gadgetlady

Asking people what religion they are in this country is like asking them if they're Americans. When you dig deeper into the questions, you generally find that most people who define themselves as Christians don't hold to the traditional tenants of the Christian faith. A large number are also not church-goers. So they're really not getting "preached at" about sex and abstinence.

The question was, "is abortion being used as birth control?" The answer, for the 46% of women who didn't use any form of birth control and opted to abort, is "yes". They used abortion to produce the same effect that birth control would have (or should have -- I'm not saying birth control is 100% effective). Furthermore, of those who DID use birth control, a significant number said they didn't use it consistently.

It seems like you're saying that laws don't curtail illegal behavior -- that it doesn't matter if, say theft, is legal or not, because thieves will steal regardless of the law and therefore the incidence of theft will be the same despite laws prohibiting it. So why do we have laws at all? I know for me personally, there are laws that I don't agree with that have curtailed what I would have done had there not been any laws in place: e.g. speed limit laws. If there were no speed limit laws, I certainly wouldn't drive at 70mph from LA to Vegas. I'd be going 100. And furthermore, if the same number of women had abortions regardless of whether it was legal or not, then we wouldn't have seen a dramatic increase in abortion from 1973 on. The numbers would have remained relatively static.

Well, the research arm of Planned Parenthood says different. From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html: • Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex. I would consider 46% a "large number".

You missed the main point entirely. It wasn't about empathy. The headline on the story contained the words "Fetuses Survive". My point was directed towards those who claim the fetus isn't alive until (insert some arbitrary point here) -- the headline blared that the thing growing in the womb "SURVIVED". How does something that isn't alive accomplish SURVIVAL? You can't survive non-life. And the second point, about the schizophrenia of our society, was in the fact that we (as a society) CARE about these twin unborn babies (who are still, btw, alive), but we (as a society) really DON'T care about the unborn babies of the same gestational age who are aborted at the clinic down the street from the bank where these two were almost killed.

Anyone see the headline today about the shooting of a bank teller who was 5 months pregnant with twins? Pregnant bank teller survives shooting - Crime & courts - MSNBC.com Headline reads: "Pregnant bank teller, fetuses survive shooting". How could something that wasn't alive in the first place, survive? Of COURSE the unborn are alive! What a schizophrenic society we live in. She could just as easily have walked into an abortion clinic and legally taken the lives of those babies herself and no one would have cared if they'd survived (they likely wouldn't have).

Roe and Doe made abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. It didn't cut it off at 26 weeks. You believe the thing growing in the womb is a complication? A complication of what?

BTW, from out here in "theoryland", a report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

So if you define life as when one individual believes it begins, and that one individual has a right to impose his views on another individual, how can you decry infanticide, slavery, and a whole host of other human rights violations? Because all the person in power has to claim is that he "believed" the other person wasn't a human life. Damage to the mother is an issue, yes. But the "little other" thing is the taking of the "little other" life.

Actually, that's not true. I have heard other definitions: viability, and birth -- both of which are arbitrary. Viability changes with medical technology, and birth can happen at a difference of several months in development. When a pregnant mother is killed and the killer is tried for 2 murders, who's the second one? When a baby is operated on in utero, who is the entity that has a problem the doctors trying to correct?

Nor I, you. Because it seems to me that you arbitrarily define life as life when someone believes it's life. I haven't heard any other definition from anyone who's pro-abortion on this thread. You do know when I'm saying this, that it's not facetious? You are aware of the learned people who actually believe this? If not, let me know and I'll give you some references.

Knowing the definition of life isn't. To claim that a growing baby isn't a life is. Look, I get it. Pro-abortion people believe that the unborn thing is too tiny to care about. I understand that. They believe the mother's life is more valuable and therefore the unborn thing's life is not worthy of protection. I get that. They believe the mother's life should trump the unborn thing's life. I get that. But to try to wriggle around and say something is human and it's life but it's not human life is just disingenuous -- or blind. I'm not quite sure who you're arguing for here. "The unborn thing doesn't look like the rest of us; he must not be human! Let's ignore scientific evidence!" The evidence is IN. It's human. It's life. It's human life. After all, what makes the Nobel Peace Prize winners who say a baby isn't alive until a month after birth wrong? Because the way you're defining it, life doesn't begin until a person "believes" it begins.

Quite frankly, I think this is a ridiculous argument -- and verbal semantics. Life doesn't happen when we "believe" it happens, and therefore at different times for different people. Life IS. If you "believe" it isn't life and act on that belief by destroying another life, you actually are imposing your beliefs on other people -- in an horrific way. There are generally accepted biologic standards about the definition of life. I'm going to cut and paste a bit here from The Definition of Life, but there are many other sources to be found: According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life: 1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization. 2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization. 3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves. 4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity of inheritance. 5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments. 6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle. 7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment. The unborn baby meets all of these standards. The argument is about whether this particular human life is deserving of protection, not about whether it's human, whether it's life, or whether it's human life.

Why does what we name them matter? Fetus, baby, unborn baby, newborn baby, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. -- they're all just NAMES for the different stages of life! The problem comes when we believe that by naming them "fetus", for example, that we can then take away their rights because we define them as less than human -- which they are not. But fewer of them will choose to abort if it is illegal or more difficult to do so -- and furthermore, fewer of them will choose to abort if they are educated as to what is growing within them. We don't decriminalize theft just because people are going to choose to do it anyway. You are correct. There are no extenuating circumstances that would ever convince me it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being because that human being is an inconvenience to another. And you are also incorrect; making abortion illegal is not my only concern. I also believe in providing many different types of support for women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.

And toddlers aren't toddlers until they're toddlers. And adults aren't adults until they're adults. It is a continuum. Life isn't a title bestowed at birth (which for some babies might be 9 months after conception and for others might be 6 -- how arbitrary is that?). Life just plain IS. If you choose to define it as non-life, that doesn't make it so. It just makes your definition wrong. As are you.

There are lots of differences to all stages of life. It doesn't mean they're not life; it just means they're different stages. :Dancing_biggrin::glare: No one's forcing or trying to force anyone to create babies. The babies are already created, or there'd be no reason for abortion!

It's pretty funny how you're so black and white in your portrayal of me. Am I black and white on this issue? Absolutely, yes. There is no gray in the question of whether it's acceptable to wantonly kill innocent people at any stage of life, from fetal to elderly. Does that mean I don't understand the plight of mothers who are pregnant and don't want to be? Of course not! You don't know me; you don't know if I've ever been pregnant without wanting to be, if I've ever had a pregnancy scare and considered abortion, or even if I've had an abortion! You don't know the friends I have who have had abortions or carried their babies to term. You can continue to portray me as narrow-minded, but it's a bit narrow-minded of you to do so because you just plain don't know me. Skin is not a life. It is a body part. A fetus is a human being at a particular stage of development in life, just as is an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, a teenager, and so forth. It's a very early stage, but it's all in the progression from conception to death.

Oh, I agree 100%. Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with what she did, I don't think it makes for "art" in any sense of the word, and I don't believe she was necessarily pregnant any of the times she took the herbs. But that's not what I'm questioning. What I'm questioning is the simultaneous illogic and audacity of people who support "choice" and believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion anywhere, anyhow, at any time during pregnancy, for any reason -- and yet decry what this woman did. Even if it's a hoax, or even if she was never pregnant -- what the heck is the problem with it, if it's solely her body to do with what she pleases?

Bravo, Jennie! I meant to respond to this earlier but I haven't had the time. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to arrive at the conclusion that something that is human and something that is life isn't . . . human life.

I don't understand how Tommy's response negates the question. The fact is, there are women who abort for reasons such as this woman's (even if they're a very small quantity of women, they do exist). Very early in this thread I posted about hard-core feminists who advocated deliberate pregnancy and abortion for feminists who hadn't had the opportunity to experience an abortion (I was blasted for suggesting such a thing exists, but it does, and I did show evidence of it). The question remains: As to using abortion for birth control, isn't that her choice? If it's a morally neutral act, why decry the use of it as birth control? I am always astonished when those who are in favor of abortion object to women who use abortion for whatever purpose they desire to use it -- "art", the "experience", birth control, fetal deformity, a broken relationship, financial hardship, or, for that matter, fetal harvesting. After all, if choice is king and the "blob of tissue" growing in the womb is really just her body, who on God's green earth has a right to question her motives?

I know you're going to question my sources, but I'm sitting in an airport right now and I don't have a lot of time to hunt around. Read this: South Carolina Abortion Clinic Regulations Upheld. I can post more sources later that are not directly pro-life (i.e. news reports, etc.). These types of reports are the norm, not an anomaly. Somewhere else on this thread I posted information about Planned Parenthood or another abortion organization opposing regulatory standards that would require freestanding abortion clinics to comply with the same regulations as other freestanding medical clinics. If you can't find the information by the time I land from the flight I'm about to board, I will find it for you. Abortion clinics are NOT required to maintain the same standards as other medical clinics.

Well, I don't think she's pro-life but I guess it's a possibility. As to using abortion for birth control, isn't that her choice? If it's a morally neutral act, why decry the use of it as birth control?

I have a friend who went in for an abortion, was handed a pill, and sent home to take it. Late-term abortions involve inserting laminaria in the cervix, sending the woman home, and then having her return later once the cervix is dilated. Abortion clinics are typically less regulated than veterinary clinics. In fact, abortion groups oppose requiring clinics to meet certain health and safety standards because they cost too much money. So no, I don't think abortions, while legal, are every safe. They're certainly never safe for the baby!

Wait, are you saying that "safe and legal" abortions might not be safe and might harm someone irrevocably?

For those of you who are in favor of abortion and also think what this Yale gal did -- if it wasn't a hoax -- is wrong, other than being bad art, can you tell me why? I can tell you why someone in favor of gun rights doesn't believe it's OK to go on a sniper attack on the freeway: it's a violation of another person's right to live. I can tell you why someone who doesn't believe in abortion believes it's wrong to bomb abortion clinics: it's a violation of another person's right to live. I can tell you why those who believe in the freedom of people to drink don't believe drunk driving is OK: it interferes with another person's right to be safe while they drive. Can anyone tell me, other than being bad art, why what this woman did (or may have done) is offensive?