New law allows doctors to withhold information that may lead to abortions

**DixNickson** · Jun 03 2012, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

You can find an explanation here:

http://eileen.undonet.com/GerriS/numbers_sykes.htm

Thank you for the website.

You can hardly call it "inhuman" since humans have been doing it since the beginning of time, but it IS shameful that women should should suffer and die so unnecessarily.

I do not believe that taking the life of the enemy in war is inhumane however I would say that what tyrants (those empowered) have done to their subjects (those without power) often was and is. I do not believe that all acts committed by someone in a human meat suit automatically qualifies as humane because of the appearance of the meat suit they wear.

Smaller hospitals have a smaller number of patients overall and therefore a smaller number of botched abortion cases, so there is no necessity for whole wards for those cases.

But all hospitals have and have had septic women whose condition was due to placing unclean objects or foreign substances in their vagina in an attempt to cause an abortion?

Are you suggesting that when desperate women take desperate measures they deserve to die? It is horrible because it is so unnecessary when modern medicine can prevent such results.

No, and would these women be in the septic ward if they hadn't done to their bodies what they did? You blame the developing human being in the womb for the mother's septic status?. Again rights and responsibilities. If we can avoid the responsibility of the consequences of our rights/actions we sometimes choose that, but it is a selfish choice when it cost another their God-given right to life.

Such things don't happen when abortion is legal and therefore safe.

Safe for who? This is our impasse, the fact that you see a disease or another condition, an object in the womb that must be excised while I see a developing human being. I get it, it is easier to take the life of something that is inhuman, deserving of that fate. It truly is.

If no one is an advocate or speaks out for a position is it lost to the active opponent? Perhaps this is why we continue this on-line exchange. Not for each other but for those without a voice, those without the choice or power to oppose their fate as decided by others.

There is no evidence of abortion unless the woman dies or is damaged severely. Women have always found the money to fund their abortions even though they are many times more expensive when illegal. Nowadays though, all women have to do is travel to Canada, Mexico, or off the coast to the Women on Waves ships. Off course drugs will be readily available from the internet, and cheap too.

There is always evidence of any act, unless your thought is since you didn't see it, it never happened?

**Cady** · Jun 03 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Good point in making a case for the repeal of drunk driving laws, a lot of people do it...the same as before the law as do now? Using the logic that the number of abortions committed before R v.W as being the same as after R v. W. and applying it to drinking.

I wasn't talking about drunk driving laws, I was talking about Prohibition, the national ban on the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol (1920 to 1933). Americans considered it an unjust law and the consumption of alcohol increased during that time and decreased after its repeal. Americans don't consider drunk driving laws unjust.

What is unjust in laws that would protect the most defenseless amongst us ?

The unborn are not "amongst us," and criminalizing abortion doesn't protect the unborn; it only punishes women.

With Rights and Powers comes Responsibility

Therefore, the unborn have no rights.

Given that, it is hard to understand why anyone would choose to involve themselves with any behavior that could result in such a prolonged death-defying experience. Wouldn't the prudent person avoid those choices that lead to pregnancy because of the mortality factor...what are these women thinking?!

What do you mean, that a "prudent" woman shouldn't have sex except for procreation?

Ahhh...the War on Tyranny/Terrorism/

You can't, with any credibility, defend the Iraq war. Our troops were not sent there to save lives. The administration knew, even before the war, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice stated that much in speeches months before the war.

War on the Unborn (and the newest subset target, the unborn female)?

The Lila Rose edited video is another propaganda hit piece released the same day as the vote on a House bill banning gender-based abortion. Coincidence?

There is no evidence of gender-based abortion in the US:
http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201205290001

**Bowerbird** · Jun 03 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Thank you for the website.

I do not believe that taking the life of the enemy in war is inhumane however I would say that what tyrants (those empowered) have done to their subjects (those without power) often was and is. I do not believe that all acts committed by someone in a human meat suit automatically qualifies as humane because of the appearance of the meat suit they wear.

But all hospitals have and have had septic women whose condition was due to placing unclean objects or foreign substances in their vagina in an attempt to cause an abortion?

No, and would these women be in the septic ward if they hadn't done to their bodies what they did? You blame the developing human being in the womb for the mother's septic status?. Again rights and responsibilities. If we can avoid the responsibility of the consequences of our rights/actions we sometimes choose that, but it is a selfish choice when it cost another their God-given right to life.

Safe for who? This is our impasse, the fact that you see a disease or another condition, an object in the womb that must be excised while I see a developing human being. I get it, it is easier to take the life of something that is inhuman, deserving of that fate. It truly is.

If no one is an advocate or speaks out for a position is it lost to the active opponent? Perhaps this is why we continue this on-line exchange. Not for each other but for those without a voice, those without the choice or power to oppose their fate as decided by others.

There is always evidence of any act, unless your thought is since you didn't see it, it never happened?

What people do not stop to consider is "How desperate must a woman be to take a risk that will endanger herself to this degree

Sepsis is not just a high temperature a few antibiotics can cure - it is often a life threatening condition with a very high (up to 50%) mortality rate.

**DixNickson** · Jun 03 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cady

I wasn't talking about drunk driving laws, I was talking about Prohibition, the national ban on the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol (1920 to 1933). Americans considered it an unjust law and the consumption of alcohol increased during that time and decreased after its repeal. Americans don't consider drunk driving laws unjust.

Just extrapolating on a concept used to argue/legitimize abortion. The law served no purpose because the same amount of abortions will take place anyhow is the premise, right?

On another note I would adjust the intox scale.

The unborn are not "amongst us," and criminalizing abortion doesn't protect the unborn; it only punishes women.

The unborn are here, developing in the womb of their mothers unto birth or death

Therefore, the unborn have no rights.

Not unlike slaves having no lawful rights. It was legal to own slaves too. The slave and the unborn each have a lawful master regarding their fate.

What do you mean, that a "prudent" woman shouldn't have sex except for procreation?.

Prudent as in Wisdom, Judiciousness, Sound Judgment etc. perhaps you were thinking prudish (given to or marked by very conservative standards regarding personal behavior or morals ) ?

You can't, with any credibility, defend the Iraq war. Our troops were not sent there to save lives. The administration knew, even before the war, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice stated that much in speeches months before the war.

Could all the intelligence services be wrong? You know to a certainty that weapons of mass destruction were not present?

Here is my thought, when American men and women go to war you do them no service to speak against their mission. I am not saying that you do not have a 1st Amendment Right to but remember your rants against what the troops are about (while it is going on) may serve to encourage enemy morale.

The Lila Rose edited video is another propaganda hit piece released the same day as the vote on a House bill banning gender-based abortion. Coincidence?

There is no evidence of gender-based abortion in the US:
http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201205290001

To me the point isn't really about a scorecard on which gender dies more often, the fact that we are killing them in the first place is the point.

**DixNickson** · Jun 03 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

What people do not stop to consider is "How desperate must a woman be to take a risk that will endanger herself to this degree

Sepsis is not just a high temperature a few antibiotics can cure - it is often a life threatening condition with a very high (up to 50%) mortality rate.

Thank you. Sepsis is indeed a grave situation.

**Cady** · Jun 03 2012, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Just extrapolating on a concept used to argue/legitimize abortion. The law served no purpose because the same amount of abortions will take place anyhow is the premise, right?

What IS the purpose of a law that does more harm than good? Until conservatives will agree to policies that actually reduce the abortion rate, rather than punish women, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

The unborn are here, developing in the womb of their mothers unto birth or death

The unborn will be "amongst us" when they come into the world at birth.

Not unlike slaves having no lawful rights. It was legal to own slaves too. The slave and the unborn each have a lawful master regarding their fate.

A woman should be master of her own fate and her own body. A woman was once considered her husband's property. Now you argue that her body belongs to a fetus?

Prudent as in Wisdom, Judiciousness, Sound Judgment etc. perhaps you were thinking prudish (given to or marked by very conservative standards regarding personal behavior or morals ) ?

No I meant what I asked, based on your statements.

Could all the intelligence services be wrong? You know to a certainty that weapons of mass destruction were not present?

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice 2001: Iraq Has No WMD's/Is Not A Threat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rHBttJ4EGw&noredirect=1

Here is my thought, when American men and women go to war you do them no service to speak against their mission. I am not saying that you do not have a 1st Amendment Right to but remember your rants against what the troops are about (while it is going on) may serve to encourage enemy morale.

How many American men and women must die needlessly before we risk "encouraging enemy morale"?

To me the point isn't really about a scorecard on which gender dies more often, the fact that we are killing them in the first place is the point.

But it was your point--you brought it up. The dishonest tactics used by Lila Rose and James O'Keefe destroy the credibility of the entire pro-life community.

**Bowerbird** · Jun 04 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Just extrapolating on a concept used to argue/legitimize abortion. The law served no purpose because the same amount of abortions will take place anyhow is the premise, right?

On another note I would adjust the intox scale.

The unborn are here, developing in the womb of their mothers unto birth or death

Not unlike slaves having no lawful rights. It was legal to own slaves too. The slave and the unborn each have a lawful master regarding their fate.

Prudent as in Wisdom, Judiciousness, Sound Judgment etc. perhaps you were thinking prudish (given to or marked by very conservative standards regarding personal behavior or morals ) ?

Could all the intelligence services be wrong? You know to a certainty that weapons of mass destruction were not present?

Here is my thought, when American men and women go to war you do them no service to speak against their mission. I am not saying that you do not have a 1st Amendment Right to but remember your rants against what the troops are about (while it is going on) may serve to encourage enemy morale.

To me the point isn't really about a scorecard on which gender dies more often, the fact that we are killing them in the first place is the point.

About legality of abortion

I live in Queensland Australia - abortion is not only illegal here but the laws are quite complete

And they are a joke - our abortion rate is not much different to the USA's. And we have pretty good stats to back that thanks to a federal government that funds the procedure. Admittedly the stats are not as precise as you might like since the SAME procedure is used for partial miscarriage
http://www.fpq.com.au/pdf/abortion_statistics.pdf

Legislation does nothing to stop abortions - especially in todays world where "medical" abortions are available over the internet.

And this is where the real question - the "elephant in the room" question keeps getting drowned by all the hyperbole from those who are focused on only one or two aspects of this complex issue

The real question is and always has been "How do we reduce the abortion rate"?

There would be no-one on this board who would not want that as a desirable outcome - we just disagree as to how to achieve it. The vast majority of pro-lifers what to chain women up until they reproduce - the pro-choicers want to go with contraception and education

And the latter has been shown to be statistically more effective time and again

When you dissect these arguments often it comes down to not abortion but condemnation for what some see as unacceptable sexual behaviour

**MegadethFan** · Jun 17 2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

I am, quite simply, floored by this. The pro-life movement has now resorted to wanting to withhold information from women regarding their pregnancy. This is just plain despicable and rotten, and a whole bunch of other negative adjectives. What's next? Should doctors even bother telling women they're pregnant at all? Should we get rid of over-the-counter pregnancy tests altogether, and just tell women they are just gaining water weight until labor begins? SURPRISE! WE GOT YOU GOOD! But at least you didn't think about getting an abortion!

I think someone has been putting stupid pills in the Arizona water...

That's all these people have left - lies, distortion of the truth and complete denial of reality - even in debating the ethics of abortion itself. Totally pathetic.