who supports right to choose

[missy4gordon 0]

You believe the thing growing in the womb is a complication? A complication of what?

probably means a complication of irresponsible sex......:scared2: :blushing:

WOW :thumbup::mad2:

[gadgetlady 4]

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).

[TommyO 5]

Dearest Fliflops, how I choose to write is entirely up to me how you choose to interpret them is entirely up to you. I am confused on how you can take such offence to posts you do not fully read.

Once again you are trying to impose your will over me. I will not tell you how to interact please avoid the same on your behalf. As I have stated earlier I refuse to be confined by such a narrow perspective.

Gadget, the fact that I feel empathy for people has little to do with my believe that you should not be able to impose your will on society. The story about the pregnant bank tellar is tragic and your attempt to portay those who are pro-choice as uncarring once again shows your true colours.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, the fact that I feel empathy for people has little to do with my believe that you should not be able to impose your will on society. The story about the pregnant bank tellar is tragic and your attempt to portay those who are pro-choice as uncarring once again shows your true colours.

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.

[TommyO 5]

No one here seems to be claiming that a fetus is not alive, the debate from my perspective is if the fetus is a viable human. Second, the real debate is whether that mother has the right to choose. I support fully her right to decide she wants to have those two beautiful babies. I should not be able to force her to have the babies and I should not be able to force her to have an abortion. It should her decision not mine and not yours.

I refuse to be forced to follow someone else's rules, I live by a moral code that I believe strongly in. It is against that code that I measure how I am performing as a human. I ask no one else to follow that code only me. I am a male so I will never need to obtain an abortion but If I was a female and I was pregnant I would not get an abortion. But that would be my decision, a decision I would make based on my personal set of beliefs.

I would never consider forcing my beliefs on another person. I hold myself accountable to my beliefs and others must make their decisions based on their own set of beliefs.

It is quite clear that you are against abortion and as such you should never have an abortion, not because I said so but because you said so.

I know you will argue that there are other laws that enforce societal rules but your belief that these laws prevent anything is naive. People do not commit murder because it is illegal they do not commit murder because they know it is wrong. If making laws prevented anything we wouldn't need prisons but apparently those institutions are full.

[BJean 16]

Excellent points, Tommy. For instance, there have been many books written and studies done on the fact that capital punishment is not actually a deterrent to murder.

I reallly do think that there is an underlying belief that is revealed when people write such extreme posts and come up with outlandish conclusions which they think prove that pro-choice advocates are all a bunch of murdering, selfish people who cavalierishly choose to kill babies. And I agree with Tommy, if you want to sway the Surpreme Court, that isn't the way to do it. And it isn't the way to win intelligent people over to an anti-choice way of thinking. The general public in America just aren't that stupid.

All this foolishness about women using abortion as birth control is also out of the mainstream and one or two cases of people you've "heard about" or know, doesn't prove that a large number of women use abortion as birth control.

Citing an abuse of any medical procedure, or medication for that matter, doesn't offer proof that it is abused by all or even a lot of people. Relating a story about an extremely unfortunate event and using it to make an incorrect assumption about people with opposing beliefs from yours is offensive and frankly very unattractive.

[snuffy65 1]

Excellent points, Tommy. For instance, there have been many books written and studies done on the fact that capital punishment is not actually a deterrent to murder.

I reallly do think that there is an underlying belief that is revealed when people write such extreme posts and come up with outlandish conclusions which they think prove that pro-choice advocates are all a bunch of murdering, selfish people who cavalierishly choose to kill babies. And I agree with Tommy, if you want to sway the Surpreme Court, that isn't the way to do it. And it isn't the way to win intelligent people over to an anti-choice way of thinking. The general public in America just aren't that stupid.

All this foolishness about women using abortion as birth control is also out of the mainstream and one or two cases of people you've "heard about" or know, doesn't prove that a large number of women use abortion as birth control.

Citing an abuse of any medical procedure, or medication for that matter, doesn't offer proof that it is abused by all or even a lot of people. Relating a story about an extremely unfortunate event and using it to make an incorrect assumption about people with opposing beliefs from yours is offensive and frankly very unattractive.

As a matter of fact, the majority of abortions come from the same group of people who overwhelminglingly support the pro-life side. There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions.

So, instead of trying to make laws just to curb abortions, maybe they should look at what they are doing to promote abortions.

Edited April 24, 2008 by snuffy65

[Jennie1976 1]

I feel I said all that I needed to say on this debate a few pages ago, but this forum still sends me the e-mails which I enjoy reading. I didn't feel the need to respond until I read this one:

As a matter of fact, the majority of abortions come from the same group of people who overwhelminglingly support the pro-life side. There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions.

So, instead of trying to make laws just to curb abortions, maybe they should look at what they are doing to promote abortions.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that people who promote abstinence and/or no sex before marriage are the same people who receive the majority of abortions.

While I understand that this would make pro-life arguments and beliefs seem ridiculous and, therefore, further your cause, it is simply untrue. People who practice those beliefs and bring up their children to practice those beliefs are not the people in need of abortions. By their nature, abortions are for unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. The rates of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies are not all that high among married persons:

From the Washington Post:

"Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies."

Abortion: Just the Data

From "prochoice.org":

"Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6"

AND

"Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1"

ALL of those percents are well under 50%. Therefore, you are sorely mistaken if you think "the majority of abortions come from the same group of people who overwhelminglingly support the pro-life side".

Just wanted to correct that blatant misinformation.

[gadgetlady 4]

All this foolishness about women using abortion as birth control is also out of the mainstream and one or two cases of people you've "heard about" or know, doesn't prove that a large number of women use abortion as birth control.

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".

[gadgetlady 4]

People do not commit murder because it is illegal they do not commit murder because they know it is wrong. If making laws prevented anything we wouldn't need prisons but apparently those institutions are full.

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.

[snuffy65 1]

From the Washington Post:

"Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies."

Abortion: Just the Data

Do you even read what you posted? The post fooled you on that one. First that says those people have "unintended pregnancies" not abortions. 2nd it says 47% of "unintended pregnancies" end up in abortions, but never put 2 & 2 together. Duhhhh.

3rd, this doesn't prove me wrong becuase what you would be telling me is tat most black, Hispanic, and teenagers, don't have any religious affiliations. Thats dumb assertions.

From "prochoice.org":

"Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6"

This also proves my point that unmarried woman are shunned and so talk down to about not getting pregnant they feel that the need to get an abortion.

"Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1"

ALL of those percents are well under 50%. Therefore, you are sorely mistaken if you think "the majority of abortions come from the same group of people who overwhelminglingly support the pro-life side".

Just wanted to correct that blatant misinformation.

So 22% of women are catholic the US and 27% of abortions are by catholic women? All that tell me is your 5% more likely to get an abortion which also proves my point.

Heres a picking from a more extensive poll, from no other then an prolife site( Abortion Statistics ).

Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Which tells me 76.3% are people who are preached about abstinence and no sex and all that fun stuff.

Please read your stuff before cutting pasting from Prolife sites and just assume it backs you up.

[snuffy65 1]

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".

yes, because all of those women think "hey if I get pregnant I will just get an abortion."

[gadgetlady 4]

yes, because all of those women think "hey if I get pregnant I will just get an abortion."

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.

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

[TommyO 5]

Hey, if you need laws to tell you steeling is wrong then you probably are better off being religious. I on the other hand was able to decide that for myself along with a number of other things. The speed limit is a great example of how laws don't have much affect, do you see many people speeding as you drive to Vegas.

To debate statistcs often is a fools game, figures can lie and liers can figure, as my Father used to say. So the increase in abortions can be based on any number of things. I might argue that abortions are up because of global warming because over that time period the planet got warmer. There may or may not be a coralation but I could trot out all kinds of statistics that might prove my point. It would be silly but I could do it and I bet I could convince a few people that global warming affects the rate of abortions. The only true statement I can make is that abortions are up because more abortions are being performed. It's kinda like the flood thing, I can find statistics and science that supports almost anything if I wanted. I would be wrong but I could.