Abortions are safer than child birth...
The Truth About “Back Alley” Abortions « After Abortion
No, things are not safer now that it's legal. In fact, now that it is more widespread, more women are harmed.
The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.
The intent of havig an abortion isn't to have a baby. :roll: The fact is that abortions today are safer than giving birth for women. But I found it very telling that your comment made no mention of women or their safety at all and that is what the OP is about. You act as if they don't exist except as baby mills. Unfortunately, it's that total disregard and lack of concern for women as human beings in their own right by some men, makes me wonder if that kind of attitude isn't the reason a lot of women have abortions.The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.
-- makes me wonder if that kind of attitude isn't the reason a lot of women have abortions.
Since I didn't mention anything about trimesters let alone viability, I don't believe you were "wholly with me" at all. In fact, you helped to confirm what I said.I was wholly with you till right there.
I'm not (by the way) anti-abortion; it's generally a woman's decision and completely a woman's right what to do with her own body until we get to 25 weeks when the baby / child / foetus / human being / zygote inside her begins to gain its own rights. (I am not one of those people who get hung up about calling the baby a baby)
Since I didn't mention anything about trimesters let alone viability, I don't believe you were "wholly with me" at all. In fact, you helped to confirm what I said.
Which of course explains why you're the first and only one on this thread to bring up "whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc."I was clarifying my position in the second paragraph - abortion threads usually degenerate into a discussion of whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc. I've even once been picked up for using the English expression "back room abortion" by an American who thought calling it a back ally abortion would help him prove abortion was evil.
Thats what I said and now that you've clarified yourself I have absolutely no idea what you're really trying to say.Anyhow - I was simply trying to say (and maybe shouldn't have) that your last sentence could be (and probably will be) deliberately misconstrued as women having abortions simply because of men's attitudes.
Which of course explains why you're the first and only one on this thread to bring up "whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc."
Thats what I said and now that you've clarified yourself I have absolutely no idea what you're really trying to say.
The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.
The intent of havig an abortion isn't to have a baby.
The citation used is some kind of blog? Where is it from?
Also, another member has pointed out that much of the information provided is misleading. For example no one thought people were having abortions in alleys, or that they were being done primarily by little old ladies with coathangers. People knew they were being done by midwives, nurses and doctors of varying skill levels. :naughty
Sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is the one being deceptive. :twocents:
OH. I found it...it's an anti-abortion website After Abortion
Small wonder, it's propaganda. :coffeepap
Another drag on our society.The Truth About “Back Alley” Abortions « After Abortion
No, things are not safer now that it's legal. In fact, now that it is more widespread, more women are harmed.
I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.No, it's to kill a baby, which is why he rightfully says it isn't safe at all.
I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.Hiring a hit man isn't safe. Certainly not for your victim, but not really for you either. They're willing to kill for money, and they're going to do it again and again - that means they have no respect for human rights by definition.
Of course, the entire concept we're talking about here is contingent upon the notion that we should care when hiring a hit man turns around and bites the client on the ass. I certainly don't.
The citation used is some kind of blog? Where is it from?
Also, another member has pointed out that much of the information provided is misleading. For example no one thought people were having abortions in alleys, or that they were being done primarily by little old ladies with coathangers. People knew they were being done by midwives, nurses and doctors of varying skill levels. :naughty
Sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is the one being deceptive. :twocents:
OH. I found it...it's an anti-abortion website After Abortion
Small wonder, it's propaganda. :coffeepap
I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.
I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.
Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
< SNIP>
I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.
There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure,
done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.
< SNIP>
The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion.
It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.
It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.
What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.
I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.
I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.
Well, I find him extremely offensive and I'm sorry that you don't.You know, I've read quite a few of JayDubya's posts, but I don't recall his ever expressing an interest in gruesome billboards. It's one thing to disagree with another's point of view but quite another to go low with a personal insult.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?