Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
I have two comments (questions); one or both should raise someone's hackles.
If "Right to Life" is so concerned with "Life", then what about the "Life" of the mother??
Secondly, has anyone else noticed "Right to Life" is asking everyone to "Choose Life??" So, am I to assume (oops, there I go again)"Right to Life" is now also "Pro Choice??"
Nucanuck, I know two white couples in church that have adopted more than one black child. (Awhile back there was a lawsuit over the racism that would only let blacks abopt blacks.)
U.S. blacks are aborted at around twice the rate of whites. Jesse Jackson used to call this "genocide." Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, one of the more effective national prolife organiations, calls it "Klan Parenthood."
Woody, prolife outfits like AAA Women's Services here (may've changed name lately?) help expectant mothers with practical matters. There days fornication and husbandless pregnancies are a matter of course, but an expectant unwed mother who needs a place to stay for a few months can probably get help from AAA; again, I know a respectable middle-class church couple that let such a one live with them while expecting. (And I remember one of the rare cases in which a pregnancy might endanger the life of the mother, who was comatose. The "pro-choice" crowd killed the unborn baby to "help" the mother--and then killed the mother.) And consider Tim Tebow.
I call abortion "the murder of little babies for the convenience of grownups." Evil, plain and simple, wose than panhandling. (And the libertarian Christian vision for panhandlers--"work or starve"--is different from the liberal vision, with a truer compassion, as chattaghost may or may not be hinting.)
EaTn- Absolutely right! I couldn't agree MORE with your point! I have very little patience with anti-abortion views from someone who never faces the risk of getting pregnant.
This cartoon makes a pretty broad assumption, unless there is some news or data that Mr. Bennett is commenting that I haven't heard. The "Right to Life" is not the same as the pursuit of happiness.
I've been through downtown Chicago on multiple occasions, where (sadly) homeless are found regularly. I recall walking back to the Metra (train) station after going to Taste of Chicago and watching a homeless man sift through garbage for leftover alcohol. The image of him turning up bottle after bottle I believe is a microcosm of the substance abuse that exists among many homeless.
There are organizations who are versed in taking care and helping homeless individuals, especially since many struggle with so many other things other than a lack money. This may include emotional and psychological problems, substance abuse, and so on. Putting the money in there hands serves much better than handing it out to the individuals. I think there was an Oprah story on a homeless man who was handed $100,000 dollars and wasted it all because he simply didn't know what to do with the money.
Its sad that abortion has turned from an extreme last resort to a for profit form of birth control. Having known two females that had abortions in college I can attest to the fact that it destroyed them mentally and took them years to recover emotionally and in one case physically. Its very sad to see someone is that much pain.
Why can't men and women be responsible with a condom?
Are we teaching girls today that sex and the temporary acceptance by a man is more important that their future? We teach our daughters to be sluts and our boys to disrespect women so we get the millions of abortions we have each year.
Ultimately you can spin it with catch phrases like Choice and A Womans Body but in the end we all have to admit what it is. The end of life at its beginning and the destroying of another in its prime. How many women out there are proud that they've had an abortion? Anyone? Anyone?
In my opinion, this cartoon is aimed at those within the anti-abortion movement who have great concern for the well-being of someone until he or she is actually born. But once someone is actually breathing on their own- all bets are off. If you truly believe that life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred.
I have no problem with a pro-lifer who would protest the death penalty as well as abortion, or who would exercise compassion or extend charity to an individual either before or after their birth. There are many within this movement, however, who would gladly force a woman to reproduce, but would show little concern about the welfare of the child afterward.
It does sometimes appear as though those whom indavidually contribute the least to society are the ones who reproduce the most frequently in these increasingly overpopulated times.
And though an apple can be picked up and carried far from the tree... most grow in the same soil as said tree.
Though a singular and finite perspective is a dangerous thing to heed I will admit.
Well coming from a mother of 2, amazing beautiful children, I am not for abortion...however, my mother told me as a young girl that she had received 2 abortions before. One because she didn't want the responsibility as she already had two children at age 22, and the 2nd abortion for the simple fact that she was afraid of it being deformed because a man beat her. Neither of these reasons to me are a good enough excuse to demolish a living fetus. She didn't even go to the doctor to see what the chances were of this 2nd child being normal...simply because she didn't care. All she had was an "excuse" and a bad one at that. Then even hearing out of her mouth to me when she would get angry that she should have aborted me as well. Unfortunately, this statement has tormented me my entire life. I have often tried to understand why she would have been so proud of her 2 successful abortions, and even wanted my 17 year old rebellious sister to get one this past winter (luckily my sis was not pregnant like we thought). I think it is quite obvious that I am Pro-Life, but I must say that I am proud of my choice in delivering 2 beautiful children because of that. My family said "If you do not have an abortion, then you and your baby will never be allowed around us." (because my son is mixed) I told them, well, write me off! Eventually they came around...and would not give anything in the world for my 2 babies! Just a little example of how abortion can affect someone mentally. Not only does it affect the ones who actually have the abortion, but if affects everyone around them as well. This is much too lengthy and probably not of any interest but sometimes I feel the need to speak out!
Oh I see, if it is ok to kill a fetus, then it must be ok to kill any other non-productive member of society. I see no difference in killing a fetus or a mentally retarded person or an elderly person. All deserve to LIVE equally.
Now the difference is what I am seeing from this cartoon. I see a middle aged person that is looking for a handout instead of working for a living like we should. And don't anyone start telling me how unchristian I am because I don't care. Because that is not the truth. I just spent a whole day last weekend helping less fortunate people than myself. I have been down and out with a family to raise. I have worked 2 to 4 jobs at a time to make ends meet and have obviously passed on a good work ethic to my son who is doing the same now.
MrD's Lady - good post. I feel the same as you. I had a special needs child that passed away when 4 yrs old but would not change a thing. Having him helped me to grow in ways I never would have before. God has a purpose in every situation if we just choose to see it.
And AAA Women's Services is all about choices. If you go to their website www.aaawomen.org, you will find information on every possibility including carrying a child to full term, adoption, and abortion. They will see you thru every hurdle possible. I know of women who have gone there with no support what so ever and they have even gone to dr's appts with her and been there when she delivered. They teach them how to care for the child and get them every assistance possible. So for a real choice, AAA is the place to go.
A very dear and close friend bore two children. Between those two she decided to abort a third [for reasons of her own having nothing to do with this thread]. She is haunted to this day by that decision to abort...wondering what the child would have become; if he/she would have been as wonderful and as beautiful as her other two; if he/she would have been as loving, as caring, as quick, as talented, etc., etc. as her other two.
That was 30 years ago. She still cries over it on occasion, thankfully less often as the years go by. She is a three-time grandmother...which is a good/bad thing, as you might imagine.
Any "mother" who aborts and doesn't feel a thing for the aborted life is beyond redemption in my opinion; she is emotionally dead and not even Mother Nature can save her. May God bless and keep any future child that "mother" DOES bear later. That child will live and experience Hell on Earth. Count on it. I have seen it time and again.
I have a grandson due for delivery tomorrow morning. He is named and with modern technology we generally know what he will look like, so he's already part of the family. I can't imagine his mother and dad considering terminating him, but I do know there are certain circumstances where this choice would be made. I won't judge those who have made this decision since I was not in their shoes when they painfully made the choice.
So I guess the beggar's mom should have aborted him? I guess since she chose not to its everybody else's responsibility to feed and clothe him?
Shouldn't some people be poor? Does anyone have a right to be beyond need or want. While the vast majority of us on the left and right believe we have a moral obligation to help those who deserve it, Clay seems to point that every poor person is entitled to a handout.
What do we know of this beggar? Did he lose his job through no fault of his own? Does he in fact still have a job with a little begging reserved for weekends? Is he mentally handicapped? Is he able bodied or disabled? Is it possible we are reinforcing bad behavior by giving to whoever asks without knowing their individual situation? Is this merely another leftist attempt to show how they are more righteous than the rest of us? I think so.
Indeed, EaTn. In most all cases, when reaching such a decision is truly painful, the cause is just. Those kinds aren't performed for convenience, for birth control, or out of hand.
My youngest grandchild is two next month...and all rambunctious boy.
To me, Clay is presenting a quite different picture than most others see here; but that is probably my suspicious nature [through training and experience].
First there is the marquee with the "Right To Life Convention" posting; then the three people with pro-life buttons passing the [presumed] "homeless beggar" dressed in ragged clothes, holding out his hat and wearing a "Former Fetus" sign and a smile.
The "beggar" is taking advantage of his "marks" in true con-man fashion -- by playing on their sympathy. He chose his location well.
He will probably score well since it is well known that pro-lifers [who are overwhelmingly Conservative] are more generous than Progressives [who earn more...but are stingy].
Unfortunately, Clay's "beggar" probably drives a newer car [parked around the corner] and lives in a regular home or perhaps an upscale apartment across town...his "homeless" look is expertly applied, his clothes carefully tattered, and he is convincing -- through long practice.
I think the guy passing him is on to him -- note him giving the beggar the old fish-eye.
I am for life but that was my choice. I cannot choose for anyone else or live their lives, and neither should the government. I can't know their financial status, religious beleif, or make a judgement.
I'm also aware of a situation where so-called adoption agencies lawyers,and even state run offices and "churches?" make a lot of money signing up the babies for adoption and then sell them at a high price to others, often for raising them for illigitimate purposes. I think there have been enough news stories covering the situations.
Would any of you father's appreciate keeping a baby that was given life by a rapist, and not the father?
How about a child that had to submit to an incestuous encounter?
What if the father and mother are both healthy, intelligent, but poor, and they child that is born has no brain and will be a vegetable for as long as he lives. To what purpose? Modern medicine can determine viability early on.
What would be your reason for no abortion?
Have you ever been to a hospital that cares for these children?
I've told my four, again and again that should I reach the vegetable stage, and perhaps when I will be completely bedridden and a burden to please have me put away. Hopefully, a stroke or a heart attack or just dying in my sleep would be a nice solution. No Alzhimers care, no dementia, no thousands of dollars wasted on this body.
I think I'm still of some use to the community, though so don't be in too much of a hurry.C:-)
"All white fetuses should have a right to life,brown,black,and yellow...not so much.
Maybe unfairly,but I sense that attitude among many right-to-lifers. I hope I'm wrong."
Funny that you say that when the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger who is still celebrated in pro-abortion circles, was a big fan of Eugenics. You know, the systematic weeding out of "undesirable" elements in society. It was the big thing back in the '30s and '40s among the "progressive" set. Of course it fell out of favor a bit when the world at large realized that the logical extension of this idea is exactly what was going on in Germany at the time.
You are most assuredly WRONG.
Woody (whom I generally agree with) wrote,
"If "Right to Life" is so concerned with "Life", then what about the "Life" of the mother??"
I think maybe you are confused. It is the mother who is choosing to take the life of an innocent human. Not the other way around.
OllieH wrote,
"This cartoon nicely illustrates the old saying that 'the right to life only has a nine month guarantee'."
Really? I thought killing humans after that nine month period IS against the law, while killing them during that period is not. I guess I had it backwards this whole time.
If that is an "old saying" among those with which you surround yourself, perhaps that explains your warped perception of reality.
toonfan wrote,
"I have no problem with a pro-lifer who would protest the death penalty as well as abortion,.."
False equivalence. The death penalty is applied to those individuals who have knowingly, and willfully committed heinous acts against other humans. This is not in any way comparable to an innocent fetus whose only crime is being conceived by a self-centered, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt mother.
Clara wrote,
"Anyway, that's MY choice."
Yeah, I'll agree that the choice to terminate YOUR life should rest with you. I'll do the same when my time comes.
Hypothetically, would you be alright with the idea of your kids killing you off when THEY decide you are an inconvenience? I'm just asking because that is much more in line with what most of the abortions are like. The one who ends up dead has zero input into the decision.
The question, as I see it, is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but if the government or individuals would be better able to make these decisions.
I find it a bit odd when people see "government run health care" as a horror of horrors but can believe the government
has some sort of magic solution here.
In my view, we have never had a perfect answer.
When abortion was illegal, it still happened. The government was not able to enforce a ban before, and certainly would not be able to now.
If the government can't be effective, then we need to behave as serious people who can talk about serious issues and look at what is possible.
My view is that many of life's critical decisions - including this one - are best handled among individuals, not by the creaky, cranky, politicized machinery of government.
Good post, miraweb. It is quite interesting that pro lifers generally want little government involvement with the exception of banning abortions. It has been my observation that the focus is preventing the abortion no matter the circumstances that the child would be born into.
I have known several women who have either had abortions or put a child up for adoption. In all cases, the women who had given birth and surrendered the child never had a day go by that they weren't saddened, worried, or tormented about that decision. Some spent years trying to find the child. I have not seen this endless emotional turmoil in the women who had the abortions.
All in all, I think that it should be a WOMAN'S choice with no one intervening. I can't help but think that the decision to get an abortion would be an easy one in the first place. Insisting that a woman not be allowed to have an abortion and then not offering support, if needed, after birth should be criminal.
One of my lifelong friends commented last night "After 30 years I just can't believe that abortion is still an issue. Don't we have worse situations to be worried about?" Yep, we do. But let's don't have Health Care reform because Federal money might fund some abortions. And, after they are born, let's just see if they can get health care (evil laugh in background).
rolando said "He will probably score well since it is well known that pro-lifers [who are overwhelmingly Conservative] are more generous than Progressives [who earn more...but are stingy]."
That is the most preposterous statement that I have ever heard.
I think that it is pretty well established that even conservative/individualist types do want some government if for no other reason than to protect the natural rights of everyone equally. This is exactly what the framers had in mind. The most important of those rights being the right of living humans to remain alive. The government, correctly, steps in to protect the lives of innocents in most all situations, abortion being the only exception.
Perhaps someday we will move out of the darkness of barbarianism on this issue much like we have with slavery and the subjugation of females and non-whites. Then perhaps we will be closer to the ideal of an enlightened society which values all human life equally.
But never mind me, I'm just sticking up for those who cannot speak out to defend themselves.
Clara, I think when men can get pregant, there will be a whole different dialog on the subject of what one does with one's own body. I have found most pro-lifers (if this doesn't apply to you, don't respond) believe in life between conception and birth -- after that, you're on your own. And, of course, most pro-lifers don't give a hoot about killing anyone different than them or don't share their beliefs -- Dr. Tiller being their latest victim. Many women carrying fetuses were killed when we decided to bomb the hell out of country that had done nothing to us -- i.e. Iraq. The conservatives rallied around that mass killing now didn't they? No, there won't be real dialog on this problem until people pull their heads back up where the sun shines and talk about the 'real' problems and agonizing decisions made by women at a very, very unstable time in their lives.
There are more than enough government programs helping and protecting new mothers and their babies, anniebelle. That is hardly an issue, although you keep harping on it...about all you have, evidently.
Except for the survivor of a botched abortion, that is. Progressives don't even recognize his existence. They leave a viable baby, unprotected by man's law and hated by Progressives/Eugenicists, to die and rot on a backroom shelf somewhere while mommy and the abortionist figuratively skip away into the sunset, hand in hand, all the while singing happy songs.
Interesting you should mention Dr. Tiller, anniebelle. Have you checked the website at http://www.dr-tiller.com/ ? His technique and the results are described here [photo-free] from his own pamphlets, etc. Nice person you defend...but even though he took the lives of others, he had a right to life himself.
No one likes abortion. Not even pro-choice people like abortion. It's horrible. And it has been happening since pregnancy was barely understood. Before Roe v Wade women in the US could get abortions safely-provided they were wealthy and white. As long as we live in a society where women's health take a backseat to men's, and parents resist proper and comprehensive sex education, where uninsured women don't have a family doctor to work out suitable birth control, there will be unintended pregnancy. I have never been faced with this situation, but I have never been poor, minority, and/or uneducated. I have never been under the control of a domineering man or subject to sexual abuse or rape. I have always had means to pay for preventative care, including birth control, even when my insurance company refused to cover it. (They certainly jumped to cover Viagra when it came out-what's wrong with that picture?).
We should be working together to make sure every pregnancy is planned, and abortion is unnecessary. Until then, and until I have walked a mile in the shoes of those less able to avoid unwanted pregnancy because of lack of resources or education, I will support the privacy and choice of all women to end a pregnancy.
I disagree with the "healthy-white" comment up there, lkeith. I have seen all types and income groups in charity clinics decades ago who had gone through abortions -- grouped as a "D&C" to protect the doctors. The only thing "gender" to it was the obvious.
So "no one likes abortion" yet it is supported here unconditionally. That is one cause of an unwanted pregnancy right there...it is so easy to get rid of.
I stand by my comment. Make it unnecessary. Most women do not use abortion as their only birth control by choice, and the few that do should not be used as an argument to make it illegal or anyone else's business. It should remain available and private until the day it isn't needed. (if that ever happens) Someone's religious attitudes should not be what determines this for everyone. Catholics think any form of birth control is a sin-should they set the standards for everyone? If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.
lkeith,
you always like to deal in facts and evidence don't you? Well what evidence or facts do you have to support your statement that "Most women do not use abortion as their only birth control by choice"? If you talk to AAA Women's Services or any abortion clinic I would bet you find it quite different than what you have stated.
Even these services can't see everything, and desperate women will be the ones using these services because they have no other choice. They do not represent the vast numbers of women who work through their own providers, using other forms of birth control. These are the responsible ones, who through difficulties with birth control may have unplanned pregnancies. Add to that the underage, who may range from teens molested by men (many teen pregnancies are caused by adult men), to teens who have no access to birth control because their parents refuse to authorize it. Also, wealthy teens can "take care" of unwanted pregnancy through family doctors (as rolando called "D&C") in privacy.
Just because a service is abused doesn't mean that it should be taken away from all. Just because a woman is poor, drug addicted, a victim of rape, minority or uninsured does not mean that she isn't allowed the same privacy as wealthy women.
A lot of unplanned pregnancies result in women that are unable to effectively raise a child. They are mentally ill, addicted, financially strapped, unemployed, homeless etc. If a woman feels that she cannot give birth and raise a child, and you condemn her to do so, how is that good for the child? And you can promote adoption all you like-the reality is that few families will take children with special needs: neonatal drug exposure, alcohol syndrome, low birth weight, and other issues. Even finding homes for minority children is problematic.
I stand by my position. Use the resources wasted by picketing clinics, putting up billboards condemning the practice, and shooting doctors who provide it legally to reduce the need. Birth control readily available, even to teens, effective comprehensive sex education, health insurance including reproductive services for every woman. Some day abortion will be rare because it isn't needed as much as today.
I don't expect anyone to agree. This is a polarizing issue and I know it. But, I am on the side of the law. Until it is illegal (and it may be in spite of people like me who support choice and privacy) people should butt out of others' privacy.
You are correct, nurse-I do like to base my opinion on fact. The numbers of abortions performed in this country, though declining, are high. Family planning clinics help educate women and provide birth control. Statistics show that women getting them tend to be younger (50% 25 or younger, 17% are under 18) Reasons reported tend to be inability to care for another child, financial constraints from caring for already existing children as single parents, inability to miss work due to a pregnancy. 2/3 are unmarried. The rate of unintended pregnancy is 4X higher in women below poverty level than those at 200% of poverty level. 8% have never used contraceptives-these are overwhelmingly minority, poor and uneducated. Most of the rest reported irregular use of contraceptives, 13% report correct use of other contraceptives.
In 2004, 89% of abortions were performed in the first 12 weeks. Only 1.1% occur after 21 weeks, and only 8% of providers will perform them past 24 weeks.
The opposite of Pro-Life is Pro-Death. It becomes Pro-Choice because it sounds better and makes the murderer feel better.
I know some will respond back with the below so I'll nip them in the bud.
"Keep abortion sage legal, and rare"
(Abortion is "Legal" it is neither safe nor rare.)
"It's unfair to bring unwanted children into the world"
(It's not fair to stick surgical scissors ina baby's skull, and suck out it's brains, dismember the baby and threw the baby away)
"The fetus is part of the woman's body"
(A BABY is a distinct human being apart from the mother)NOTE: Fetus is a latin word meaning Little child or Young one
"We have a right to choose"
(Nobody has the right to choose murder Roe v Wade is not constitutional law)
Nobody is strong enough to shake their fist in the face of God and get away with it. Everyone will have to face their creator after this temporary assignment on earth is over. All of the muudered children of God are with Him now.
The opposition of pro choice is pro-everyone-else-decides-your-reproduction.
Did you not read my post? Most abortions are done early, not with scissors to the brain (there is no brain).
From your user name I have to assume you are male. Therefore, you have never experienced being pregnant. I have. I planned it, but it was still risky.
Early abortions are safe. Risk increases after 12 weeks.
Abortions, unfortunately, are not rare. In fact, they are far too common. That is because unintended pregnancies are far too common. Reduce those, and you reduce your abortion rate.
Many forms of birth control are essentially abortion (anti-implantation, not anti-fertilization) Do you oppose those too?
I don't believe in your god, so the god arguments are meaningless.
So 83% of all abortions are getting done on women 18 years and older with 50% being done on those over 25 by your stats, lkeith. Seems to me 25 yrs and older women should have sense enough to take precautions...that way they wouldn't have to be INCONVENIENCED into making the CHOICE of having an abortion. [Yes, I realize there are other valid reasons to abort...but they are your stats.] Even the dumb 18-25ers should know...maybe they're all Girls Gone Wild, ya think?
I understand that others may not take the same stance. I am not here to change your mind. I am just expressing my opinion. It doesn't matter to me if you agree or disagree.
Rolando, I have to assume you are male. A man's opinion on this issue matters less than a woman's. It takes two to tango, but the pressure to have sex comes disproportionately from men and women bear the greater cost. Sorry, it's not fair, but neither is life.
And you would be surprised how ignorant some women are about their own bodies and reproduction. To appease the religious right, sex education is poor or nonexistent in this country. My international students are appalled at how little Americans are taught.
Scotty, I understand your point. It is a choice. I choose the mother over the fetus every time. Are some women irresponsible? Yes. However, not every unintended pregnancy is the result of irresponsible behavior. And not every woman who is pregnant has the resources to raise a child. And not every child born in inadequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home.
You wrote,
"A man's opinion on this issue matters less than a woman's."
That sounds a whole lot like sexism to me.
"It takes two to tango, but the pressure to have sex comes disproportionately from men and women bear the greater cost."
Where is it written that females must submit to that pressure? Subjugation of females is a personal peeve of mine, and women allowing themselves to be dominated by a male is nothing more than self-subjugation.
"And you would be surprised how ignorant some women are about their own bodies and reproduction."
First, I wouldn't be surprised at how ignorant many PEOPLE are about these things.
Second, how does this statement jive with the above about women's opinions having more import, when the case could be made that some males are significantly MORE educated about these things than many women. I'd argue that the opinions of those with more knowledge, be they male or female, should carry greater weight than those possessing less knowledge. (I'm not conferring omnipotent status upon experts, merely pointing out that those with low knowledge frequently have very strong opinions based upon misconceptions[no pun intended])
"I choose the mother over the fetus every time."
This is a false dilemma. No one is forcing the women to die so that their child can live. I insist that they BOTH have a right to live.
"..not every unintended pregnancy is the result of irresponsible behavior."
I agree. I do make an exception for that particular situation, but it must be done immediately, before the pregnancy develops past the blastocyst stage. It pains me to fathom, but in this very narrow situation, the woman's mental health does carry a lot of weight, and I have never seen any evidence that a free floating, fertilized egg has achieved consciousness.
"...not every woman who is pregnant has the resources to raise a child."
She should keep her knees together, or go to the health clinic and obtain reliable birth control. Killing the child is not the answer.
"...not every child born in inadequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home."
I see that and raise you one. Not every child born into greater than adequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home. Again, killing the child is not the answer.
(This one is out of context from your post)
"Sorry, it's not fair, but neither is life."
No, it isn't. The fact that our mammalian anatomy places a much larger burden upon the female does not confer the right to kill her offspring for her own convenience.
Funny, I agree with you on your points. I would love to see everyone have this attitude. But I am not for making it illegal. Just unnecessary. Until we do more as a nation to solve the problems that lead to unintended pregnancy, it should remain an option.
Just a thought: scotty, you mentioned preventing implantation. Do you support access to the "morning after pill"? This would set you apart from many, who consider a fertilized egg to be human.
I also have a question: millions of abortions are performed in this country yearly (Yeah-millions. Pretty awful) If these children had been born, 50% of them would have been born into poverty, 66% to single parents, many of those under 18 who would have difficulty finishing school if they did not have extended family to support them (like the Palin's daughter). Almost all of these would receive government benefits such as medicaid, WIC, food stamps. Can we afford this?
Those "morning after pills" are exactly what I was referring to. From my understanding they prevent implantation, much the same as the regular "pill". I do try to be consistent and support for one and not the other would be inconsistent.
"Can we afford this?"
Well, the flip side of that argument is, how many of those lost humans would have been geniuses. Any one of them may have possessed the mind needed to solve our future energy problems, derive a unified field theory, or grow up to become Zefram Cochrane(LOL). The loss of so much human potential is the saddest part.
Many cultures have practiced infanticide and abortion for many of the reasons cited above:
Incans
Sardinians
Pelasgians
Syrians
Phoenicians
Carthaginians
Greeks
Romans
Gauls
Celts
Irish
Many Native American tribes
Early Russians
And many, many more.
Girls suffer the most. Girls are systematically targeted for infanticide and gender selection abortion. Thankfully, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious traditions made infanticide and abortion taboo. The recent American fascination with paganism, however, has turned the clock back to the bad old days of child sacrifice to the gods for prosperity and pleasure.
What does it profit a man (or woman) to gain the whole world but lose his (her) soul?
I doubt paganism is the reason our abortion rate is so high. The lack of responsibility, the poor sex education (too little, too late-Europeans start sex ed MUCH earlier), too many young women willing to submit to men for the wrong reasons, alcohol use, a culture of single teen mothers, the list goes on and on. Pagans make up such a tiny minority.
I don't think we can have it both ways: We complain that poor, uneducated, single mothers and their children are a burden, that social programs paid for by tax dollars is forced charity, and yet if abortion was banned, the numbers of people with this status will increase. Yes, it would be nice if every pregnancy occurred in married, stable, financially able families. Yes, it would be nice if no one used abortion as birth control, as about 13% now do. Yes, it would be nice if unplanned pregnancies were rare and these were adopted by healthy, loving families. Yes, it would be nice if no woman was under the control of a husband or boyfriend, able to make her own decisions about what is best for her, including whether or not to engage in sexual activity. But they aren't. Until they are, abortion must remain part of the legal services provided.
In answer to how many of them would become geniuses...the Mensa Society says that only 2% of the population have an IQ of 135 or over. The Genius Society only accepts persons with IQ's that are 99.9% higher than the rest of the population (about 146). At a rate of 1 million abortions per year, according to Mensa, that would be 20,000 potentials or, by Genius Society standards, 1000 potentials per year.
The only irony here is that no one listens to the geniuses currently trying to solve our energy problems anyway. I also have to wonder how many of those geniuses are out standing on the street corner having to panhandle because of this economy.
LOL , put money where mouth is
Fetus and Feed us :)
Fetal Rights after the age of fifty :)
The New "Position" of a standing tall Fetus :)
Normally Fetus will live via the umbilical cord sharing the mother food so its normal to feed on society Money also :)
All white fetuses should have a right to life,brown,black,and yellow...not so much.
Maybe unfairly,but I sense that attitude among many right-to-lifers. I hope I'm wrong.
I have two comments (questions); one or both should raise someone's hackles. If "Right to Life" is so concerned with "Life", then what about the "Life" of the mother?? Secondly, has anyone else noticed "Right to Life" is asking everyone to "Choose Life??" So, am I to assume (oops, there I go again)"Right to Life" is now also "Pro Choice??"
Too early and too little coffee, Woody
Nucanuck, I know two white couples in church that have adopted more than one black child. (Awhile back there was a lawsuit over the racism that would only let blacks abopt blacks.)
U.S. blacks are aborted at around twice the rate of whites. Jesse Jackson used to call this "genocide." Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, one of the more effective national prolife organiations, calls it "Klan Parenthood." Woody, prolife outfits like AAA Women's Services here (may've changed name lately?) help expectant mothers with practical matters. There days fornication and husbandless pregnancies are a matter of course, but an expectant unwed mother who needs a place to stay for a few months can probably get help from AAA; again, I know a respectable middle-class church couple that let such a one live with them while expecting. (And I remember one of the rare cases in which a pregnancy might endanger the life of the mother, who was comatose. The "pro-choice" crowd killed the unborn baby to "help" the mother--and then killed the mother.) And consider Tim Tebow. I call abortion "the murder of little babies for the convenience of grownups." Evil, plain and simple, wose than panhandling. (And the libertarian Christian vision for panhandlers--"work or starve"--is different from the liberal vision, with a truer compassion, as chattaghost may or may not be hinting.)
Very funny, Clay!
This cartoon nicely illustrates the old saying that 'the right to life only has a nine month guarantee'.
No one should form an opinion about abortion until they view an ultrasound video of babies in various stages of development within the womb.
EaTn- Absolutely right! I couldn't agree MORE with your point! I have very little patience with anti-abortion views from someone who never faces the risk of getting pregnant.
This cartoon makes a pretty broad assumption, unless there is some news or data that Mr. Bennett is commenting that I haven't heard. The "Right to Life" is not the same as the pursuit of happiness.
I've been through downtown Chicago on multiple occasions, where (sadly) homeless are found regularly. I recall walking back to the Metra (train) station after going to Taste of Chicago and watching a homeless man sift through garbage for leftover alcohol. The image of him turning up bottle after bottle I believe is a microcosm of the substance abuse that exists among many homeless.
There are organizations who are versed in taking care and helping homeless individuals, especially since many struggle with so many other things other than a lack money. This may include emotional and psychological problems, substance abuse, and so on. Putting the money in there hands serves much better than handing it out to the individuals. I think there was an Oprah story on a homeless man who was handed $100,000 dollars and wasted it all because he simply didn't know what to do with the money.
Its sad that abortion has turned from an extreme last resort to a for profit form of birth control. Having known two females that had abortions in college I can attest to the fact that it destroyed them mentally and took them years to recover emotionally and in one case physically. Its very sad to see someone is that much pain. Why can't men and women be responsible with a condom? Are we teaching girls today that sex and the temporary acceptance by a man is more important that their future? We teach our daughters to be sluts and our boys to disrespect women so we get the millions of abortions we have each year. Ultimately you can spin it with catch phrases like Choice and A Womans Body but in the end we all have to admit what it is. The end of life at its beginning and the destroying of another in its prime. How many women out there are proud that they've had an abortion? Anyone? Anyone?
aces25-
In my opinion, this cartoon is aimed at those within the anti-abortion movement who have great concern for the well-being of someone until he or she is actually born. But once someone is actually breathing on their own- all bets are off. If you truly believe that life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred.
I have no problem with a pro-lifer who would protest the death penalty as well as abortion, or who would exercise compassion or extend charity to an individual either before or after their birth. There are many within this movement, however, who would gladly force a woman to reproduce, but would show little concern about the welfare of the child afterward.
It does sometimes appear as though those whom indavidually contribute the least to society are the ones who reproduce the most frequently in these increasingly overpopulated times. And though an apple can be picked up and carried far from the tree... most grow in the same soil as said tree. Though a singular and finite perspective is a dangerous thing to heed I will admit.
OK! Lets hear from the women!
Well coming from a mother of 2, amazing beautiful children, I am not for abortion...however, my mother told me as a young girl that she had received 2 abortions before. One because she didn't want the responsibility as she already had two children at age 22, and the 2nd abortion for the simple fact that she was afraid of it being deformed because a man beat her. Neither of these reasons to me are a good enough excuse to demolish a living fetus. She didn't even go to the doctor to see what the chances were of this 2nd child being normal...simply because she didn't care. All she had was an "excuse" and a bad one at that. Then even hearing out of her mouth to me when she would get angry that she should have aborted me as well. Unfortunately, this statement has tormented me my entire life. I have often tried to understand why she would have been so proud of her 2 successful abortions, and even wanted my 17 year old rebellious sister to get one this past winter (luckily my sis was not pregnant like we thought). I think it is quite obvious that I am Pro-Life, but I must say that I am proud of my choice in delivering 2 beautiful children because of that. My family said "If you do not have an abortion, then you and your baby will never be allowed around us." (because my son is mixed) I told them, well, write me off! Eventually they came around...and would not give anything in the world for my 2 babies! Just a little example of how abortion can affect someone mentally. Not only does it affect the ones who actually have the abortion, but if affects everyone around them as well. This is much too lengthy and probably not of any interest but sometimes I feel the need to speak out!
May God Bless!
Awesome touch on reality Clay... thanks!
At least the bum had a chance and a choice...
and what reality would that be eeeeeek...
Oh I see, if it is ok to kill a fetus, then it must be ok to kill any other non-productive member of society. I see no difference in killing a fetus or a mentally retarded person or an elderly person. All deserve to LIVE equally.
Now the difference is what I am seeing from this cartoon. I see a middle aged person that is looking for a handout instead of working for a living like we should. And don't anyone start telling me how unchristian I am because I don't care. Because that is not the truth. I just spent a whole day last weekend helping less fortunate people than myself. I have been down and out with a family to raise. I have worked 2 to 4 jobs at a time to make ends meet and have obviously passed on a good work ethic to my son who is doing the same now.
MrD's Lady - good post. I feel the same as you. I had a special needs child that passed away when 4 yrs old but would not change a thing. Having him helped me to grow in ways I never would have before. God has a purpose in every situation if we just choose to see it.
And AAA Women's Services is all about choices. If you go to their website www.aaawomen.org, you will find information on every possibility including carrying a child to full term, adoption, and abortion. They will see you thru every hurdle possible. I know of women who have gone there with no support what so ever and they have even gone to dr's appts with her and been there when she delivered. They teach them how to care for the child and get them every assistance possible. So for a real choice, AAA is the place to go.
preach it bookie
A very dear and close friend bore two children. Between those two she decided to abort a third [for reasons of her own having nothing to do with this thread]. She is haunted to this day by that decision to abort...wondering what the child would have become; if he/she would have been as wonderful and as beautiful as her other two; if he/she would have been as loving, as caring, as quick, as talented, etc., etc. as her other two.
That was 30 years ago. She still cries over it on occasion, thankfully less often as the years go by. She is a three-time grandmother...which is a good/bad thing, as you might imagine.
Any "mother" who aborts and doesn't feel a thing for the aborted life is beyond redemption in my opinion; she is emotionally dead and not even Mother Nature can save her. May God bless and keep any future child that "mother" DOES bear later. That child will live and experience Hell on Earth. Count on it. I have seen it time and again.
"Suffer the little children..."
I have a grandson due for delivery tomorrow morning. He is named and with modern technology we generally know what he will look like, so he's already part of the family. I can't imagine his mother and dad considering terminating him, but I do know there are certain circumstances where this choice would be made. I won't judge those who have made this decision since I was not in their shoes when they painfully made the choice.
So I guess the beggar's mom should have aborted him? I guess since she chose not to its everybody else's responsibility to feed and clothe him?
Shouldn't some people be poor? Does anyone have a right to be beyond need or want. While the vast majority of us on the left and right believe we have a moral obligation to help those who deserve it, Clay seems to point that every poor person is entitled to a handout.
What do we know of this beggar? Did he lose his job through no fault of his own? Does he in fact still have a job with a little begging reserved for weekends? Is he mentally handicapped? Is he able bodied or disabled? Is it possible we are reinforcing bad behavior by giving to whoever asks without knowing their individual situation? Is this merely another leftist attempt to show how they are more righteous than the rest of us? I think so.
Indeed, EaTn. In most all cases, when reaching such a decision is truly painful, the cause is just. Those kinds aren't performed for convenience, for birth control, or out of hand.
My youngest grandchild is two next month...and all rambunctious boy.
To me, Clay is presenting a quite different picture than most others see here; but that is probably my suspicious nature [through training and experience].
First there is the marquee with the "Right To Life Convention" posting; then the three people with pro-life buttons passing the [presumed] "homeless beggar" dressed in ragged clothes, holding out his hat and wearing a "Former Fetus" sign and a smile.
The "beggar" is taking advantage of his "marks" in true con-man fashion -- by playing on their sympathy. He chose his location well.
He will probably score well since it is well known that pro-lifers [who are overwhelmingly Conservative] are more generous than Progressives [who earn more...but are stingy].
Unfortunately, Clay's "beggar" probably drives a newer car [parked around the corner] and lives in a regular home or perhaps an upscale apartment across town...his "homeless" look is expertly applied, his clothes carefully tattered, and he is convincing -- through long practice.
I think the guy passing him is on to him -- note him giving the beggar the old fish-eye.
Thank you ladies, EaTn!
I am for life but that was my choice. I cannot choose for anyone else or live their lives, and neither should the government. I can't know their financial status, religious beleif, or make a judgement.
I'm also aware of a situation where so-called adoption agencies lawyers,and even state run offices and "churches?" make a lot of money signing up the babies for adoption and then sell them at a high price to others, often for raising them for illigitimate purposes. I think there have been enough news stories covering the situations.
Would any of you father's appreciate keeping a baby that was given life by a rapist, and not the father?
How about a child that had to submit to an incestuous encounter?
What if the father and mother are both healthy, intelligent, but poor, and they child that is born has no brain and will be a vegetable for as long as he lives. To what purpose? Modern medicine can determine viability early on.
What would be your reason for no abortion?
Have you ever been to a hospital that cares for these children?
As for killing old people...
I've told my four, again and again that should I reach the vegetable stage, and perhaps when I will be completely bedridden and a burden to please have me put away. Hopefully, a stroke or a heart attack or just dying in my sleep would be a nice solution. No Alzhimers care, no dementia, no thousands of dollars wasted on this body. I think I'm still of some use to the community, though so don't be in too much of a hurry.C:-)
Anyway, that's MY choice.
His chances for cash are better with the right than with Joe Biden.
I forgot the link.
http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Bidens-Average-Annual/10802/
nucanuck | On: March 9, 2010 at 1:47 a.m.
"All white fetuses should have a right to life,brown,black,and yellow...not so much.
Maybe unfairly,but I sense that attitude among many right-to-lifers. I hope I'm wrong."
Funny that you say that when the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger who is still celebrated in pro-abortion circles, was a big fan of Eugenics. You know, the systematic weeding out of "undesirable" elements in society. It was the big thing back in the '30s and '40s among the "progressive" set. Of course it fell out of favor a bit when the world at large realized that the logical extension of this idea is exactly what was going on in Germany at the time.
You are most assuredly WRONG.
Woody (whom I generally agree with) wrote,
"If "Right to Life" is so concerned with "Life", then what about the "Life" of the mother??"
I think maybe you are confused. It is the mother who is choosing to take the life of an innocent human. Not the other way around.
OllieH wrote,
"This cartoon nicely illustrates the old saying that 'the right to life only has a nine month guarantee'."
Really? I thought killing humans after that nine month period IS against the law, while killing them during that period is not. I guess I had it backwards this whole time.
If that is an "old saying" among those with which you surround yourself, perhaps that explains your warped perception of reality.
toonfan wrote,
"I have no problem with a pro-lifer who would protest the death penalty as well as abortion,.."
False equivalence. The death penalty is applied to those individuals who have knowingly, and willfully committed heinous acts against other humans. This is not in any way comparable to an innocent fetus whose only crime is being conceived by a self-centered, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt mother.
Clara wrote,
"Anyway, that's MY choice."
Yeah, I'll agree that the choice to terminate YOUR life should rest with you. I'll do the same when my time comes.
Hypothetically, would you be alright with the idea of your kids killing you off when THEY decide you are an inconvenience? I'm just asking because that is much more in line with what most of the abortions are like. The one who ends up dead has zero input into the decision.
I'd thought about that, too.
I can't force my choices on them, but I think they'd understand and permit it.
They do that with their pets if needed.
I don't think they'd do it if it were just a matter of convenience, but at that point, I'd probably not give a hoot why they permitted it!
The question, as I see it, is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but if the government or individuals would be better able to make these decisions.
I find it a bit odd when people see "government run health care" as a horror of horrors but can believe the government has some sort of magic solution here.
In my view, we have never had a perfect answer.
When abortion was illegal, it still happened. The government was not able to enforce a ban before, and certainly would not be able to now.
If the government can't be effective, then we need to behave as serious people who can talk about serious issues and look at what is possible.
My view is that many of life's critical decisions - including this one - are best handled among individuals, not by the creaky, cranky, politicized machinery of government.
But I understand the other point of view.
Good post, miraweb. It is quite interesting that pro lifers generally want little government involvement with the exception of banning abortions. It has been my observation that the focus is preventing the abortion no matter the circumstances that the child would be born into.
I have known several women who have either had abortions or put a child up for adoption. In all cases, the women who had given birth and surrendered the child never had a day go by that they weren't saddened, worried, or tormented about that decision. Some spent years trying to find the child. I have not seen this endless emotional turmoil in the women who had the abortions.
All in all, I think that it should be a WOMAN'S choice with no one intervening. I can't help but think that the decision to get an abortion would be an easy one in the first place. Insisting that a woman not be allowed to have an abortion and then not offering support, if needed, after birth should be criminal.
One of my lifelong friends commented last night "After 30 years I just can't believe that abortion is still an issue. Don't we have worse situations to be worried about?" Yep, we do. But let's don't have Health Care reform because Federal money might fund some abortions. And, after they are born, let's just see if they can get health care (evil laugh in background).
rolando said "He will probably score well since it is well known that pro-lifers [who are overwhelmingly Conservative] are more generous than Progressives [who earn more...but are stingy]."
That is the most preposterous statement that I have ever heard.
SavartiTN,
I think that it is pretty well established that even conservative/individualist types do want some government if for no other reason than to protect the natural rights of everyone equally. This is exactly what the framers had in mind. The most important of those rights being the right of living humans to remain alive. The government, correctly, steps in to protect the lives of innocents in most all situations, abortion being the only exception.
Perhaps someday we will move out of the darkness of barbarianism on this issue much like we have with slavery and the subjugation of females and non-whites. Then perhaps we will be closer to the ideal of an enlightened society which values all human life equally.
But never mind me, I'm just sticking up for those who cannot speak out to defend themselves.
Clara, I think when men can get pregant, there will be a whole different dialog on the subject of what one does with one's own body. I have found most pro-lifers (if this doesn't apply to you, don't respond) believe in life between conception and birth -- after that, you're on your own. And, of course, most pro-lifers don't give a hoot about killing anyone different than them or don't share their beliefs -- Dr. Tiller being their latest victim. Many women carrying fetuses were killed when we decided to bomb the hell out of country that had done nothing to us -- i.e. Iraq. The conservatives rallied around that mass killing now didn't they? No, there won't be real dialog on this problem until people pull their heads back up where the sun shines and talk about the 'real' problems and agonizing decisions made by women at a very, very unstable time in their lives.
There are more than enough government programs helping and protecting new mothers and their babies, anniebelle. That is hardly an issue, although you keep harping on it...about all you have, evidently.
Except for the survivor of a botched abortion, that is. Progressives don't even recognize his existence. They leave a viable baby, unprotected by man's law and hated by Progressives/Eugenicists, to die and rot on a backroom shelf somewhere while mommy and the abortionist figuratively skip away into the sunset, hand in hand, all the while singing happy songs.
Interesting you should mention Dr. Tiller, anniebelle. Have you checked the website at http://www.dr-tiller.com/ ? His technique and the results are described here [photo-free] from his own pamphlets, etc. Nice person you defend...but even though he took the lives of others, he had a right to life himself.
No one likes abortion. Not even pro-choice people like abortion. It's horrible. And it has been happening since pregnancy was barely understood. Before Roe v Wade women in the US could get abortions safely-provided they were wealthy and white. As long as we live in a society where women's health take a backseat to men's, and parents resist proper and comprehensive sex education, where uninsured women don't have a family doctor to work out suitable birth control, there will be unintended pregnancy. I have never been faced with this situation, but I have never been poor, minority, and/or uneducated. I have never been under the control of a domineering man or subject to sexual abuse or rape. I have always had means to pay for preventative care, including birth control, even when my insurance company refused to cover it. (They certainly jumped to cover Viagra when it came out-what's wrong with that picture?).
We should be working together to make sure every pregnancy is planned, and abortion is unnecessary. Until then, and until I have walked a mile in the shoes of those less able to avoid unwanted pregnancy because of lack of resources or education, I will support the privacy and choice of all women to end a pregnancy.
I disagree with the "healthy-white" comment up there, lkeith. I have seen all types and income groups in charity clinics decades ago who had gone through abortions -- grouped as a "D&C" to protect the doctors. The only thing "gender" to it was the obvious.
So "no one likes abortion" yet it is supported here unconditionally. That is one cause of an unwanted pregnancy right there...it is so easy to get rid of.
I stand by my comment. Make it unnecessary. Most women do not use abortion as their only birth control by choice, and the few that do should not be used as an argument to make it illegal or anyone else's business. It should remain available and private until the day it isn't needed. (if that ever happens) Someone's religious attitudes should not be what determines this for everyone. Catholics think any form of birth control is a sin-should they set the standards for everyone? If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.
lkeith, you always like to deal in facts and evidence don't you? Well what evidence or facts do you have to support your statement that "Most women do not use abortion as their only birth control by choice"? If you talk to AAA Women's Services or any abortion clinic I would bet you find it quite different than what you have stated.
Even these services can't see everything, and desperate women will be the ones using these services because they have no other choice. They do not represent the vast numbers of women who work through their own providers, using other forms of birth control. These are the responsible ones, who through difficulties with birth control may have unplanned pregnancies. Add to that the underage, who may range from teens molested by men (many teen pregnancies are caused by adult men), to teens who have no access to birth control because their parents refuse to authorize it. Also, wealthy teens can "take care" of unwanted pregnancy through family doctors (as rolando called "D&C") in privacy.
Just because a service is abused doesn't mean that it should be taken away from all. Just because a woman is poor, drug addicted, a victim of rape, minority or uninsured does not mean that she isn't allowed the same privacy as wealthy women.
A lot of unplanned pregnancies result in women that are unable to effectively raise a child. They are mentally ill, addicted, financially strapped, unemployed, homeless etc. If a woman feels that she cannot give birth and raise a child, and you condemn her to do so, how is that good for the child? And you can promote adoption all you like-the reality is that few families will take children with special needs: neonatal drug exposure, alcohol syndrome, low birth weight, and other issues. Even finding homes for minority children is problematic.
I stand by my position. Use the resources wasted by picketing clinics, putting up billboards condemning the practice, and shooting doctors who provide it legally to reduce the need. Birth control readily available, even to teens, effective comprehensive sex education, health insurance including reproductive services for every woman. Some day abortion will be rare because it isn't needed as much as today.
I don't expect anyone to agree. This is a polarizing issue and I know it. But, I am on the side of the law. Until it is illegal (and it may be in spite of people like me who support choice and privacy) people should butt out of others' privacy.
You are correct, nurse-I do like to base my opinion on fact. The numbers of abortions performed in this country, though declining, are high. Family planning clinics help educate women and provide birth control. Statistics show that women getting them tend to be younger (50% 25 or younger, 17% are under 18) Reasons reported tend to be inability to care for another child, financial constraints from caring for already existing children as single parents, inability to miss work due to a pregnancy. 2/3 are unmarried. The rate of unintended pregnancy is 4X higher in women below poverty level than those at 200% of poverty level. 8% have never used contraceptives-these are overwhelmingly minority, poor and uneducated. Most of the rest reported irregular use of contraceptives, 13% report correct use of other contraceptives.
In 2004, 89% of abortions were performed in the first 12 weeks. Only 1.1% occur after 21 weeks, and only 8% of providers will perform them past 24 weeks.
There is much more: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The opposite of Pro-Life is Pro-Death. It becomes Pro-Choice because it sounds better and makes the murderer feel better. I know some will respond back with the below so I'll nip them in the bud. "Keep abortion sage legal, and rare" (Abortion is "Legal" it is neither safe nor rare.) "It's unfair to bring unwanted children into the world" (It's not fair to stick surgical scissors ina baby's skull, and suck out it's brains, dismember the baby and threw the baby away) "The fetus is part of the woman's body" (A BABY is a distinct human being apart from the mother)NOTE: Fetus is a latin word meaning Little child or Young one "We have a right to choose" (Nobody has the right to choose murder Roe v Wade is not constitutional law) Nobody is strong enough to shake their fist in the face of God and get away with it. Everyone will have to face their creator after this temporary assignment on earth is over. All of the muudered children of God are with Him now.
The opposition of pro choice is pro-everyone-else-decides-your-reproduction.
Did you not read my post? Most abortions are done early, not with scissors to the brain (there is no brain).
From your user name I have to assume you are male. Therefore, you have never experienced being pregnant. I have. I planned it, but it was still risky.
Early abortions are safe. Risk increases after 12 weeks. Abortions, unfortunately, are not rare. In fact, they are far too common. That is because unintended pregnancies are far too common. Reduce those, and you reduce your abortion rate.
Many forms of birth control are essentially abortion (anti-implantation, not anti-fertilization) Do you oppose those too?
I don't believe in your god, so the god arguments are meaningless.
So 83% of all abortions are getting done on women 18 years and older with 50% being done on those over 25 by your stats, lkeith. Seems to me 25 yrs and older women should have sense enough to take precautions...that way they wouldn't have to be INCONVENIENCED into making the CHOICE of having an abortion. [Yes, I realize there are other valid reasons to abort...but they are your stats.] Even the dumb 18-25ers should know...maybe they're all Girls Gone Wild, ya think?
Ikeithlu wrote,
"Early abortions are safe."
Not for one of the interested parties. Things aren't really considered "safe" in my book when, by definition, someone ends up getting dead every time.
I understand that others may not take the same stance. I am not here to change your mind. I am just expressing my opinion. It doesn't matter to me if you agree or disagree.
Rolando, I have to assume you are male. A man's opinion on this issue matters less than a woman's. It takes two to tango, but the pressure to have sex comes disproportionately from men and women bear the greater cost. Sorry, it's not fair, but neither is life.
And you would be surprised how ignorant some women are about their own bodies and reproduction. To appease the religious right, sex education is poor or nonexistent in this country. My international students are appalled at how little Americans are taught.
Scotty, I understand your point. It is a choice. I choose the mother over the fetus every time. Are some women irresponsible? Yes. However, not every unintended pregnancy is the result of irresponsible behavior. And not every woman who is pregnant has the resources to raise a child. And not every child born in inadequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home.
Ikeithlu,
You wrote, "A man's opinion on this issue matters less than a woman's."
That sounds a whole lot like sexism to me.
"It takes two to tango, but the pressure to have sex comes disproportionately from men and women bear the greater cost."
Where is it written that females must submit to that pressure? Subjugation of females is a personal peeve of mine, and women allowing themselves to be dominated by a male is nothing more than self-subjugation.
"And you would be surprised how ignorant some women are about their own bodies and reproduction."
First, I wouldn't be surprised at how ignorant many PEOPLE are about these things. Second, how does this statement jive with the above about women's opinions having more import, when the case could be made that some males are significantly MORE educated about these things than many women. I'd argue that the opinions of those with more knowledge, be they male or female, should carry greater weight than those possessing less knowledge. (I'm not conferring omnipotent status upon experts, merely pointing out that those with low knowledge frequently have very strong opinions based upon misconceptions[no pun intended])
"I choose the mother over the fetus every time."
This is a false dilemma. No one is forcing the women to die so that their child can live. I insist that they BOTH have a right to live.
"..not every unintended pregnancy is the result of irresponsible behavior."
I agree. I do make an exception for that particular situation, but it must be done immediately, before the pregnancy develops past the blastocyst stage. It pains me to fathom, but in this very narrow situation, the woman's mental health does carry a lot of weight, and I have never seen any evidence that a free floating, fertilized egg has achieved consciousness.
"...not every woman who is pregnant has the resources to raise a child."
She should keep her knees together, or go to the health clinic and obtain reliable birth control. Killing the child is not the answer.
"...not every child born in inadequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home."
I see that and raise you one. Not every child born into greater than adequate circumstances finds a loving, healthy home. Again, killing the child is not the answer.
(This one is out of context from your post) "Sorry, it's not fair, but neither is life."
No, it isn't. The fact that our mammalian anatomy places a much larger burden upon the female does not confer the right to kill her offspring for her own convenience.
Funny, I agree with you on your points. I would love to see everyone have this attitude. But I am not for making it illegal. Just unnecessary. Until we do more as a nation to solve the problems that lead to unintended pregnancy, it should remain an option.
Just a thought: scotty, you mentioned preventing implantation. Do you support access to the "morning after pill"? This would set you apart from many, who consider a fertilized egg to be human.
I also have a question: millions of abortions are performed in this country yearly (Yeah-millions. Pretty awful) If these children had been born, 50% of them would have been born into poverty, 66% to single parents, many of those under 18 who would have difficulty finishing school if they did not have extended family to support them (like the Palin's daughter). Almost all of these would receive government benefits such as medicaid, WIC, food stamps. Can we afford this?
Ikeithlu,
Those "morning after pills" are exactly what I was referring to. From my understanding they prevent implantation, much the same as the regular "pill". I do try to be consistent and support for one and not the other would be inconsistent.
"Can we afford this?"
Well, the flip side of that argument is, how many of those lost humans would have been geniuses. Any one of them may have possessed the mind needed to solve our future energy problems, derive a unified field theory, or grow up to become Zefram Cochrane(LOL). The loss of so much human potential is the saddest part.
Many cultures have practiced infanticide and abortion for many of the reasons cited above:
Incans Sardinians Pelasgians Syrians Phoenicians Carthaginians Greeks Romans Gauls Celts Irish Many Native American tribes Early Russians And many, many more.
Girls suffer the most. Girls are systematically targeted for infanticide and gender selection abortion. Thankfully, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious traditions made infanticide and abortion taboo. The recent American fascination with paganism, however, has turned the clock back to the bad old days of child sacrifice to the gods for prosperity and pleasure.
What does it profit a man (or woman) to gain the whole world but lose his (her) soul?
I doubt paganism is the reason our abortion rate is so high. The lack of responsibility, the poor sex education (too little, too late-Europeans start sex ed MUCH earlier), too many young women willing to submit to men for the wrong reasons, alcohol use, a culture of single teen mothers, the list goes on and on. Pagans make up such a tiny minority.
I don't think we can have it both ways: We complain that poor, uneducated, single mothers and their children are a burden, that social programs paid for by tax dollars is forced charity, and yet if abortion was banned, the numbers of people with this status will increase. Yes, it would be nice if every pregnancy occurred in married, stable, financially able families. Yes, it would be nice if no one used abortion as birth control, as about 13% now do. Yes, it would be nice if unplanned pregnancies were rare and these were adopted by healthy, loving families. Yes, it would be nice if no woman was under the control of a husband or boyfriend, able to make her own decisions about what is best for her, including whether or not to engage in sexual activity. But they aren't. Until they are, abortion must remain part of the legal services provided.
Scottym, your posts are fantasic. Keep them coming. You too Rolando.
In answer to how many of them would become geniuses...the Mensa Society says that only 2% of the population have an IQ of 135 or over. The Genius Society only accepts persons with IQ's that are 99.9% higher than the rest of the population (about 146). At a rate of 1 million abortions per year, according to Mensa, that would be 20,000 potentials or, by Genius Society standards, 1000 potentials per year.
The only irony here is that no one listens to the geniuses currently trying to solve our energy problems anyway. I also have to wonder how many of those geniuses are out standing on the street corner having to panhandle because of this economy.
Or login with:
New Account