Life begins at conception...

[DemonMyst]

I am curious?? Why don't you so called pro-lifers get your panties in a bunch over the death penalty?? Why don't we ever hear any talk about what you are going to do with the 1.3 million unwanted babies that are born because abortion is now banned?? Do you have any clue at all what you are going to do with them?? How will you pay for their healthcare and education??

You blab on about morality, murder, and what ever else.. Do you ever consider the realities of your position?? What are you going to do about the millions of dirty doctors that popup all over the nation?? Operating in their garages or back yard shed.. How many woman will die due to infection and internal injury.. How many of them will no longer be able to have children due to internal injury??

Do any of you anti-choicers think about any of this while you spout off your stupid and ignorant talking points?? If you are going to attempt to claim that you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.. Then ypu better damn well take into consideration the realities you will be forcing onto women and the unwanted children..

 

[ecofarm]

Sure, you're curious. Why not? Anyway, my panties get fully bunched over the death penalty. They bunch up so much, it makes me wanna target helpless harmless people. That's right, I said it's state terrorism. And it is done under the guise of providing some kind of sick personal vengeance to the citizen. Further, it justifies the rationalization of murder, thereby increasing the rate (the opposite of the deterrence argument is true, it encourages). Is that sufficiently bunched?

And don't even get me started about needlessly killing animals, barbarians.

 

[stelz]

Irrelevant to the discussion. Abortions do not happen at this point. But in the end you are simply left with opinion as to where a seperate life begins.

The OP tried to state that "life begins at conception", so it's obviously NOT "irrelevant to the discussion" to effectively refute that.

Sperm cells, eggs, zygotes, all of these are alive. But they are not A HUMAN BEING.

Neither is a fetus that is NOT VIABLE OUTSIDE THE MOTHER a "separate life". There's no scientific reason to call it a human being at that point. It's a FETUS.

Ergo, there's NO scientific argument for this misogyny masquerading as "pro-life". The whole argument consists of "Life begins at conception BECUZ I SAID SO!!!!!"

 

[1Perry]

I am curious?? Why don't you so called pro-lifers get your panties in a bunch over the death penalty??

I answered this already. I am against the death penalty. Are you what you complain about?

Why don't we ever hear any talk about what you are going to do with the 1.3 million unwanted babies that are born because abortion is now banned??

I did. I noted it's why I support gay marriage. I'm all for allowing gay couples adopt.

Do you have any clue at all what you are going to do with them?? How will you pay for their healthcare and education??

See above. I won't have to.

You blab on about morality, murder, and what ever else.. Do you ever consider the realities of your position?? What are you going to do about the millions of dirty doctors that popup all over the nation?? Operating in their garages or back yard shed.. How many woman will die due to infection and internal injury.. How many of them will no longer be able to have children due to internal injury??

You would have to explain why you believe this would happen.

Do any of you anti-choicers think about any of this while you spout off your stupid and ignorant talking points?? If you are going to attempt to claim that you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.. Then ypu better damn well take into consideration the realities you will be forcing onto women and the unwanted children..

Seems I have.

 

[1Perry]

The OP tried to state that "life begins at conception", so it's obviously NOT "irrelevant to the discussion" to effectively refute that.

Sperm cells, eggs, zygotes, all of these are alive. But they are not A HUMAN BEING.

Neither is a fetus that is NOT VIABLE OUTSIDE THE MOTHER a "separate life". There's no scientific reason to call it a human being at that point. It's a FETUS.

Ergo, there's NO scientific argument for this misogyny masquerading as "pro-life". The whole argument consists of "Life begins at conception BECUZ I SAID SO!!!!!"

About the same as it's not human because I said so. We call a two year old a toddler but yet they are human.

 

[bowerbird]

By the same token can I call a teenager sub-human because that is what they often are??

 

[Thunder]

#1. sperm & eggs are alive before conception.

#2. a fertilized egg is clearly NOT a human. it may miscarriage the next day or the next month.

#3. a fertilized egg that is definitely going to develop into a fully-functional human being, is still not a human being. Its part of the mother's body. Its fed by the mother, and given oxygen by the mother. This is why the mother should and does have the right to abort the fetus.

 

[1Perry]

#2. a fertilized egg is clearly NOT a human. it may miscarriage the next day or the next month.

You might get hit by a car tomorrow.

 

[Thunder]

You might get hit by a car tomorrow.

huh....

what a ridiculous argument to make.

1-day old fetuses are not human. they don't even look human.

abortion is legal and will stay that way.

 

[1Perry]

huh....

what a ridiculous argument to make.

1-day old fetuses are not human. they don't even look human.

abortion is legal and will stay that way.

You are the one who tried (poorly) to argue that it was no big deal to kill it because it might fail anyway.

 

[Thunder]

You are the one who tried (poorly) to argue that it was no big deal to kill it because it might fail anyway.

yes, its ok to kill a day-old fetus. part of the reason why its ok, is because its far from being a human yet.

however, I have been a human for more than 35 years.

 

[mac]

yes, its ok to kill a day-old fetus. part of the reason why its ok, is because its far from being a human yet.

however, I have been a human for more than 35 years.

Oh it is human, it's just not a person...which is of course, entirely subjective.

 

[OKgrannie]

Oh it is human, it's just not a person...which is of course, entirely subjective.

Well, that's the difference between "human" and "A human."

 

[mac]

Well, that's the difference between "human" and "A human."

yep, irrelevant subjective criteria...you're right.

 

[Thunder]

Oh it is human, it's just not a person...which is of course, entirely subjective.

a fetus is not a human. its a growing organism that may become a human, or may get flushed down the toilet.

 

[RamFel]

I am curious?? Why don't you so called pro-lifers get your panties in a bunch over the death penalty?? Why don't we ever hear any talk about what you are going to do with the 1.3 million unwanted babies that are born because abortion is now banned?? Do you have any clue at all what you are going to do with them?? How will you pay for their healthcare and education??

You blab on about morality, murder, and what ever else.. Do you ever consider the realities of your position?? What are you going to do about the millions of dirty doctors that popup all over the nation?? Operating in their garages or back yard shed.. How many woman will die due to infection and internal injury.. How many of them will no longer be able to have children due to internal injury??

Do any of you anti-choicers think about any of this while you spout off your stupid and ignorant talking points?? If you are going to attempt to claim that you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.. Then ypu better damn well take into consideration the realities you will be forcing onto women and the unwanted children..

I am curious too. I am curious as to why you care about prisoners on death row, but not about the babies being killed. The prisoners are paying for their crimes because their deeds have consequences. But the babies? What did they ever do to you?

I am curious as to why you call them unwanted babies? There are couples that would love to take them in if the young woman who is trying to abort her little baby doesn’t want them. There is also a chance that if the baby is carried to term, the young woman might decide to keep her child.

I am curious why you’re concerned about the costs of education and healthcare, yet your unconcerned about the solution; mass slaughter.

I am curious why you’re making the decision for the babies, and determining that they’re better off dead without wondering what they would do if given the chance to decide whether they want to live, or die. I bet they want to live.

I am curious why you want the government to play God. I am curious why you’re not seeing the lives taken as potentially beneficial to our society. The contributions that potentially these babies can make.

I am curious as to why you’re concerned about the dirty doctors. Sure they’re going to be there but are they going to be as numerous as in the 60’s when having a child out of wedlock was more frowned upon. That’s not going to be as influential as it was back then. The law will deal with them.

I am curious as to why you are more concerned about a woman’s rights as to what she can do with her body, yet you don’t care about the baby being aborted.

And finally, I am curious as to why you really care. There’s a curious aggression to your post, and I’m wondering why. What do you have to gain? What’s the ultimate goal?

 

[DemonMyst]

I am curious too. I am curious as to why you care about prisoners on death row, but not about the babies being killed. The prisoners are paying for their crimes because their deeds have consequences. But the babies? What did they ever do to you?

I never said I didn't care about them.. But death is death.. Criminal or otherwise is it not?? Isn't the death penalty nothing more than state sanctioned murder??

I am curious as to why you call them unwanted babies? There are couples that would love to take them in if the young woman who is trying to abort her little baby doesn’t want them. There is also a chance that if the baby is carried to term, the young woman might decide to keep her child.

This is where your ignorance shows up.. You will at best be able to place a few hundered thousand kids with adoptive parents.. What do you do with the other million?? 1.3 million abortions occur each year.. You do understand math don't you?? What do you do with them??

I am curious why you’re concerned about the costs of education and healthcare, yet your unconcerned about the solution; mass slaughter.

Because you morons want to cut ever social service in existence to help the economy.. Basically, with you, there will be millions of dead babies on the streets because you morons don't want to pay for it.. Again, you don't know what I am or am not concerned about.. You simply aren't smart enough.. Positions have consequesnces and you haven't even begun to think about your's..

I am curious why you’re making the decision for the babies, and determining that they’re better off dead without wondering what they would do if given the chance to decide whether they want to live, or die. I bet they want to live.

That statement makes no sense.. I never made any decision.. I am asking for people like you to live up to the choices you have made and that you want others to make.. I never said anyone was better off dead.. You did.. You condemned countless mothers to death, by forcing them to get abortions in less than safe and clean environments.. Not to mention their unborn children..

I am curious why you want the government to play God. I am curious why you’re not seeing the lives taken as potentially beneficial to our society. The contributions that potentially these babies can make.

Again.. I don't.. You do.. By not take responsibility for your postion and views.. Again.. No consideration as to how the child will grow up to become a beneficial part of society.. I suppose in your ignorant world this just happens magically and for free??

I am curious as to why you’re concerned about the dirty doctors. Sure they’re going to be there but are they going to be as numerous as in the 60’s when having a child out of wedlock was more frowned upon. That’s not going to be as influential as it was back then. The law will deal with them.

Another statement of sheer ignorance.. How many women and children must die before the law catches him?? And how many will spring up to take his place?? You have no concern for now many mothers and children will be killed because of your ignorance.. Your sheer lack of desire to deal with reality.. I am concerned about about dirty doctors because potentially, more people will be killed by banning abortion than allowing it.. So while you call yourself pro-life, you are most likely pro-death.. For every mother that dies, that is two lives and not just one.. You can count can't you??

I am curious as to why you are more concerned about a woman’s rights as to what she can do with her body, yet you don’t care about the baby being aborted.

Again.. You know nothing of what I care about.. I am just smart enough to know that you can't blindly take a position on an issue based on a verse in the bible without first considering all angles and all possible out comes.. You on the other hand are not that smart.. You haven't considered anything.. Take your post for instance.. On at least 3 different occasions you have asked me the same lame question.. You didn't even address any of the issue.. Which again shows your ignorance and lack of forethought..

And finally, I am curious as to why you really care. There’s a curious aggression to your post, and I’m wondering why. What do you have to gain? What’s the ultimate goal?

I care because unlike you.. I actually do care about life.. Both the life of the mother and the baby.. Unlike you, I have considered all the above.. And as long as you boneheads are bitching about entitlements, then no unwanted child has a chance at life should they be born.. So what is worse?? Dying in the streets because people like you don't want to spend the money to take care of it.. Or dying medically in an abortion.. Adoption will only take so many.. And not nearly enough.. 1.3 million abortions are performed each year.. That is an estimated 1.3 million unwanted kids born each year.. So despite your ignorance, and stupidity.. It is an issue.. Republicans aren't to big on spending for social services.. You all cut education every chance you get.. So seriously?? How is this child to grow up to be a beneficial part of society?? Instead of giving tax cuts to the rich, why don't you lay out some funding for the children you claim to care about.. Maybe more mothers would consider going to term if they knew the child would be cared for.. You morons don't want to pay for anything..

And there in lies the issue.. You don't even want to address those issues.. You just want to scream your little head off about how bad abortion is, while totally ignoring the issues that go along with it.. Instead of being an ignorant fool and obviously only caring about the child up until the point they are born.. Why don't you sit down and actually give this stuff some thought.. I does require thinking.. So.. I hope your up for it..

Like the death penalty... You don't care if the person is innocent or guilty.. All that matters is that they were convicted.. Then it is ok to kill them.. Same with babies.. You don't care if they live or die after they are born.. You just don't want them aborted.. As soon as they are born, they can be laid to rest under a bridge for all you care.. You don't even want to discuss taking care of them.. You haven't even cared enough to do the research into how many adoptive parents are out there Vs. how many abortions take place.. Your arguement ends, truely the day the child is born.. And then you don't give a rip..

You are not pro-life.. You are pro-death.. The only thing that matters to you is when they die.. You don't even care about the mothers.. Or whether or not they will die..

 

[DemonMyst]

You would have to explain why you believe this would happen.

First of all.. My post was to in general.. So if it didn't apply to you then be smart enough to not respond to it..

Second..

You blab on about morality, murder, and what ever else.. Do you ever consider the realities of your position?? What are you going to do about the millions of dirty doctors that popup all over the nation?? Operating in their garages or back yard shed.. How many woman will die due to infection and internal injury.. How many of them will no longer be able to have children due to internal injury??

Hmmmm?? Do you know anything about history?? Specifically the time period that led up to Roe V. Wade.. 100's of thousands of mothers and children were dying annually due to the issue of dirty doctors that practices almost anywhere.. Or the use of coat hangers and other self inflicted attempt to abort.. Many of them left without the ability to have children due to internal injury..

So to answer your question as to why I think it would happen?? Because it has happened before..

Illegal Abortions Were Common

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.

Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.

Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

Research does wonders.. You should try it some time..

 

[1Perry]

First of all.. My post was to in general.. So if it didn't apply to you then be smart enough to not respond to it..

I am a pro-lifer so perhaps the failure of intelligence falls upon those who go with vast generalizations?

Hmmmm?? Do you know anything about history?? Specifically the time period that led up to Roe V. Wade.. 100's of thousands of mothers and children were dying annually due to the issue of dirty doctors that practices almost anywhere.. Or the use of coat hangers and other self inflicted attempt to abort.. Many of them left without the ability to have children due to internal injury..

This is a, well I do not want to state lie as I do not know whether you did this intentionally or have simply been duped, but the statement is absolutely false.

So to answer your question as to why I think it would happen?? Because it has happened before..

The overwhelming vast majority of abortions that happened before RvW were performed by the very same doctors that performed them before RvW. They were just done after hours.

Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

Mary Calderon July 1960 (former director of Planned Parenthood.

Unsafe abortion - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were very, very few deaths because of abortions before RvW and after the discovery of penicillin. Women still die today because of abortions. In 1969 (from gov stats) 39 women died from illegal abortions. 41 died from legal ones. in 1975 there was 29 deaths because of a legal abortion. With the rate of abortions falling regularly, most likely the numbers would have been statistically small if abortion had not been legalized.



Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

Research does wonders.. You should try it some time..

First off, one shouldn't just rely on research from a group that promotes abortion. Second, one who is no more aware of the facts than you are should not toss around the moron lable so easily. (For the record, I do not believe you are a moron, simple ignorant of the facts)

 

[Alyssa]

The comparison is that personal definitions of personhood allow for atrocities (abortion and slavery) to be legal under the law. A ZEF is a human life, and that much should be enough reason to protect it.

It is obvious that a black person is not 3/5s of a person. It is not obvious that a ZEF is a person; nor can slavery and abortion compare.

Oh it is human, it's just not a person...which is of course, entirely subjective.

Finally got it. :clap:

The thing is, you think personhood is irrelevant to this debate.

 

[OKgrannie]

I am curious too. I am curious as to why you care about prisoners on death row, but not about the babies being killed. The prisoners are paying for their crimes because their deeds have consequences. But the babies? What did they ever do to you?

The so-called "babies" do plenty to the women who gestate them. If you respect women, you must allow her to make the choice about the risks.

I am curious as to why you call them unwanted babies? There are couples that would love to take them in if the young woman who is trying to abort her little baby doesn’t want them. There is also a chance that if the baby is carried to term, the young woman might decide to keep her child.

There are not enough adoptive parents to care for all the babies born if it were possible to end abortions. IAC, a woman has no obligation to endure the rigors and risks of pregnancy/childbirth in order to give someone else what s/he wants. It is not a good idea to suggest that women who do not want children, or at least do not want children at this time, keep and rear the unwanted child. Hormones flooding a new mother's body make her incapable of making reasoned decisions and emotion prevails.

I am curious why you’re concerned about the costs of education and healthcare, yet your unconcerned about the solution; mass slaughter.

LOL, "mass slaughter" is an emotion-laden term that just doesn't apply to abortion.

I am curious why you’re making the decision for the babies, and determining that they’re better off dead without wondering what they would do if given the chance to decide whether they want to live, or die. I bet they want to live.

I bet they are incapable of having or making a choice.

I am curious why you want the government to play God. I am curious why you’re not seeing the lives taken as potentially beneficial to our society. The contributions that potentially these babies can make.

Pro-choicers are not wanting government to play God, quite the opposite, they want to leave the decision in the hands of one most affected, the pregnant woman. It is pro-lifers who want the government to enforce their own ideas of what God would want if he really knew what was going on.

I am curious as to why you’re concerned about the dirty doctors. Sure they’re going to be there but are they going to be as numerous as in the 60’s when having a child out of wedlock was more frowned upon. That’s not going to be as influential as it was back then. The law will deal with them.

Out-of-wedlock children may not be as frowned upon as they were in the '60s, but other factors make abortion just as essential. For instance, it is much more expensive to birth and rear a child than it was in the '60s, women are expected to support themselves and their families, meaning they need more education to do so. Pregnancy/childbirth/childrearing is expensive and interferes with education for the women involved.

I am curious as to why you are more concerned about a woman’s rights as to what she can do with her body, yet you don’t care about the baby being aborted.

Most people are more concerned about those they know. No one, except the pregnant woman in some degree in later pregnancy, knows a zef. Those who exhibit great concern for the zef are usually more concerned with controlling women and maintaining a way of life than they are an actual life.

And finally, I am curious as to why you really care. There’s a curious aggression to your post, and I’m wondering why. What do you have to gain? What’s the ultimate goal?

The ultimate goal is freedom for one to live his/her life as s/he sees fit, i.e. respecting women to make decisions about their own lives. Respecting women enough to know that pregnancy/childbirth/childrearing is a life-altering happening requiring a substantial sacrifice that a women should be able to control.

 

[DemonMyst]

I am a pro-lifer so perhaps the failure of intelligence falls upon those who go with vast generalizations?

What can I say?? Appearantly to you speaking to a group of people in general is generalizing?? At least we know where the lapse in intelligence is.. Now if we can just get you to look into the mirror.. I was also asking questions.. Again not speaking in general.. Again, obviously not intelligent enough to understand that are you??

This is a, well I do not want to state lie as I do not know whether you did this intentionally or have simply been duped, but the statement is absolutely false.

My statements and well founded and proven.. And since Wikipedia isn't even considered a viable source by ever major college in american.. I would say you are the one that was duped.. But you can believe what you want.. In general and every other way as well..

There are countless sites that will all tell you the same thing.. Just because you refuse to address the issues I brought and now deny the historical facts is your own choice.. But make no mistake.. You are not addressing the issues I have raised and you are denying the facts..

I made no claim as to how many women died.. Other than to say a lot. 10% of 1.3 million is still 130,000 dead.. That is still a lot.. Compared to today?? The number of abortions has almost doubled since the late 1960's and early 70's.. So arguing numbers is pointless..

What you pro-deathers don't know, is that pro-choicers are also against abortion.. But without a decent and viable plan to take care of the children after they are born, what is the point?? What exactly do you pro-deathers want to pay for?? No on education, no on so called entitlements.. Even though most of you are to dumb to understand that SS and Medicare are paid with a seperate tax and not part of the general budget.. Seen a pay stub recently?

What you fail to realize is that abortion is simply the lesser of the two evils.. What are going to do with 1.3 million unwanted children a year?? Adoption will take care of what?? 10,000 or so?? Hell we will say 650,000 for now, even though that is probably twice the number of adoptive parents available?? What about next year when there is another 1.3 million unwanted kids?? Foster care?? Who is going to pay for that?? Not pro-deathers.. What about these children's education?? Again, not the pro-deathers.. You people constantly cut that as well..

So you tell me?? What is better?? Abortion or letting a child be born only to die on the street due to lack of funds to care for it?? You tell me!! Which is better?? Are you smart enough to ask the hard questions or do you just want to jerk around with the meaningless nonesense like when life begins.. I am conserned about when it ends.. How about you??

 

[Hicup]

Demon -

My statements and well founded and proven.. And since Wikipedia isn't even considered a viable source by ever major college in american.. I would say you are the one that was duped.. But you can believe what you want.. In general and every other way as well..

What statements? A fertilized egg will only ever be one thing. It will be human. Its DNA is unique, and it is 100% human DNA. Whether it is supported by the Mother is irrelevant, it is a fallacious argument. It attempts to nullify the system by which we reproduce, by implying that the system by which we procreate is relevant in some scientific way to the question of human classification. We could just all lay eggs for it to matter in how we classify our species.

There are countless sites that will all tell you the same thing..

There's not a single scientist I know that will classify a human fertilized egg as anything but a human.

What you pro-deathers don't know, is that pro-choicers are also against abortion.. But without a decent and viable plan to take care of the children after they are born, what is the point??

Oh here's an idea... How about we educate our children with the notion that child birth is for real, it cannot be undone, tread lightly and let them know that they will be held accountable for having children.

What you fail to realize is that abortion is simply the lesser of the two evils.. What are going to do with 1.3 million unwanted children a year??

How about we start with first showing them that they are wanted, shall we. Our society has become too used to accepting abortion as common-place. Birth control, for those that lost control. Are we so steeped in rewarding the lazy, perhaps greedy, and irresponsible that we cannot envision a point where all children will be wanted, and that control, (Hey wait maybe we should stop and think about this) first begins before the act, not after.

Abortion or letting a child be born only to die on the street due to lack of funds to care for it??

Slippery slope.. Also, your premise is not founded on anything remotely approaching quantifiable. However, even if by chance your scenario is approaching some level of truth, how is it any different than someone else, anyone else dying for any OTHER reason that we can think of?

It doesn't!


Tim-

 

[1Perry]

What can I say??

Obviously not that you know your vast generalizations are nothing more than that.

My statements and well founded and proven..

Your statement was a load of crap.

And since Wikipedia isn't even considered a viable source by ever major college in american.. I would say you are the one that was duped.. But you can believe what you want.. In general and every other way as well..

There are countless sites that will all tell you the same thing.. Just because you refuse to address the issues I brought and now deny the historical facts is your own choice.. But make no mistake.. You are not addressing the issues I have raised and you are denying the facts..

I made no claim as to how many women died.. Other than to say a lot.

Really, it wasn't you in post 318 that said:

Hmmmm?? Do you know anything about history?? Specifically the time period that led up to Roe V. Wade.. 100's of thousands of mothers and children were dying annually due to the issue of dirty doctors that practices almost anywhere.. Or the use of coat hangers and other self inflicted attempt to abort.. Many of them left without the ability to have children due to internal injury..

10% of 1.3 million is still 130,000 dead.. That is still a lot.. Compared to today?? The number of abortions has almost doubled since the late 1960's and early 70's.. So arguing numbers is pointless..

No it hasn't. The first full year of RvW in the early 70's (1974 to be exact) the Guttmacher (your original source) estimated there was 900,000 abortions with 1.2 million in 2010.

What you pro-deathers don't know, is that pro-choicers are also against abortion.. But without a decent and viable plan to take care of the children after they are born, what is the point?? What exactly do you pro-deathers want to pay for?? No on education, no on so called entitlements.. Even though most of you are to dumb to understand that SS and Medicare are paid with a seperate tax and not part of the general budget.. Seen a pay stub recently?

I noted an option that nobody addressed. And really you get nowhere with the name calling and accusations on ones ability to think.

What you fail to realize is that abortion is simply the lesser of the two evils.. What are going to do with 1.3 million unwanted children a year?? Adoption will take care of what?? 10,000 or so?? Hell we will say 650,000 for now, even though that is probably twice the number of adoptive parents available?? What about next year when there is another 1.3 million unwanted kids?? Foster care?? Who is going to pay for that?? Not pro-deathers.. What about these children's education?? Again, not the pro-deathers.. You people constantly cut that as well..

I happen to believe that the number of unwanted pregnancies will fall if one knows they can't simply fall back on abortion. I also know that there are many gay couple that would love to adopt this children.

So you tell me?? What is better?? Abortion or letting a child be born only to die on the street due to lack of funds to care for it?? You tell me!! Which is better?? Are you smart enough to ask the hard questions or do you just want to jerk around with the meaningless nonesense like when life begins.. I am conserned about when it ends.. How about you??

Many rich, or well off women abort. Why would they simply kick the kid to the streets?

 

[mac]

a fetus is not a human. its a growing organism that may become a human, or may get flushed down the toilet.

Whether or not it survives has no affect on its humanity. A fetus is an organism which is the offspring of human reproduction....since two humans can not create a cat, or a dolphin, through sexual reproduction...the organism they create is obviously a human.