You say life starts at conception. I say that first trimester miscarriages (think natural abortion) happen all the time. In your frame of reference, miscarriages result in the death of a baby. Where is your outrage? Who do we blame? God? It is God's will afterall.
Mas Abortion Before Roe v. Wade Until the 1940s, women could obtain abortions from doctors and midwives, although many times these procedures were unsafe, in addition to being illegal. After the 1940s abortions became increasingly difficult to obtain. But estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 50s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. What Will Happen if Roe is Reversed Before Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed annually. Outlawing abortion would result in the endangerment of millions of women's lives and health. History of Abortion Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 1. Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1986. New York: The Guttmacher Institute, 1986
You are cherry picking my beliefs. Your arguement would have me questioning God's will. I won't. You are also attempting to say that if it's okay for God to abort babys then we shouldn't forbid it. Thats just nonsense. If you were to die in a car accident, it would be God's will. Does that give me the right to cut your brake lines? If I'm misinterpretting your statement, please explain.
Come on, man!! Don't use that website and expect on honest debate. The National Organization of Women is a radical organization. I have yet to quote Fallwell. Numbers squeezed and molded on from both sides of this issue. Bottom line, there is an easy way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Don't have unprotected sex until you want to have a child.
This is very bad news for incombents, especially Republican incombents. The worst numbers since 1994, when Republicans gained 44 seats in the House, and began this long nightmare for the country. House Incumbents at Risk, Poll Finds Percentage of Americans Who Approve of Their Representative Has Fallen Sharply By Peter Baker and Claudia Deane Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, August 8, 2006; A03 Most Americans describe themselves as being in an anti-incumbent mood heading into this fall's midterm congressional elections, and the percentage of people who approve of their own representative's performance is at the lowest level since 1994, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. As attention turns to Connecticut for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's Democratic primary showdown today, the poll found some of the same political currents that have buffeted his campaign flowing through the national electorate. The public has soured on politicians backing the Iraq war, which Democrats consider the most important issue of the election. Eighty-one percent of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, and 70 percent feel that way "strongly." A majority of Democrats, 54 percent, say a candidate endorsing Bush's Iraq policy would be less likely to get their vote, compared with 37 percent for whom it would not make much difference. Two in three Democrats say it is time to begin decreasing troop levels in Iraq, although only one in four supports immediate withdrawal. Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties. "That's dramatic," said Republican consultant Ed Rollins, who was White House political director under President Ronald Reagan. In a small boost for Bush, his approval rating inched up to 40 percent, two percentage points higher than in June and seven higher than in May, suggesting he may have arrested a slide that deeply unnerved Republican lawmakers and strategists. But Bush's standing remains weak for a president in a midterm election year and problematic three months before Election Day. At the same time, the poll's findings underline the challenge for Democrats. For all their disenchantment, most voters are not sure what the party stands for. Just 48 percent say Democrats offer a clear direction different from Republicans, while 47 percent say they do not. The public does not think that Bush or the Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq. Even a slight majority of Democrats say their party does not have an Iraq strategy. The problem for Democratic candidates such as Lieberman who continue to support the war seems even plainer. Strategists wonder how many Democratic voters, like those backing Lieberman's challenger, Ned Lamont, feel so strongly about the issue that will be willing to punish one of their own who strays. "It was a problem in 2004, and it's going to be a bigger problem in 2006 if you're a Democrat who's seen as an accommodationist or a capitulationist," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic consultant. What Democrats have to do, he said, is emphasize a break from Bush's direction in Iraq, even if they disagree about how. Among voters across the board, 38 percent say they are more likely to oppose candidates who support Bush on Iraq compared with 23 percent who are more likely to support them. "On the big question -- 'Should we stay the course or should we make a change?' -- it seems overwhelmingly the public wants a change," Mellman said. Some Republican strategists said they fear it may be enough for Democrats to hammer home on the troubles of the country. "There's just a frustration that a lot of things are going wrong and nobody in Washington understands," Rollins said. "Even though the Democrats haven't really picked up the ball and offered an alternative, the numbers keep getting worse and worse." The poll mirrored results of surveys at this point 12 years ago, just three months before Republicans swept out Democratic majorities from both houses of Congress. Fifty-three percent now call themselves anti-incumbent, while 29 percent describe themselves as inclined to reelect lawmakers -- almost precisely the same percentages as in June 1994. In another echo of 1994, the poll showed Congress remains broadly unpopular, with six in 10 Americans disapproving of its performance. The only consolation for members is that the 36 percent who approve represents a slight bump up from May, when the institution hit a 10-year low. The generic ballot question, asking voters in general which party they would support in November, remained unchanged from the spring, with 52 percent favoring Democrats and 39 percent supporting Republicans. The lead narrows to 10 points among those who say they are closely following their local races. The survey suggests that it is not just Republicans whose incumbents are in jeopardy. But it includes one important caveat -- as of now, few Republicans or Democrats plan to stray from their parties in November. The Democrats' lead stems from a big advantage among independents. A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed Aug. 3-6 for this survey. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the overall results. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080701120.html texxx left at the "right" time! Keep D&D Civil.
The idea that there would be less illegal abortions just because the penalty would be steeper isn't necessarily true. I've seen studies that show that states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than those without. Go easy on me. My first time in D&D.
Are the same passions that drive people to murder asults present in those who would murder the unborn? Also, you are comparing the death penalty to life imprisonment, where I am comparing life imprisonment to a fine and little or no jail time. Not exactly apples and apples. Don't you think there would be a lot more bank robberies if the penalty for being caught was a fine of a few thousand dollars?
The appeal process stretches out these sentences for many years before the punishment is actually carried out. Most criminals don't think in terms of months, let alone years. For this reason, the effect the death penalty doesn't have as preventative an effect as it could. I also don't think your comparing apples to apples. Most death penalty prisoners have long records proir to their ultimate offenses.
Now the key question is this: Can the Repubs turn terrorism into an issue and will people still believe they are a better deterent then Dems. I think recent events definitely tighten the race, but then again, the fact that the British stopped it and the fact our attention is focused on Iraq and Israel could hurt the Republicans if Dems can get that message out...
Know a lot of criminals? Done extensive studies on the criminal mind? Or are you talking out the side of your *ss?
NOW members have been known to burn their bras!!! Oh my, that is radical. Did you note the footnote from the above post: You do a net search on "illegal abortion per year" and get back to me with what you find.
Come on, WB. A radical organization? Pu-leeze! From Wikipedia: NOW was founded on June 30, 1966 in Washington, D.C., by 28 women and men attending the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women, the successor to the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. It had been three years since the Commission reported findings of women being discriminated against in virtually every aspect of life. However, the 1966 Conference delegates were prohibited by the administration's rules for the conference from even passing resolutions recommending that the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforce its legal mandate to end sex discrimination. The founders included Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique (1963) and Rev. Pauli Murray, the first African-American woman Episcopal priest. Betty Friedan became the organization's first president. During the 1970s NOW promoted the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The organization's membership is not limited to women, and has included many men who support its goals. The organization remains active in lobbying legislatures and media outlets on women's issues. Statement of Purpose Betty Friedan and Pauli Murray wrote the organization's first Statement of Purpose in 1966 (the original was scribbled on a napkin by Friedan). The original statement described the purpose of NOW as "to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men." The current Statement reads, "Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society – sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination." Its current brochure also states "NOW is one of the few multi-issue progressive organizations in the United States. NOW stands against all oppression, recognizing that racism, sexism and homophobia are interrelated, that other forms of oppression such as classism and ableism work together with these three to keep power and privilege concentrated in the hands of a few." Radical? Fighting for equal rights for women is radical? Fighting for equal rights for those discriminated against for their race or their sexual orientation is radical? Give me a break! I'm married to a feminist, and certainly support women's rights, as well as the other rights in the statement I quoted, and there isn't anything "radical," about it. I was active and felt the same way long before I met my wife. Seriously, do you have a clue as to how much women are still discriminated against, 40 years after the founding of N.O.W.? They are. Even heard of the, "glass ceiling?" It exists. Women make much less than men for the same work, in most fields, and do not get promotions at anything like the rate their work should account for. In my youth, I almost got fired for protesting the fact that I got a higher raise, after working for 3 months, then women who had been at the same job for years, knew far more than I did, and were much more efficient at doing the work. In 3 months, I was making the same salary as women who had been doing their job for over 10 years. Fair? of course not. Common? Sadly, back then it was standard operating procedure. My boss told be to keep my mouth shut, and consider myself lucky, and lucky not to be fired for saying anything. The majority of workers there, which for me was an extra job to earn money to go to Europe for several months, were women. Have things improved? Yes. Are things equal now between the sexes? Absolutely not! I would call your statement about them radical, but that wouldn't be polite. Keep D&D Civil.
Latest AP/Ipsos poll - Bush Approve 33%, Disapprove 57% Fox News: Approve 36%, Disapprove 56% Congress: Democrats 55%, Republicans 37% WOW!!! Bush Backers May Abandon Republicans By DONNA CASS WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend - growing opposition to President Bush. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South. More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections - 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-elect/2006/aug/11/081103293.html
but not reality. Pound away with your square beliefs against the circle of reality, you crazy dude. Carry on.
Thank you for the challenge. This is what I found: Introduction: Planned Parenthood has written 9 Reasons Why Abortions are Legal. In response, I have written 9 Reasons Why Abortions should be Illegal. Actually, I have been laughing to myself at Planned Parenthood's list, because it is so easy to defeat. It's not Planned Parenthood's fault--there are no good reasons to support abortion, other than serious health issues of the mother or baby. Also, I believe that Planned Parenthood serves many valuable functions. I agree with many things they do. I strongly disagree in their support of abortion. I only chose to debate their particular opinions because a) They are a large, national, pro-abortion organization. b) They have made a list, and my debate tactic suits such a list. I invite you to read the following debate with an open mind and consider the validity of the two opposing opinions. If you can find any error in my facts or reasoning, I hope you will let me know. I am an unmarried, conservative male. I have always been supportive of the life of the unborn. However, in the past my opinion was, "Well, the country is evenly divided on this issue. Although I am personally against abortion, there are others who don't agree with me. I won't force the issue unless there is a consensus against abortion. I will thus support the democratic process." However, I have gradually realized that the abortions (murders of the unborn) are continuing at the rate of FOUR THOUSAND ABORTIONS PER DAY in the USA (ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PER DAY worldwide). Meanwhile, some people are actually campaigning to increase access to abortions. I have finally realized that, "Abortion is terrible, and must be stopped. Part of the democratic process is the free discussion of ideas. Others are expressing their opinions, and some of them are against mine. I should express my opinions, too. I will thus support the democratic process." The format of this response is as follows: I have included every word of Planned Parenthood's original opinion. Planned Parenthood makes it's statement, then I refute it one paragraph at a time. In order to guarantee that my response is well separated from Planned Parenthood's original statement, I will color all of my responses blue. Also, all of Planned Parenthood's statements begin with a bullet. (Note: The following discussion is focused on the United States of America. Abortion should be fought in every country, but the circumstances of each country are different, and some of the below points may not apply to every country on Earth.) Abortion is never an easy decision, but women have been making that choice for thousands of years, for many good reasons. Whenever a society has sought to outlaw abortions, it has only driven them into back alleys where they became dangerous, expensive, and humiliating. Amazingly, this was the case in the United States until 1973, when abortion was legalized nationwide. Thousands of American women died. Abortion is a hard decision for many good reasons. Whenever a society has condoned abortions, they are greater in number than when abortions are proscribed. Abortion kills babies which could otherwise live a long life. Killing these babies is definitely dangerous to them, and much worse than humiliating. Amazingly, because of legalization of abortion in 1973, about 1.5 Million babies (One Million Five Hundred Thousand, or 1,500,000) of American babies are being murdered in legal abortions every year. (Sources: The World Almanac and Book of Facts and the Information Please Almanac.) Thousands more were maimed. For this reason and others, women and men fought for and achieved women's legal right to make their own decisions about abortion. By your own admission, for every 1 (one) woman that died or was maimed when abortions were illegal, thousands of babies are being murdered. For this reason and others, women and men are fighting for the right of babies to live. However, there are people in our society who still won't accept this. Some argue that even victims of rape or incest should be forced to bear the child. And now, having failed to convince the public or the lawmakers, certain of these people have become violent extremists, engaging in a campaign of intimidation and terror aimed at women seeking abortions and health professionals who work at family planning clinics. Surveys of women aborting their babies indicate that 1% of them are doing so because of rape or incest. (Source: Forrest, J.D. & Torres, A. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives). Pro-life supporters have convinced the public and lawmakers that abortion, in general, is horrible. Congress has repeatedly passed anti-abortion bills, only to have them vetoed by a pro-abortion, Liberal President. Recently there is increasing possibility that Congress will get the 2/3 (two thirds) vote necessary to override the Presidential veto. The main cause of Federal legalization of abortion was the Supreme Court of 1973, not the public or the lawmakers. Failing to sufficiently convince the public or lawmakers, pro-abortion (also known as pro-choice) supporters have instituted an insidious campaign of misinformation, emotionalism, and Political Correctness aimed to make abortion seem acceptable. (By the way, although I do not support campaigns of intimidation and terror, I am forced to wonder how this compares to the pain of babies literally being torn apart without even anesthesia.) Some say these acts will stop abortions, but that is ridiculous. When the smoke clears, the same urgent reasons will exist for safe, legal abortions as have always existed. No nation committed to individual liberty could seriously consider returning to the days of back-alley abortions; to the revolting specter of a government forcing women to bear children against their will. Still, amid such attacks, it is worthwhile to repeat a few of the reasons why our society trusts each woman to make the abortion decision herself. The act which will stop abortion is the act of making the decision to be more careful regarding sexual activity and to be responsible for the consequences of sexual activity, including the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. The same urgent reasons have always existed for being careful regarding sex. (These are reasons such as disease, emotional entanglements, and, of course, pregnancy.) No nation committed to individual liberty could seriously consider the wholesale murder of helpless babies with little concern for the concern for the well being of the babies. Women aren't forced to bear children, they choose to bear children by the act of having sexual intercourse. (Note that surveys indicate that rape or incest account for only 1% of legal abortions.) Saying that the government forces women to bear children against their will is like saying that the government forces people to become fat after they decide to eat too much and not exercise enough. Bearing children is the natural result of sexual intercourse under favorable conditions, it is not forced upon women by the United States government. I am forced to wonder: If a woman has a history of bad decisions which cause her an unwanted pregnancy, why should our society trust her to take the welfare of the child into account and trust her "to make the abortion decision herself"? Still, though it is clear that women have made choices that put them in the position of being pregnant, it is worthwhile to repeat a few reasons why abortion is an abhorrent murder of a baby. 1. Laws against abortion kill women. To prohibit abortions does not stop them. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it's been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals. 1. Laws supporting abortion kill babies. To prohibit abortions vastly decreases them. Abortion are "absolutely necessary" in only two cases: the mother's health or the baby's health. Abortions based on the mother's health account for 3% of abortions. Abortions based on the baby's health account for 3% of abortions. Total: 6%. (Source: Forrest, J.D. & Torres, A. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives) Women don't feel that abortion is "absolutely necessary." Women feel selfishly inconvenienced by pregnancy. To repeat, because abortion was made legal in the U.S., about 1.5 Million (1,500,000) babies are murdered every year in the U.S. by abortion. Every baby of the aborted 1.5 Million dies. Cold blooded murder is criminal, and should be treated as murder. (Killing a baby is sometimes, though rarely, medically necessary. This is not murder, and should be legal, just as killing someone in self defense is legal.) 2. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 2. Legal abortions protect women's health. Protecting women's lives preventing serious medical complications are valuable, and should be legal. Your own figures indicate that tens of thousands of women have health reasons for aborting babies. Your own figures indicate that millions of women abort their babies. This indicates a very rough estimate of 1% of abortions that are done because of the mother's health. 3. A woman is more than a fetus. There's an argument these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's - a thinking, feeling, conscious human being -- is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women. 3. A fetus is more than a piece of tissue. Yes, there has been argument over this issue for centuries. Regarding Science and Medicine: Currently, all valid science and medicine is 100% clear that a fetus is a person. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism. Regarding Religion: Religion, on the other hand, is not as clearly defined as medicine and science, because religion introduces the soul into the situation. However, no religious leader would say that a fetus does not have a soul and that because of this a fetus may be capriciously aborted. Religious opinion is slowly beginning to accept science and medicine. Any religious leader with a strong practical grounding in scientific knowledge will have to admit that every embryo has a soul. However, regardless of when a person gains a soul, religious opinion does not show any support at all for abortion. In fact, religion is one of the strongest opponents of abortion. Regarding Philosophy: Philosophical opinion does show some variety regarding when a baby becomes a person. This is due solely to the fact that most philosophy is of ancient origin. Regardless of whether a philosopher believes ancient philosophies (which were developed before the discovery of cells, heredity, and DNA), the philosopher would not support capricious abortions. Conclusion: Neither science, nor medicine, nor religion, nor philosophy supports capricious abortions. In fact, there is a narrow band of belief in science, medicine, religion, and philosophy that life is valuable, should be supported, and should not be killed when the killing is reasonably avoided. In fact, those who believe strongly in science, in medicine, in religion, or in philosophy are some of the strongest opponents of abortion. Regarding Choice: Currently, some small groups run large campaigns to convince people that women have a "right to choose" to abort their babies. This is absurd. The choice comes in when the women decide to have risky sex. When people make choices, they must accept certain ramifications of these choices. Sometimes, people don't want to accept the ramifications of their choices, and try to find an unethical means to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. (By the way, how can any woman with a conscience abort her baby?) Regarding Rights: No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's". That would be absurd. Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. That is all. A right to life. If anyone can tell me how a baby having a right to life in any way makes its "rights equal to or superior to a woman's", I would greatly appreciate being informed about this! Regarding Development: You imply that a fetus is not "a thinking, feeling, conscious human being." Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being! According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed! Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester"! The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Who knows whether a baby is conscious at this point? Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being, though admittedly undeveloped. Regarding Diminishment: For women to have the legal right to freely take the lives of their babies, whether on a whim, for their own selfish reasons, or for their own selfish comfort, "is arrogant and absurd". 4. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 4. Being a mother is the most important purpose of women. Regarding Women's Freedom: Many are calling the 1990's the "Me Decade." One aspect of this is some women who consider only their own needs and desires, and disregard the needs and desires of others. This is most obvious when women are willing to kill their own babies (either born or unborn) to fulfill their own selfish desires. Every possible reason for abortion (other than serious health issues for the mother or baby) is a selfish one. Everyone, including men, women, and babies (born and unborn) should have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Regarding Mothering: No task is as crucial as that of parenting. Being a mother is the most important purpose of a woman. Being a father is the most important purpose of a man. Mothering (and Fathering) means having children and caring for them, often sacrificing one's own desires in order to provide the needs and wants of the children. This is the true definition of "parent." Without sacrifice, love is meaningless. Regarding Choices: Women in Industrialized countries have many choices. Regarding Equality: The "political and economic equality for" men and women is not worth much if men and women do not share the responsibilities of parenting. In Conclusion: Wouldn't it make better sense to consider the option of adoption, rather than the option of abortion? Waiting lists are never ending for adoptable newborns. Instead of losing his or her life, the baby instead gets a chance to have a good life with a married couple who highly desire a child to love, raise, and, in other words, parent. 5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory. Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. 5. Legal abortion is discriminatory. Low income women have much support and many options. Often, the families of the mothers are willing to assist the mother. Many government programs are also designed to help low income women throughout all phases of bearing and raising children. Finally, adoption is an excellent choice for those women who don't have the financial strength to bear parenting. All expenses are paid, and more, for women who are willing to adopt out their newborn babies. Legal abortion discriminates against babies. Any law which allows the callous, cold blooded killing of a life must be considered as discriminatory (at the very least!). Even the cold blooded killing of animals is proscribed by law, yet some campaign for less restrictions on killing unborn babies! Legal abortion discriminates against fathers. 6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society. If there is any matter which is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can [be] no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms. 6. Legalized abortion is incompatible with a free society. How anyone can talk about "compulsory pregnancy laws" with a straight face is beyond me. Women who abort their babies were not compelled to become pregnant. Unless they are forced to engage in unprotected intercourse, they have many opportunities to avoid pregnancy. 7. Outlaw abortion, and more children will bear children. Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become pregnant before they turn 20. This could happen to your daughter or someone else close to you. Here are the critical questions: Should the penalty for lack of knowledge or even for a moment's carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Or dangerous illegal abortion? Should we consign a teenager to a life sentence of joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency? 7. Keep abortion legal, and more children will abort their children. The so called "penalty" should be enforced maintenance of any pregnancy which does not involve serious health risks to the mother or baby. "Enforced childrearing" is not condoned by anyone, and it is ridiculous to seriously consider "enforced childrearing". 8. "Every child a wanted child." If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows they are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined toward brutal behavior to others. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. Children need love and families who want and will care for them. 8. Every child is a wanted child. Regarding the United States of America: People strongly desiring children are on lengthy waiting lists for the chance to adopt infants. In fact, adoptive parents pay tens of thousands of dollars in order to adopt, as well as submitting to various screening procedures. Adopted babies are treated almost as well as the biological children of married parents: they are not brutalized and abandoned. In general, the children which are seriously disadvantaged are those children who are fortunate enough to not have been aborted, but are unfortunate enough to be raised by the mother alone, without the father's assistance. In these cases, adoption is a better solution, too. 9. Choice is good for families. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. 9. Choice is good for families. Choice is good for families. A choice which is sometimes not given enough consideration is adoption. A choice which is often used unnecessarily is abortion. Family planning means contraceptive measures, awareness of the potential responsibilities of parenting, and, if necessary, adopting out the baby. Family planning does not mean that abortion is "the answer" to "unintended pregnancy". Rather, family planning is avoiding an unintended pregnancy and dealing with it if it happens. All options should be used. However, abortion should not be considered to be an option unless there are serious health risks to the mother or her unborn child. At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision? Women should be able to make decisions about how to live their lives. Women do make decisions about how to live their lives. Women should have the option of deciding when or whether to have children. They do this by making choices regarding when to have sexual intercourse and what contraceptive methods to use. The government has no power to make these decisions, and it doesn't. Abortion is not a choice about women's value, family, career, how to live their lives, or when or whether to have children. Abortion is a choice between allowing an unborn baby to live or killing it. The anti-abortion leaders really have a larger purpose. They oppose most ideas and programs which can help women achieve equality and freedom. They also oppose programs which protect the health and well-being of women and their children. I support any "ideas and programs which can help women achieve equality and freedom" or "protect the health and well-being of women and their children." I don't know these "anti-abortion leaders". Anti-abortion leaders claim to act "in defense of life." If so, why have they worked to destroy programs which serve life, including prenatal care and nutrition programs for dependent pregnant women? Is this respect for life? Who are these "Anti-abortion leaders"? They sound like a real threat to society. Let me know who they are and what they are doing, and I will fight against them and their campaigns to "destroy programs which serve life." If they truly are as you portray them, they aren't my leaders, since I don't follow their opinions. I fully support life in all of its forms, especially human life. Anyone who supports life in general must also support the life of the unborn. Anti-abortion leaders also say they are trying to save children, but they have fought against health and nutrition programs for children once they are born. The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth. Is this respect for life? Once again, let me know who they are, and I will work against them. Who in his right mind could fight against health and nutrition programs for children? Then there are programs which diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur: family planning counseling, sex education, and contraception for those who wish it. Anti-abortion leaders oppose those too. And clinics providing such services have been bombed. Is this respect for life? I fully support "family planning counseling, sex education, and contraception". I support any programs which diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur. Your mythical "Anti-abortion leaders" do not have any influence on the members of the pro-life group. The only pro-life group I can think of in the United States which opposes sex education and contraception is the religious pro-life. However, no religious pro-life group that I know of opposes family counseling or contraception based in rhythm methods. Such stances reveal the ultimate cynicism of the compulsory pregnancy movement. "Life" is not what they're fighting for. What they want is a return to the days when a woman had few choices in controlling her future. They think that the abortion option gives too much freedom. That even contraception is too liberating. That women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You speak of "the compulsory pregnancy movement". Who are the members of this movement? Is this another mythical group? Compulsory pregnancy would seem to include forced impregnation. I must admit, any group which supports forced impregnation must indeed take freedoms away from women. Such groups should be stopped by any means possible. I and my fellow pro-life people, on the other hand, fully support women's freedoms, including the freedom of making the essential choices of when to have sexual intercourse and what contraceptives to use. These choices are essential in preventing pregnancy. Americans today don't accept that. Women can now select their own paths in society, including when and whether to have children. Family planning, contraception, and, if need be, legal abortion are critical to sustaining women's freedom. There is no going back. Women should select their own paths in society, including when and whether to have children. Family planning and contraception are critical aids to sustaining many freedoms of both men and women. I hope that someday the United States of America will once again make abortion illegal. This will also give the right to life to the unborn and will allow them to have freedoms of their own when they are born. If you agree with this, you can help. Circulate this statement among your friends, and support our work by contacting Planned Parenthood in your area. Thank you. If you agree that human life has value, including the lives of the unborn, then speak out when the time comes! Don't keep quiet while millions of babies are murdered in cold blood. Speak out! Bookmark this page. Show it to others. Better yet, if you have a Web site, put a link to this page on your Web site! Spread the word! Thank you.
BBS etiquette requires you post a link. In advance, I will use your kill the messenger defense since it is likely a biased source. BTW, the question is how many abortions were performed in the USA when it was illegal. Your unsupported position was that is was only a small fraction compared to when abortion was made legal.
