Please don't attempt to argue that illegal abortions were safe. Pro-lifers who quote Calderone about the 90% of abortions done in physicians offices fail to mention her estimate in the same speech of 1,000,000 abortions performed each year. That means 100,000 abortions each year were NOT done in physicians offices. In countries where abortion is illegal, the maternal death rate is dramatically higher. According to the World Health Organization, 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortion. Another 8 million suffer post-abortion complications, including infertility. Or you might have died from a botched abortion, or you might have suffered complications leading to infertility, meaning you wouldn't have ANY kids. Abortion doesn't lead to suicide, according to studies... Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/28/having-an-abortion-doesnt-lead-to-depression/#ixzz1u7JH0e9L It's so so sad that you are unable to debate without over-the-top appeal to emotion, and the logical fallacy of stating opinion as fact.
I only know of you from these several threads but am compelled to say that up to now I would have thought this comment beneath you. A woman who has been through a traumatic event and shares a most soulful, heartfelt front line personal experience and this is your response? I don't know that any combat veteran would be inclined to share his experiences with you but would you dare tell him that his experience is "over the top" or that his experience or losses suffered were simply "opinion?" Experience is an historical event thus factual. Emotions can color perception to a degree but the event is an historical fact. One would think that the experience of someone who has been there would allow a degree of credibility for their position on that experience. C'mon Cady, step away from the political mantra and listen when someone is trying to share something of significance. Have a little human sympathy unless you think empathy would be more appropriate.
Cady said, "Further evidence to demonstrate that pro-abortionists exaggerated the number of abortions prior to Roe comes from both official government estimates from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and those from Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). According to the CDC there were 615,831 abortions in 1973 - - Roe's first year - - while AGI estimated 744,600 abortions. (AGI's numbers are more accurate because AGI more aggressively seeks out information from "abortion providers.") If the advocates of abortion were right about their figure of one million pre-Roe abortions a year, this would mean that legalization sparked a sudden decline, which defies all sense! In fact, what is clear is that Roe ignited a huge increase in the number of abortions.In countries where abortion is illegal, the maternal death rate is dramatically higher. According to the World Health Organization, 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortion. Another 8 million suffer post-abortion complications, including infertility." http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL01/randy.html "For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) That figure is low, thanks to underreporting, but in any case the number of deaths had been dropping sharply for the previous few years. A statistic perhaps more typical of the pre-Roe era was reported in a 1969 Scientific American article cowritten by Christopher Tietze, a senior fellow with the Population Council: "The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000." http://www.straightdope.com/columns...0-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions "Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. The fact is that prior to legalization abortion had become relatively safe and easy to obtain — for those who could afford it. Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn't, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again." http://www.straightdope.com/columns...0-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions And when abortion was legal it did not lead every woman to use a coat hanger…..most had their babies. I do have emotions…and this issue for anyone who does not have a hardened heart….is an emotional one. That does not mean we can't logically and firmly stand on the truth of the issue. What is sad is the lack of conscience and emotion from the pro-choice side.
That's not "middle ground." That's just stupid. Lock the woman up in prison? The man goes free to knock up another woman? Why don't you just stone her and get it over with?
See this is the thing. This is a very highly emotional issue for most people.Emotion does not mean that one can't stand on the truth. Pro-aborts don't see it as such its cut and dry, the woman should be able to kill, that which is in the womb is basically nothing and they dismiss you if show any sort of emotion especially if you have experienced abortion yourself. They do not see the unborn as anything. So what I shared is over the top for them .its over the top hysteria. As I said I stand up 1st for God and 2nd to share what a sinful life I led and what things happened to me because of my sin the choice I made and the victory of how Christ saved me. I know what science says about life and I also share that. But sadly they deny what science says about life. I have come across some really really aggressive people who oppose the pro-life message. I frequently go to colleges and universities with Right to Life and a group member of Silent No More. Nothing has been said that I have not heard and been accused of doing. And believe me that is ok. Christ said that, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."
The pro-aborts position should be……the man is not responsible at all…it is the woman's body her decision to abort so the responsibility and risk factors are hers to take and face. They do not see the father of the child at all…he has no rights. The woman however calls the shots. It is at her invitation that the sex act takes place because other than rape…she says yes or no to sex. She knows what can happen should birth control fail and takes the risk anyway.
Would you give "the most vulnerable target of abortion" a choice, or would you have the government make the choice for everyone?
That's right, you don't know either of us. Perhaps in that case, it would be wise to withhold judgment.
What I know of you is only what you've shared. I have nothing else to draw from or form an impression or opinion on other than what you state or ask. I have been honest in my statements/posts. I hope you have been too. Where I have been clowning I hope it comes across that way. But that is a failing of the internet forums at this time, the visual facial tells/cues or the inflection/tones of the voice are lacking. The post you responded to, I wasn't joking or trolling. And to answer your question The government sees that target as property so you have no concerns. Me? I would have to be an advocate for those least able to defend themselves. Kinda like an anti-bully thing. Been meaning to say, props to your choice in Avatar. A real Mom and Apple pie symbol.
By "either of us," I meant you don't know me or the third poster. To have empathy for someone, you have to find them credible, and unfortunately, based on past experience, I have no reason to. Do you see a woman's body as property? Whose property?
True. Though I am a bit thick and a true master of the obvious I did pick up on that. It seems, to me, women are always tougher on other women most especially when they are on opposite sides of an experience or issue. Yeah, that master of the most obvious thing coming through again In a word no...wait. What!? Am I from the Middle East, raised with a belief in and a possessive spirit towards women and their total subjugation?. Yes, I realize there are bad guys everywhere of every stripe hurting and controlling women because they are in a position of power, even if only temporarily. Law of the jungle thing, the bigger and stronger will dominate those weaker or seemingly physically inferior (a savage's prey). Ok, to answer this I'm have to look at a woman as more than a body, because simple she is more than just a body. So how do I see women? As God's greatest work of earthly art and mystery. Without women would there be culture and art as we know it today? Maybe, maybe not. Many musicians and artist get involved in that life to attract women. Without women men may live a life of less distraction but at the cost of great boredom. I think guys are designed to find women of great interest. I think men and women are designed to seek out, compliment and fulfill each other. Other than that I really have no opinion.
"Obviously"...A shot at my personality deficit as master of the obvious? oh Cady that hurts . Hey, have I mentioned how much I really like your choice in an Avatar? Truly, makes me smile when I look at it. Thank you so very much, I'm in counseling now trying to understand it all . Simply curious, why did you choose that picture to represent you? Promise I'll quickly return to your staunchest of opponents if you share what attracted you to it? If you say the words attracted you why I think I'll just scream now
Gosh, Ma'am (tip of the hat) every word of that post (about my thoughts on God's greatest earthly work of art, the fairer sex) honestly expressed. Pretty much what I shared with some young fellers whose single mother asked me to explain how a man should treat a woman. Wrapped it up with this, "chances are that a most women will be someone's mother someday, so treat that young lady you're out with like you would have your mother treated."
Thanks, I just thought it was funny and especially appropriate for a debate forum. Or possibly because it reminds me to fight those who want to drag women back to the status they had in the 50s...
Ahh the good 'ole days...smoking jacket, pipe, evening cocktail and the doting little woman sitting on the floor next to and waiting on the patriarchal figurehead . Seriously, have you ever considered that you might be underestimating the value and contributions of the women of that general era. Much of family life revolved around the woman of the house (still does today, if she has the time). Moms are the ones with the real control. How would I know? Catch an episode of Leave it to Beaver Know a family whose mother advised her sons as children to never start a fight and never leave one unfinished. They grew up to be neighborhood tough guys (and cops and firemen) who looked out (maybe like you?) for those who were unable to defend themselves. She was a pretty cool woman. She raised decent sons and daughters and they honored her all her days, she hasn't been forgotten nor what she did for her husband and children.
Oh gosh I loved the fifties .when men respected women and women respected men. Trapped for you is anything traditional in this case, a mother and a father, a home .sitting at the dinner table eating a dinner prepared by mom, mom taking care of you when your sick, going to church as a family, sitting around the television and watching Lassie ..etc ..that is not happiness for you ..sigh. Happiness for you is fast food .prepared by a babysitter because you are to good and don't have time to take care of the kids, oh the ones you have decided to let live and not abort that is .
The pro-choicer wants total control on life and death….killing is what is missing in your scenario here.
That's wrong. They simply want people to have choice. It doesn't mean you influence someone in one direction or the other, it means you leave the ability to make extremely personal and far-reaching decisions directly to the people that they are going to affect. You want to remove that choice because you know people aren't always going to choose the way you want them to. It's just another means of control advocated largely by people who need that control in their lives, namely religion.
