gadgetlady

It's not propaganda. It's a medical study. The only reason you consider it propaganda is because the data it finds violates the holy grail of "safe" abortion.

Incapable of life independent of the mother, not incapable of life. Do you, then, support restrictions on abortion after viability? Or do you support abortion on demand up until 9 months of pregnancy? If/when medical technology advances to the point where an unborn baby can be sustained apart from the mother at the time she becomes aware of the pregnancy (e.g. 6 weeks or so), would you support legislation to remove the baby alive (rather than abort the baby and cause death) and have the baby supported artificially? I don't believe in discriminating against anyone on the basis of age. I don't believe in imposing the death penalty on anyone because they are an inconvenience to another person. I believe both lives are valuable and should be treated as such.

Why don't you try reading the .pdf I posted, not the "biased" commentaries on it? It's very informative.

From where do you get these statistics? Because abortion has dramatically increased in all places when it has become legal.

This presumes that in 100% of the situations where a woman is abortion-minded, her life will be tragic if she chooses to bring her baby to term. That's a fallacious assumption. What a woman perceives as an untenable situation may not be. Many of us have faced situations in our lives that we perceived to be without hope. And yet, somehow some things have a way of working themselves out for the better, despite our inability to see such a resolution in the throes of the perceived disaster. It's really, should the [insert your favorite word for unborn baby] lose it's life, not it's potential life. There is no such thing as a potential life. Either it's a life or it's not. From http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187: A common way to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion is to refer to pregnancy as "creating potential life." Calling an unborn child a "potential life" is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a "potential life." Think about it. First, you could potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex there's potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, you could create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life. It's like saying, "I just had a potential thought." What could that possibly mean, you just had a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn't. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn't. But you never have a potential thought. In the same way, pregnancy doesn't create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion is needed to end pregnancy and not a potential one, a real life must be involved, not a potential one. It's really interesting that the abortion industry so loves the word "choice", when really when women resort to abortion it's because they felt they did not have a choice. Women are sold a bill of goods that having a baby "at the wrong time" will ruin their lives -- that they can't be successful, productive members of society if they have a baby or if they can't choose the "exact right moment" to have a child (as if there is one). What abortion does is it pits women against their children. And that's a very sad thing.

luluc said something interesting in one of her posts: The implication is that a "fetus" is something other than a "life". That points to the success of the abortion movement in defining the thing growing in the womb as something other than human. She said, "not just a fetus" -- as if a fetus is something other than a growing human life! Of course the unborn baby is a fetus! It's just another word for the same thing. Wherein lies the confusion. It is easier to discriminate, abuse, maim, or kill someone when you simply define them as something other than a person.

Baloney. Here's one study: Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth. This study takes into account the 1-year after both incidents. One of the problems with a statistical analysis of abortion vs. pregnancy is that women who carry their babies to term have 9 months to "have complications" -- and often the studies include non-pregnancy related issues (like car accidents). The Finland study is exceptional; I suggest taking the time to read the entire thing. And did you know that abortion is a better predictor of breast cancer than any other factor? If you'd like to read a commentary, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3362.html; to download the .pdf of the study, go to http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf The abortion industry is sadly less regulated than the veterinary industry in the US. Read Planned Parenthood: Trusted Health Provider or Greedy Abortion Business? to learn about how Planned Parenthood tried to avoid complying with state safety regulations that other medical facilities had to comply with.

luluc, I absolutely do not want to add to your grief / guilt over this matter -- if you don't want to "talk" about it please feel free to just "walk away" from this conversation. I strongly suggest since you're still carrying this with you after so many years that you seek some post abortion counseling. I would be happy to refer some organizations if you don't know where to go. I do, however, have a comment. How can "it" (the unborn baby) be both a life and your body?

Curious here -- why do you consider it a sin?

vs. Interestingly, luluc's situation is not unique. Complications, minor to major (including death) happen regularly with "safe and legal" abortions.

Fetus is a definition of a stage of being. Just like infant, toddler, adolescent, and elderly. It is a continuum of life. Calling the unborn baby a "fetus" allows you to disassociate but it doesn't change reality. The baby is NOT the woman's body, unless she has two heads, two brains, four arms, four legs, and if she's carrying a male baby, a penis -- and two sets of separate DNA and two separate circulatory systems.

Ohhhh, that's a good one! Thanks for the handy quote :clap2:

In the case of abortion, the body and health and life of two people are involved.

And this happened before Roe . . . where? This is a ridiculous, inflammatory argument.

I think the impression that it leans towards the right is because everything else is SOOOOO far left that everyone's lost perspective and doesn't know what "balanced" is anymore.

OUTRAGEOUS! I'm not surprised he's a former judge, mayor, and politician. Once I was in small claim's court awaiting my turn, listening in on another case. I don't remember the details, but I do remember the losing party saying to the judge, "But the LAW says . . .". She cut him off, saying, "I don't care what the law says. In this courtroom, I AM THE LAW." I will never forget that. A measly small claims court judge screaming out "I AM THE LAW" -- and meaning it -- to the detriment of this poor business owner who had just followed the ACTUAL law.

My accountant told me the story of two (grown) children who inherited their family's house on the beach in California. The house had been in the family since the 1940's. It was worth $30M, and it was all paid off. The kids had to sell the family house because they couldn't afford the $15M in death taxes. It's not like the taxes hadn't already been paid on the house. "I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you." Disgusting.

Actually, I, too, loved the hijack. It is fascinating reading about both of your experiences in Cuba, Elena and green. I had a similar "Potemkin Village" experience visiting Russia when I was young. Perhaps you should start a whole new thread, Elena, on "growing up and living in a Communist country"!

{shaking head} Incredible. What's even more incredible is that people are befuddled enough by this convoluted logic to accept the conclusion!

They always try to turn it around and make it something positive, don't they? I think it's time for another tea party. After all, the ORIGINAL tea party we had was over the exorbitant tax rate of {gasp} 2% !!!! What we sit back (or maybe it's bend over) and take these days is ridiculous.

It's probably a good idea to delve into the history of the document, WHY it was written, and why specifically Article 11 was in there. Does it not seem strange to have it in there? There was a reason . . . I'll let you do your own research. Never take anything at face value.

Actually, it first started in the 1800's.

I came across a blog once which had the tagline: "Raised Republican. I can help myself, thank you." Love it!

It boggles my mind that anyone can truly believe in molecules-to-man evolution -- that any creature just happened to evolve to the point where it could reproduce, fly, have sight, speak, think, talk, nurse its young, etc. Nature screams design.

AMEN! :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2: