themselves with pro-life, yet the polls that ask about overturning r v wade show a huge majority don't want it overturned. Maybe more and more people are equating pro-life less about an outright ban and more with personal convictions of them never getting an abortion. Something doesn't quite add up.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 25, 2010 7:48 PM


I asked my sister in law (pregnant with my 4th niece; my brother's 3rd girl and their 4th child over all) if the baby kicks a lot when she hears her big brother Kolbe acting up. She said the baby has been kicking a lot. I just hope this princess is very mellow and can handle a big brother who will probably not like her after she's born.


Young people are more pro life because they realize 1/3 of their generation have been wiped out. I'm a post-roe birth and so is my older brother.

And the technology is just amazing. I LOVED the "In the Womb" special they aired on National Geographic a few years ago.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 25, 2010 8:08 PM


"l" and "tom"...

It's nice to know that you guys make multiple posts by different names to make us think there are more abortion advocates than there really are. With the way your guys' side is reproducing, eventually you'll have to start talking to yourselves just to have a conversation with someone who shares your viewpoint.

Posted by: xalisae at January 25, 2010 8:20 PM


This is called the Roe effect, and isn't a new theory.

Posted by: Nulono at January 25, 2010 8:26 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

Posted by: Nulono at January 25, 2010 8:37 PM


Artemis, given your combination of adolescent snark and infantile stamping of feet, I'd say you were how old? . . . Oh, that's right, you said (on another thread) that you were among the HS class of '66. That would make you what, 62 now? You fooled me by acting and speaking so immaturely.

Poor confused child of the '60's. The party's over now. The teens and young adults of today are much more responsible, mature and aware than you. They are seeing through the whole sexual liberation as freedom thing. They understand science, they know unborn children are children and are our responsibility. Let's hope another generation is never fooled.

I confess to being only about 10 years younger than you, and am also a baby-boomer, but I had the wisdom never to buy into those lies. I only wish you could understand how foolish you are.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at January 25, 2010 8:37 PM


We pro-lifers must do a better job in harnessing the power of this mandate and get on with repealing Roe v. Wade once and for all.
Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 25, 2010 7:14 PM

Repealing Roe is only the first dragon we have to slay. That will bounce the fight about abortion back to the states. This is the summary by the Guttmacher Institute of what that will look like. Places like Nebraska, Alabama, and Texas will probably have an easy enough time banning abortion there. New York and California, on the other hand, are going to be a bit tougher. We need to be in this for the long haul, because the road is very long indeed.

Posted by: Keli Hu at January 25, 2010 8:54 PM


Posted by: Artemis at January 25, 2010 6:08 PM


..."shouldn't you anti-aborts be praising and thanking your mythical, Middle Eastern sky god."

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

Artinamist,

The 'middle eastern sky god' as you refer to him/her is not intimidated or impressed by your immature petulence.

Maybe throwing yourself on floor and pitching a tantrum will work.

I under stand the prophets and priest of Bel cut themselves with knives and wailed for hours in futile attempt to get the attention of their god whose eyes do not see and whose ears do not hear, while the prophet and priest of the Living God goaded them and taunted them, asking if their god was asleep or had he/she gone to bathroom.

You might try appealing to Moloch. Many infants were sacriced to this false god maybe if your scream loud enough you can get his/her attetion.

Shoot, just draw names at random from the pantheon of pagan gods and see who shows up first.

When you have exhausted yourself and none of the other gods bring you rest from your struggle then remember this name and give Him a shout.

His name is Jesus.

Happy hunting.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 25, 2010 9:48 PM


Posted by: l at January 25, 2010 7:37 PM


"last i checked, it doesnt say anywhere in the bible that you personally get to decide who goes to hell and who doesnt."

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

Acutally, the only ticket to hell you are authorized to punch is your own.

When your time comes to make that decision I am confident the Conductor will make you an offer that will be too good to refuse.

Until then, stay between the ditches and keep your sunny side up.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 25, 2010 9:53 PM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 25, 2010 7:48 PM


"Something doesn't quite add up."
-----------------------------------------------------

RINO,

Well I can see where that would be problem for someone such as yourself who is unhappy that 2+2=4.

Just keep listening for the 'pop'.

When you finally hear that sound everything will begin to come into focus.

Enjoy your bliss while it lasts.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 25, 2010 10:00 PM


Xalisae---LOL!!!!!

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 25, 2010 10:27 PM


Xalisae- that was heeelarious.

Actually Artemis' comments crack me up because he so clearly demonstrates the more deluded segments of his generation.

Artemis sounds like a high hippie college student regurgitating nutty professors' screed and stuck on 'spout' mode.

As a Catholic, I'm trying to be offended. But really there's nothing insightful or accurate in what he says. And so I find myself chuckling.

The funny thing is that angry hippies (always love the irony there) will continue to age and be in the care of more pro-life younger generations very soon. Lucky them- most of us will roll our eyes at the nuttiness and love 'em anyway.

Posted by: Mary Ann at January 25, 2010 11:28 PM


I would guess that Artemis is a female (I hate to use a word that would actually suggest maturity, like "woman") because of the name, which is the name of a Greek goddess, the equivalent of the Roman Diana.

But what do you bet she'll want to dispute this just to spite us?

Posted by: Lori Pieper at January 26, 2010 12:03 AM


http://digs.by/1GY8 URGENT:Don't let them 'pull the plug' On BABY ISAIAH!Judge decides Jan 27-every tweet,blog,call,letter is another prayer PLS Share!

Thanks for keeping on top of the prolife movement and the fight against the proabort generation...it is promising that GenXrs and Millenials are seeing the error of their parent's generations ways.

Posted by: @littlebytesnews at January 26, 2010 2:58 AM


Thanks, Lori Pieper. When Artemis refers to a "mythical, Middle Eastern sky god," she is aptly referring to herself. We threaten the abortion industry. The following is from Acts 19.

Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. "After I have been there," he said, "I must visit Rome also." He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer.
About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in no little business for the craftsmen. He called them together, along with the workmen in related trades, and said: "Men, you know we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty."
When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's traveling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theater. Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater.
The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. The Jews pushed Alexander to the front, and some of the crowd shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"
The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today's events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it." After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 4:46 AM


Blasphemy is not allowed on this site.
Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 25, 2010 7:17 PM
I don't agree with the pro-abortion BS that Artemis spouts, but we should defend his or her right to say it. As soon as America allows censorship based on people being offended, the truth about abortion will be number one on the list of offensive things to be silenced. Pro-lifers cannot afford to ignore the importance of freedom of speech.

Posted by: Kelsey at January 26, 2010 7:27 AM


Jon--WOW! Is that amazing or what? I am actually really encouraged that Artemis is on here when I read that in God's word! We are threatening their money-making schemes. The very name this pro-abort has used and this passage from God's word has just encouraged me so much! We'll keep fighting on! what we do matters in eternity!

Posted by: Sydney M at January 26, 2010 8:19 AM


Hi Kelsey 7:27am

An excellent point. With freedom of speech we also have freedom of religion. We don't have to agree with or like what someone says or believes, but we must respect their right to say and believe it.

If we can silence or suppress free speech and the religous or non-religious beliefs of others, the same can in turn be done to us.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 9:03 AM


Artemis, you sound like you're angry and bitter, and I'm just wondering why. Like Mary stated, you have a right to your disbelief and freedom of speech. But I just wonder why some atheists (not all of course) feel it's necessary to ridicule people of faith. For example, comparing the Knights of Columbus to the KKK. I am not a Catholic, but was really necessary to say that? I'm sure that was offensive to many people here.

Anyway, I believe the results of the poll. Highly educated, pro-choice women tend to have one child or none at all. This is true across the board, even with African American women. A good example is my sister -- she said that she'd rather have cats than kids. Nothing wrong with that, but I love both!

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 26, 2010 9:24 AM


But what do you bet she'll want to dispute this just to spite us?

Posted by: Lori Pieper at January 26, 2010 12:03 AM

ROFLMAO! I already admitted that I attended a Catholic "girls" academy. So unless a had a sex change (ewww, dirty, bad, "bro ken," going to hell) I'm still female. Although I no longer have a uterus, I'm still very attached to my ovaries. When I did have a uterus, I didn't allow the church (which in my state no longer has the power it once did) or the state to put their grubby hands into it. I reserved that for my sexual partners (ewww, dirty bad....)

And BTW, for those who say that today's youth are not sexually active - wake up and smell the coffee. Studies show that those who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as those who don't. Studies show that they are also less likely to use contraception. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122900629.htmlshow (Back in my day, the smart kids at the "Academy" used birth control. The stupid ones got pregnant.) In case you haven't noticed it, the teen pregnancy rate has gone up after a 10 year decline and that means kids are making the beast with two backs. Interestingly, the highest rates of teen pregnancy are in the states with abstinence only education.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/teen-pregnancy/

And I would really like to see some data on "pro life" parents having more children. With the economy being so bad, I suspect that even the anti aborts are limiting the size of their families. I grew up in a strict Irish Catholic neighborhood where women bred until they were physically and mentally exhausted. Their offspring are not following the pattern.

And BTW, I wasn't comparing the KKK to the Knights of Columbus. I was merely pointing out that vis-a-vis statistical tools, the "validity" and "reliability" of stats produced by a pro-life group is questionable. One of my uncles was a "knight" who had the sword and the big hat.

Posted by: Artemis at January 26, 2010 10:12 AM


@Artemis: You must be exhausted after that long hard fight with all those straw men! Do you need a drink of water?

Posted by: Keli Hu at January 26, 2010 11:10 AM


Thanks, Sydney! What we do does matter in eternity.

Kelsey and Mary, freedom of speech is a right. Aren't rights political? They are meant to protect us from the state, which George Washington called "force." For a blogger to censor commenters on her own blog does not violate that right. And I do think, as Phil Schembri has noted, that Jill Stanek does not allow blasphemy.

The Third Commandment requires that we respect God's name. Just as I do not trample my flag nor spit at my neighbour, so I do not profane the name of my God. The reasons are of course God's glory and our own good. If we revere God, then we want to keep His commandments. One of these commandments, by the way, is the Sixth. When we revere God, then we will stand in awe of new life that He intended to resemble Himself, i.e. we will not induce abortions.

You aren't a Christian? You should be! You're crazy not to be! (Psalm 2)

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 11:22 AM


George Washington said, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 11:28 AM


Hi Jon,

First of all what Jill permits on her blog is her right and decision and I respect her judgment.

Freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed in the Constitution. What is blasphemy can be open to interpretation. Is it blasphemy to a Hawaiian if I ridicule someone's belief in a volcano goddess? Is it blasphemy to a Muslim if I tell someone they are doomed for eternity for believing in Allah?

None of us has any constitutional right not to be offended. This means that when people exercise their right to speech and to believe what they do or do not choose I may not at all like what they have to say. I may be insulted. In turn what you say and believe/not believe may be insulting to someone else.

If I don't like what people say on this blog, I will address that person. If Jill's standards on HER blog have been violated I will respect her decision to take whatever action she sees fit.

I fully respect the right of everyone on this blog to their beliefs and to express them. It is my choice not to involve myself in religious debates and discussions.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 11:39 AM


Keli Hu 11:10am

Perhaps a shot of Jack Daniels instead?

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 11:43 AM


Mary, thanks for clarifying; your comment at 9:03 a.m. seemed to say something else. I do try to silence blasphemers (by not giving them a forum in which to blaspheme), but my censorship is not the same thing as the civil government trying to silence blasphemers. Anyway, there are standard restrictions to the right of free speech, e.g. laws against slander and incitement to violence, and to these I might add a prohibition against blasphemy. For example, George Washington recommended that his army officers punish blasphemous soldiers.

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 12:09 PM


Of course, George Washington lived in a nation with a much more Christian world and life view. Likely, as Mary said, any law I make against blasphemy today would be used by my successor tomorrow to blaspheme God.

Of course, such a messed-up affair has already happened with the idea of separation of church and state. That idea, which was meant for the good of the Church (regardless of the various denominations included), became subverted by denying that secular humanism is a religion. In this way, secular humanism has become the state religion in the United States.

I'm quite sure that freedom of religion originally meant freedom of Christianity in whatever denomination you adhered to. There was none of the nonsense of multiculturalism. The current meaning of freedom of religion is laughable because the civil government cannot help but legislate morality. It's the job of the state to impose law and order. The morality (or immorality) comes from the dominant religion, which is secular humanism.

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 12:34 PM


Hi Jon,

It can be difficult to get a point across on the internet.

You certainly have every right to speak up and express your outrage at what you consider blasphemy. That is part of freedom of speech and religion and you would have my full support whether I agree with your beliefs or not.

If someone is in your home you certainly have every right to set the standards as to what will or will not be tolerated.
Jill has every right to dictate what will/ will not be tolerated on HER blog.

Again Jon, blasphemy can be in the eye of the beholder and censoring people because they offend your beliefs can be a double edged sword. Someone who is offended by your beliefs may want you to put a sock in it. Should you be silenced?

As for slander, etc. that's another ballgame when you're destroying someone's reputation and life with lies and yes you must be held accountable. However if the "slander" and "gossip" turns out to be true, well, you're out of luck. That person had a right to say it.

I personally have learned to treat gossip for what it is, gossip. True or not, it has no relevance in my life so I don't repeat it.
When people whisper that so and so is having an affair, I ask if they spend their time looking in people's bedroom windows. They get the message.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 12:52 PM


Hi Jon 12:34PM

I would think freedom of religion meant just that, freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers didn't make exceptions or set limits.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 12:59 PM


Of course, George Washington lived in a nation with a much more Christian world and life view.

I have to disagree here. Washington was a slaveowner, as were many of the founding fathers, including William Penn (one notable exception is John Adams). I'm sorry, but i just can't hold these people in high esteem.

Right near Independence Hall there is an excavation underway of the slave quarters at the first presidential residence. Philadelphia was also a slave port -- not as big as some in the south, but slaves definitely were bought and sold here. Washington however, did state in his will that if he died first, his slaves were to be set free upon the death of his wife Martha. She freed them soon after his death. Hmm, wonder why? To his credit, Washington also provided funds for his former slaves that they could start new lives.

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 26, 2010 1:18 PM


What is freedom? What is religion? Every word has a context, and there are various theories of interpretation, which have become critical to the appointment of judges to American supreme court.

Religion might be anything to do with a god. Religion might be a response to the true God. Religion might be true religion, which is "to visit orphans and widows [and pre-born] in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Or religion, might be, as I think it was for the American founding fathers, a reference to a particular form of Christian worship.

From a chat forum (emphasis mine)--"the phrase 'separation of church and state' is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between CHURCH and State.'"

The American founding fathers were disestablishmentarian.

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2010 1:21 PM


Hi Jon,

Concerning seperaton of church and state it should be pointed out that religious people and institutions have long had an active role in shaping laws and social policy in this country.

I only recall SOCS becoming a selective and convenient issue during the battle to legalize abortion when the Catholic Church was deliberately targeted by PAs.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 1:28 PM


I understand Jon's point. He isn't trying to tell Jill what she can or cannot accept on this blog, I think he is trying to remind Artemis to be respectful.

We are too tolerant of those that blaspheme God. You can't even watch a movie anymore without "oh my ***" and taking Christ's name in vain in every scene. Its awful.

my own in-laws always take the Lord's name in vain (and yet think they are good Catholics) and I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a Christian could do that. Thats one of the ten commandments! One of the BASIC rules. When they say it around me or my son it really bothers me. I am debating saying something to them.

As a culture we have really gotten to a place of disrespect towards our Heavenly Father who loves us so much He puts breath in our lungs every day. So sad.

Hi Phillymiss! I live near philly. Just wanted to say "hey".

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 26, 2010 2:43 PM


Hi Sydney M,

That's fine with me. Jon can believe and say what he wants. So can Artemis. Freedom of speech and religion are a two way street is my only point and attempts to silence people are a double-edged sword.

I may think nothing of expressing my ridicule or disbelief to another person concerning their, let's say, pagan beliefs and they may consider that blasphemous and disrespectful. Do I have a right to not agree with them and consider their beliefs ridiculous? Absolutely. Do they have a right to tell me they are offended and consider me blasphemous? Absolutely.
That's freedom of speech and religion.

I was referring to someone else talking about removing Artemis from Jill's blog, not Jon.

Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2010 3:57 PM


It is not that pro-life people are inactive. Abolitionists were at it for eighty years and still couldn't get rid of slavery with the court upholding it. The fact is abortion is simply legal by judicial fiat similar to the decisions that upheld slavery. The court could have ruled slavery unconstitutional, but the right mix of folks didn't happen to be sitting there. Just like now. If there had been one different guy on the court, we wouldn't have the imagined "right" to an abortion. There isn't even a legal basis for a right to an abortion in the text of the Roe v. Wade decision.
It is simply an edict. Only those who contributed to and support the Roe v. Wade decision are to blame, not those who work for justice and human rights for unborn children.

Posted by: hippie at January 26, 2010 4:21 PM



And BTW, for those who say that today's youth are not sexually active - wake up and smell the coffee. Studies show that those who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as those who don't. Studies show that they are also less likely to use contraception. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122900629.htmlshow (Back in my day, the smart kids at the "Academy" used birth control. The stupid ones got pregnant.) In case you haven't noticed it, the teen pregnancy rate has gone up after a 10 year decline and that means kids are making the beast with two backs. Interestingly, the highest rates of teen pregnancy are in the states with abstinence only education.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/teen-pregnancy/


Posted by: Artemis at January 26, 2010 10:12 AM


Actually smart people have less sex as well as use contraception more effectively.

The following post from a science blog has analyses from some studies. It might be too much for Artemis, but others may enjoy reading it.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

excerpt:

"The team looked at 1000s of representative teens grades 7-12 in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and The Biosocial Factors in Adolescent Development datasets, both of which include an IQ test, and include detailed sexual experience questions ranging from hand-holding to intercourse. As with the other study there was a curvilinear relationship: students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between. Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks)...."

"By the age of 19, 80% of US males and 75% of women have lost their virginity, and 87% of college students have had sex. But this number appears to be much lower at elite (i.e. more intelligent) colleges. According to the article, only 56% of Princeton undergraduates have had intercourse. At Harvard 59% of the undergraduates are non-virgins, and at MIT, only a slight majority, 51%, have had intercourse. Further, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex."

"The student surveys at MIT and Wellesley also compared virginity by academic major. The chart for Wellesley displayed below shows that 0% of studio art majors were virgins, but 72% of biology majors were virgins, and 83% of biochem and math majors were virgins! Similarly, at MIT 20% of 'humanities' majors were virgins, but 73% of biology majors. "

Posted by: hippie at January 26, 2010 4:34 PM


Very interesting. Maybe the math and science majors are virgins because they are geeks!

Seriously, if these students were telling the truth, they raise into serious doubt the popular conception that every young person is "doing it." My daughter, aged 21, and her boyfriend took a chastity vow and as far as I know they are sticking with it.

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 26, 2010 6:34 PM


Mary I agree with you. Totally. We don't have a right to not be offended but we have a right to speak up and say "hey, your language is offensive!" Totally totally agree with you!

I like when the pro-aborts are on here. Its fun, at least for me, to debate them. I enjoy it, and a lot of what they say is eye-opening into their mindset.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 26, 2010 7:23 PM


Working on homework with my 6th grade son. We are reading a publication put out by the Hazelden Foundation.(2009)
It says
Kids who begin using alcohol at an early age also tend to be sexually active at an early age. Early alcohol use contributes to today's high rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and acquaintance rape.

I would have to agree with that.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 26, 2010 7:39 PM


Philly:

also, those of a certain mental capacity have the ability to think of more factors, pro and con, when weighing a decision to do or not to do something. They're more knowledgeable in general, and therefore more knowledgeable when it comes to circumstances and repercussions of their actions on their lives, which they are also more likely to have plans for which don't include immediately having children.

Posted by: xalisae at January 26, 2010 8:04 PM


"Working on homework with my 6th grade son. We are reading a publication put out by the Hazelden Foundation.(2009)
It says
Kids who begin using alcohol at an early age also tend to be sexually active at an early age. Early alcohol use contributes to today's high rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and acquaintance rape."

Carla 7:39,

What an excellent point to bring up. It makes so much sense.
Alcohol addiction causes so many problems! I wish drinking wasn't considered an informal "right of passage" for so many American kids. Parents really need to wake up and talk to their children at an early about drinking. Of course, it's more difficult for a parent to tell their child not to drink when the parent does...

I often hear parents say, if you want to keep your children out of trouble, keep an eye on them and keep them BUSY. Makes sense.

Posted by: Janet at January 27, 2010 1:14 AM


Janet,
It is hard homework for me. I told my son that I started drinking at 14. It led to all kinds of other risky behaviors(who does those things sober?) and after that I didn't care anymore. Drinking was always involved though. Always.
I want better for my children.

Now I get to do a quiz, and have a discussion and write a letter to my son as my assignments. :)

My husband and I do not drink or smoke. We have open discussions with our children and DO keep them busy with other activities! Even the abortion industry knows what a positive influence parents can have on their children. Which is why they oppose parental notification!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 27, 2010 8:57 AM


Hi Carla,

You're a great role model and I'm sure your son respects your honesty with him!
* * * *

Parental Notification? Well, in Illinois, the story begins about 15 years ago....... I don't think the framework is in place yet to enforce it .... but I might be wrong....

Posted by: Janet at January 27, 2010 2:52 PM


Carol Everett talked about going into the schools and pushing their sex ideology and also undermining parental authority by telling students that their parents just wouldn't understand. They tried to drive a wedge in parental authority and then the girls would come in for birth control and "trust" the abortion industry more so than their own parents.

Their plans are evil.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 27, 2010 3:51 PM