My bad. I did not equate "stopped growing" with "dead fetus". BTW, I am sorry for your loss. The whole miscarriage issue (and similar issues like mentioned above) is really a gray area for the pro-life crowd. Miscarriage occur naturally, without fault for either the mother or father. To classify a miscarried fetus as definitive human life begs the question whether "nature" has the right to abort while the mother does not.
Nature gets to do all kinds of things that we do not. It can destroy your home, kill your unborn child, or electrocute you to death. Not really that much of a grey area as we have no control over these events, unless you are suggesting we put nature/God/the earth on trial.
So you are saying its OK to let that hundreds of thousands of miscarried unborn babies die every year? What public policy do you prescribe to address this national tragedy?
Oh back to Lil Pun. I think the inconsistencies of both sides are important in the debate. Anti-abortionists not exactly beating down the door to have sex ed in schools (oh that's my responsibility as a parent, uh huh), or to provide contraceptives/birth control to young people (abstinence is the answer!), or to provide care/funding (ie big government spending!) for unwanted children. Then the pro-choice segment that declares the fetus an unborn child for the purposes of government funded prenatal care and potential murder (loss of fetus by criminal activity) but then declaring the fetus a "mass of tissue" when they're aborting it. The status of the life in the womb seems to change an awful lot depending on which agenda requires attention. The issue is filled with hypocrisy on both sides.
Timing, I am Pro-Life but also very Pro-Education. I think teenagers should know the risk of sex (no, not the scare tactics) I am for condoms, sex-ed and other forms of education to let kids know what problems they will face if they choose to have sex. I wasn't very promiscuous at all (waited until 18), but if I would have had some sex-ed classes I probably would have waited until marriage. I don't think it encourages kids to have sex, I think it makes them think about it even more. Anyone see the Fight for your Rights special on MTV about sex-ed in Lubbock, Tx? They have a very high rate of STD's and teen pregnancy. A friend of mine was interviewed for the special, she works for planned parenting. The kicker is that she was very "wild" in her earlier years.
That was definitely my goal. I think it has to do with being younger, most of the anti sex-ed people seem to be older ultra conservatives. They actually had an older woman from Planned Parenthood on this MTV special that was asking the teenagers who were organizing the sex-ed classes why they wanted to kill babies? It was ridiculous. Lubbock has a student city council and they decided to organize sex-ed classes since the school wouldn't do it. So the planned parenthood protested them. She could care less about what they were trying to do, she just wanted to know why they wanted to kill babies.
Are you sure it was Planned Parenthood? They're actually very pro sex-ed. Maybe you're confusing them with another group.
All this talk about abortion (when I really just wanted several opinions from both sides) has got me to thinking about a satire I read back in 12th grade. I can't remember the name of it or the author but the story was suggesting that infants be killed and sold as food to hungry people. Does anybody know what story I'm refering to?
Actually, it's hardly anyone. Thanks to all those rabid pro-lifers advocating murdering the doctors, there are precious few abortion providers in the United States anyway.
Whoa. I don't recognize it, but I don't pretend to be well read (actually, I *do* pretend to be, but that's another matter). Is that standard issue reading in Arkansas high school's? Sounds like the Church of Euthanasia or something. Blech.
There are an average of 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year. There are 441 abortion clinics. Not too precious.
Oh, Jesus F*cking Christ, people. It's a common if slightly old-fashioned metaphorical phrase, *not* a literal one. 'There are precious few', translated as 'there are hardly any'. I suppose that's what I get for trying to be all fancy-like. Insert eyeroll here, etcetera. Here's some out of date info. I know that there are similar statistics for recent years, but I can't be bothered to find them unless someone asks. From http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/decline.htm The number of hospitals, clinics and physicians' offices where abortion can be performed dropped 8% between 1988 and 1992 - from 2,582 to 2,380, a rate of about 65 a year. That number dropped by 18%, from a high of 2,908, between 1982 and 1992. AR, DE, IN, IA, KS, MO, TN, UT and WY lost 20 - 40% of their abortion providers. 84% of U.S. counties have no known abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, 94% of counties have no provider. Most abortions (69%) take place in the country's 441 abortion clinics (defined as non-hospital facilities in which half or more patient visits are for abortion services). Abortion rates declined more in MI and DC, where Medicaid stopped paying for abortions, than in the U.S. in general. In the last 20 years, the number of residency programs training doctors to do abortions dropped 50%. There *is* a decline in abortion numbers *and* a huge decline in abortion providers. You're winning the battle, anti-choicers! Give yourselves a handclap!
I almost used the word "shudder" instead of "wince," but I thought that would be too obvious. I guess I was trying continue the melodramatic theme. This was a top Yahoo! headline for a while today: http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Abortion_Rights_Debate Apparantly, abortion numbers have dropped significantly, but they are attributing it to education....not pro-lifers. Simple economics. Supply and demand......that's why there are fewer providers, so dimsie (seeing as I'm more sided with you on this than with pro-lifers), WE can pat ourselves on the back.
