What does an actual aborted child look like?

[alienken]

Yes, drugs are still obtainable. But you cannot be naive enough to believe that the abortion rate would be nearly so high if it was not a healthy and consequence free "solution" as it is considered right now. It would not stop everyone, you are right. But it would stop enough people. I can think of nothing worse than a girl rerorting to the coat hanger method... but I just don't think that just because it will still exist is a good enough reason to keep it around. If the termination of a child is legal, there needs to be a better reason that "well, they'd do it anyway."

I agree, I am for anything that would cut down on this horrible procedure. I say again, unwanted children can be given up for adoption. There is a long line of good people waiting for years to adopt one child. What would be wrong with abortion rate going down and adoption rate going up?

 

[Arch Enemy]

But the fact that people will still get an abortion, yet even worse, is worse then them getting a legal abortion by a certified person. You're not going to stop abortion it will ALWAYS be around, I find it'll be the difference of the hanger method to the legal methods.

I'm not for the ideals of abortion, but this will protect alot of young adults who'd do the illegal method out of a panic.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

But the fact that people will still get an abortion, yet even worse, is worse then them getting a legal abortion by a certified person. You're not going to stop abortion it will ALWAYS be around, I find it'll be the difference of the hanger method to the legal methods.

I'm not for the ideals of abortion, but this will protect alot of young adults who'd do the illegal method out of a panic.

Most people, not all, but most people realize that self mutilation and extreme abortion is not worth the lasting consequence. Again I say, it will not stop abortions. But the number will decrease considerbly. Moreover, it will create a new level of conciousness over the act of sex before it is acted upon. If someone knows they can't just go to a clinic and get rid of a child, perhaps they will stop and think a little longer about having sex beforehand. The problem is that there are so many other options out there. And yet we use our brilliant science to destroy life. The choice of adoption will always be there, as will the choice of weighing consequence before having sex. But there is just not enough evidence that poeple will have illegal abortions anywhere near the rate that they are having them now. And that would make a large difference.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Most people, not all, but most people realize that self mutilation and extreme abortion is not worth the lasting consequence. Again I say, it will not stop abortions. But the number will decrease considerbly.

Since abortion will always be legal this is a moot discussion....

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Since abortion will always be legal this is a moot discussion....

That is not necesarly true. It only takes a majority of judges, and that's not an impossible feat. And as Deus Ex Machina said before, it is a bad piece of legislation with little to no Constitutional backing. It is possible that the law will change.

 

[ShamMol]

That is not necesarly true. It only takes a majority of judges, and that's not an impossible feat. And as Deus Ex Machina said before, it is a bad piece of legislation with little to no Constitutional backing. It is possible that the law will change.

It is possible and the Constitutional backing some say is questionable, though it is now been used in countless number of privacy suits. The principle of a woman's right to privacy is in the 1st, 5th, 9th, and 15th (I always get them mixed up, but it is four and I believe those four) Amendments and that some say is shaky. Others say it is solid. But with the right people on the court, that could change, however unlikely it is. I fear what would happen if the rules were changed, both for fear of back alley abortion where it puts the woman at risk, the battles that are likely to be waged by womans' rights activists in the name of abortion rights, the whole thing. I doubt it will change anytime soon, but with emerging technology in the next few years that could change the situation, anything can happen.

 

[26 X World Champs]

That is not necesarly true. It only takes a majority of judges, and that's not an impossible feat. And as Deus Ex Machina said before, it is a bad piece of legislation with little to no Constitutional backing. It is possible that the law will change.

Wrong, again...even if the Supreme Court changes its decision individual states will still have legal abortion, and only the really radical states would ban it completely. No matter what happens abortion will always be legal in the USA....Thank God!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Wrong, again...even if the Supreme Court changes its decision individual states will still have legal abortion, and only the really radical states would ban it completely. No matter what happens abortion will always be legal in the USA....Thank God!

Wait. I have a question for you. When was I wrong the first time?
To the contrary, it is entirely possible for them to pass a law that would ban all abortion if that case was brought before them. Futhermore, plenty of states had banned abortion before Roe Vs. Wade, and there is a good possibility it they would do so again. But again, just because something it is legal to kill someone (for example in war or in "self defense") does not mean that it is right to do so.

 

[Fantasea]

ok guys what happens if we make abortions illegal? Are people who don't want their children going to just let their babies live?

The answer is no, we made Drugs illegal.. they're still obtainable. If we ban abortion, I think it'll go "underground" and be less safer then if we keep abortion policies in the hands of the people.

Is that a reasonable rationale? I think not. You are comparing an apple and an orange.

The problem with drugs is that the victims become addicted and without serious intervention are unable to rid themselves of this scourge. If this is not so, why is it that so many lives, families, marriages, careers, businesses, and who knows what else, of persons of every class, education, intelligence, and economic level have been destroyed as a result of drug use?

Do these folks deliberately set out on a path of destruction? No, they don't. Is destruction an unavoidable consequence of drug use? Without a doubt, it is. That's why possession with intent to sell warrants jail time.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the number of hospital cases requiring treatment because of botched abortions was small and the number of doctors prosecuted for performing illegal abortions was also small. Very few women were at risk of death due to complications from childbirth, and in the majority of those instances, somehow, it was the child, not the mother, who didn't survive.

Until the opportunity for abortions on demand, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, became available, people accepted their responsibility, children were born and raised, or else given for adoption. There's no reason to believe that things would be any different if abortions were no longer legal.

In the meantime, toll of aborted infants in the US since Roe V. Wade is nearly fifty million. To put that number in perspective, think of this. At the most recent census for the entire country of England, the then total population was forty-seven million.

 

[Fantasea]

Since abortion will always be legal this is a moot discussion....

If you truly believe what you just wrote, why do you spend so much time, and expend so much effort, in its defense?

 

[Fantasea]

No matter what happens abortion will always be legal in the USA....Thank God!

I marvel at the colossal gall of one who thanks God for the opportunity to toss His creations into slop buckets at the local abortion mill.

 

[ShamMol]

I marvel at the colossal gall of one who thanks God for the opportunity to toss His creations into slop buckets at the local abortion mill.

Again Fant, your view vs. his view and his view is that it isn't murder, so therefore, it isn't against God In His Opinion.

Understand, everything is not black and white. There is not the evil side and the light side, there is a nice healthy grey and that is where you have to realize the views of the world rest.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I marvel at the colossal gall of one who thanks God for the opportunity to toss His creations into slop buckets at the local abortion mill.

It's my pleasure to make you marvel.....I'll endeavor to post marvelous opinions that keep you engaged.... :2wave:

Your view of this issue and my view clash. You deeply believe in what you believe, ditto for me. You look at it as genocide, I look at it as personal choice supported by the laws of the USA.

You've written over and over again about 50 million deaths. I find that a ploy meant to enrage. Since we can't educate the children we now have, since you're so adamant against birth control being dispensed in school, since you've previously exposed yourself to be be, at best, racially insensitive, Lord only knows how much deeper the **** would be had those "50 million" fetus survived. You complain about a welfare state, well do you seriously believe that we would be in a better place financially, hence spiritually (crime would be higher, people would be less well off, the education system would be taxed much more than it is now, school overcrowding would be even more of a crisis, etc.).

Abortion is a life saver, plain and simple. You can disagree all you want, that is fine, but that does not mean that you have a clue as to what the end result would be socio-economically if abortion were illegal.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I marvel at the colossal gall of one who thanks God for the opportunity to toss His creations into slop buckets at the local abortion mill.

Eye of the beholder....Planned Parenthood says:

Negative Effects of Unwanted Childbearing

* A recent study documents the negative effects of unwanted childbearing on both the mother and her family (Barber et al., 1999). Women who have had unwanted births sustain lower quality relationships with all of their children, not only the child resulting from an unwanted birth. These lower quality relationships translate into socialization problems for the children, affecting their development, self-esteem, personality, educational and occupational attainment, mental health and marital relationships (Myhrman et al, Barber et al., 1999).

* Mothers with unwanted births are substantially more depressed and less happy than mothers without unwanted births. Possible mental health consequences of unwanted childbearing also include less shared leisure time with children and more physical punishment, such as spanking.

* The negative effects of unwanted childbearing persist across the life course — mothers with unwanted births have lower quality relationships with their children from late adolescence throughout early adulthood. (Barber et al., 1999).


When Women Are Denied Abortion

* The mental health of women faced with unwanted pregnancy is at greater risk when they are compelled to deliver than when they are allowed to choose abortion. According to one study, 34 percent of women who were denied abortions reported one to three years later that the child was a burden that they frequently resented (Dagg, 1991).

* Children of women denied abortion have more genetic malformations than average; have insecure, divorce-fraught childhoods; perform worse at school; have more psychosomatic symptoms; are often registered with welfare officials; and often need psychiatric treatment (Dagg, 1991; David, 1986).

* A study in Sweden indicated that 24 percent of women who applied for and were refused abortion seven years earlier had not yet been able to adjust emotionally. Another 53 percent had been able to adjust but with difficulty. Only 23 percent could be described as well-adjusted (Watters, 1980).

* A 1981 study indicated that less than half of the women who elected to terminate a pregnancy would not have had an illegal abortion if that were their only recourse. Fifty-eight percent were uncertain or would have had an illegal abortion if that were their only alternative (Moseley et al., 1989).

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You've written over and over again about 50 million deaths. I find that a ploy meant to enrage. Since we can't educate the children we now have, since you're so adamant against birth control being dispensed in school, since you've previously exposed yourself to be be, at best, racially insensitive, Lord only knows how much deeper the **** would be had those "50 million" fetus survived. You complain about a welfare state, well do you seriously believe that we would be in a better place financially, hence spiritually (crime would be higher, people would be less well off, the education system would be taxed much more than it is now, school overcrowding would be even more of a crisis, etc.).

Yes, I agree. Overpopulation is certainly a problem. I think that it is certianly time that we re-consider Thomas Malory's Modest Proposal again. Just imagine all the money we would save, crimes that would be avoided, less money taken for taxes, and overcrowding issues all cleared out. Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. I think it is more than obvious that we should eat our children!

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes, I agree. Overpopulation is certainly a problem. I think that it is certianly time that we re-consider Thomas Malory's Modest Proposal again. Just imagine all the money we would save, crimes that would be avoided, less money taken for taxes, and overcrowding issues all cleared out. Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. I think it is more than obvious that we should eat our children!

Would that be kosher? :shock:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I just felt it necesary to show you that we can't think of human life as an expense to the world. Because as soon as we do that, we can weigh that life isn't worth as much as a booming economy.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I just felt it necesary to show you that we can't think of human life as an expense to the world. Because as soon as we do that, we can weigh that life isn't worth as much as a booming economy.

I was quantifying it as SOCIO-ECONOMIC, not economic. My point was that the so-called benefits of preventing abortions are not positive, overall, to the entire socio-economic stability and health of the USA.

Why don't you ask your Sociology professor that you keep quoting regarding polling? Ask him what affect an additional 50 million people inserted into our current population would have on us? I don't know the specific answer, so I would be interested to hear a more educated point of view.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I was quantifying it as SOCIO-ECONOMIC, not economic. My point was that the so-called benefits of preventing abortions are not positive, overall, to the entire socio-economic stability and health of the USA.

Why don't you ask your Sociology professor that you keep quoting regarding polling? Ask him what affect an additional 50 million people inserted into our current population would have on us? I don't know the specific answer, so I would be interested to hear a more educated point of view.

Well, I could ask him. But it is all speculative. But again, this all goes back to the gaping flaw in your argument. If a larger population is not a positive to the socio-economic stability and health of the USA, then does it not seem to make a great deal of sense that we eat our children? And kill off everyone over retirement age?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well, I could ask him. But it is all speculative. But again, this all goes back to the gaping flaw in your argument. If a larger population is not a positive to the socio-economic stability and health of the USA, then does it not seem to make a great deal of sense that we eat our children? And kill off everyone over retirement age?

Ridiculous argument, sorry. Fetus are not living HUMAN BEINGS. They are a biological entity that is prevented from developing. That is not the same as eating your young or killing your aged, obviously!

The life begins argument is just that, an argument, it is not a fact, it is a point of view, as is my fetus argument. Setting that aside for the moment, what would the USA be like today, with 50 million more in population, which is approximately an 18% increase. What would the price of gas, food, schooling, housing, etc. be? How would it effect the average annual earnings of a citizen, and compare that potentially lower income with the higher cost of everything, where would that put us? Tough questions.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Ridiculous argument, sorry. Fetus are not living HUMAN BEINGS. They are a biological entity that is prevented from developing. That is not the same as eating your young or killing your aged, obviously!

The life begins argument is just that, an argument, it is not a fact, it is a point of view, as is my fetus argument. Setting that aside for the moment, what would the USA be like today, with 50 million more in population, which is approximately an 18% increase. What would the price of gas, food, schooling, housing, etc. be? How would it effect the average annual earnings of a citizen, and compare that potentially lower income with the higher cost of everything, where would that put us? Tough questions.

It is supposed to be a ridiculous argument. Hence satire. In your own opinion a fetus is not a human being. For those of us who believe that abortion is infact murder, the difference between fetus and child is no different than child and adult. They are the same being on the same course, the only difference is the factor of time (as Gandhi>Bush suggested). Not a seperate bioloigical intentity.
Back to that argument again? The point is, no one can know. But we will soon find out, because population isn't decreasing. My point is that it doesn't matter what consequences that additional population may have, because if population control is a solid argument for abortion to be legal, then cold blooded murder should also be legalized, because it too will drastically lower our population.

 

[Fantasea]

Again Fant, your view vs. his view and his view is that it isn't murder, so therefore, it isn't against God In His Opinion.

Understand, everything is not black and white. There is not the evil side and the light side, there is a nice healthy grey and that is where you have to realize the views of the world rest.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, however, the opinions of any intelligent person, when they reject the teachings of the Church, regardless of how one chooses to color them, are simply that; a rejection of the teachings of the Church. All of us have the God given power to exercise free will; even to reject the teachings of the Church, if they so desire. Many have made full use of that power, haven't they?

The Church is not a democratic organization in which a lay person may hope to convert his personal beliefs into Church doctrine.

In case you have forgotten, it works the other way round.

 

[ShamMol]

I don't mean to rain on your parade, however, the opinions of any intelligent person, when they reject the teachings of the Church, regardless of how one chooses to color them, are simply that; a rejection of the teachings of the Church. All of us have the God given power to exercise free will; even to reject the teachings of the Church, if they so desire. Many have made full use of that power, haven't they?

The Church is not a democratic organization in which a lay person may hope to convert his personal beliefs into Church doctrine.

In case you have forgotten, it works the other way round.

No. The Church is not the basis for everything, especially in this country where we have a seperation of Church and state. The rights we have are not God-given, but received because we are human and we all deserve those rights. If you don't believe in God, there is no way to accept any argument you make. Try this out Fant, realize there are many people in the universe...just imagine it...and now know that many reject the idea of God alltogether, not just the teachings of the Church. I have not forgotten that the Church is dictator-like, trust me. It should, however, have room for improvement or at least self-awareness that the world is changing.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I don't mean to rain on your parade, however, the opinions of any intelligent person, when they reject the teachings of the Church, regardless of how one chooses to color them, are simply that; a rejection of the teachings of the Church. All of us have the God given power to exercise free will; even to reject the teachings of the Church, if they so desire. Many have made full use of that power, haven't they?

The Church is not a democratic organization in which a lay person may hope to convert his personal beliefs into Church doctrine.

In case you have forgotten, it works the other way round.

No. The Church is not the basis for everything, especially in this country where we have a seperation of Church and state. The rights we have are not God-given, but received because we are human and we all deserve those rights. If you don't believe in God, there is no way to accept any argument you make. Try this out Fant, realize there are many people in the universe...just imagine it...and now know that many reject the idea of God alltogether, not just the teachings of the Church. I have not forgotten that the Church is dictator-like, trust me. It should, however, have room for improvement or at least self-awareness that the world is changing.

I recognize, and am thankful, that there is a separation between Church and state. In those countries where religion and politics are intertwined, religion always gets short shrift because the politicians are human and humans are subject to human frailties.

I acknowledge obedience to temporal authority as well as Devine authority. As is written: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:13-17). However, the Devine trumping the temporal, I must conclude that the temporal is not perfect, and that Caesar, as it were, sometimes oversteps its bounds. At those times, allegiance to Caesar must be tempered.

Saying that the Church is "dictator-like" is an arrogant dismissal of the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ on Earth. It is true that the world is changing, as it has been changing since the days Christ trod the earth. However, the Church is now, always was, and always will be constant. Its teachings do not sway to and fro with the changing fads, styles, and thinking of the current day's popular people.

Those who wish to be included among the faithful but are intrigued with the arguments of todays advocates of political correctness would do well to remember the first paragraph of the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI promulgated on 18 September 1840.

Venerable Brothers, We Give You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.

You are well aware, venerable brothers, of the many misfortunes which now afflict the Catholic Church. You know, too, that holy religion is being attacked by the pollution of errors of every kind and by the unbridled rashness of renegades. At the same time heretics and unbelievers attempt by cleverness and deceit to pervert the hearts and minds of the faithful You are aware, in shore, that practically no effort has been left untried in the attempt to overthrow the unshakable building of the holy city. In particular, We are obliged, alas! to see the wicked enemies of truth spread everywhere unpunished. They harass religion with ridicule, the Church with insults, and Catholics with arrogance and calumny. They even enter cities and towns, establish schools of error and impiety, and publish their poisonous teachings which are adapted to secret deceit by misusing the natural sciences and recent discoveries. Furthermore they enter the hovels of the poor, traverse the countryside, and seek the acquaintance of the farmers and the lowest classes. They try every method of attracting the uneducated, especially the youth, to their sects, and of making them desert the Catholic faith, whether by means of Bibles inaccurately translated into the vernacular, pestilential newspapers and pamphlets of little weight, or by seductive speeches, pretended charity, and gifts of money.

So, you see, what we are experiencing today is nothing new. These hundred and sixty-five year old words are so timely, it's hard to believe they weren't written yesterday.

Another quote worth remembering is: "For what will it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?" Mark 8:36

It is sad that many intelligent persons are so concerned about pleasing their irreverent fellows, gaining their favor, seeking their approval, winning their acceptance, ignore the fact that their own days on earth are numbered.