It being immoral or not is a matter of opinion completely. Let's not take steps back in the flow of this topic... Abortion is not a crime (regardless of wether you think it should be or not) so comparing it with actions american's have made illegal is not a proper comparison.
If this country won't allow the "Pledge Of Alegience" (sp) In Federal Buildings because it says GOD in it? I'm Pro-Choice.
It being okay is a matter of opinion completely on your part... so I guess you are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine.
I never said you wern't, I just didn't want to digress in the conversation. Posts similar to yours have already been addressed.
I’m downright amused by Balbus’ desperate stammering to avoid discussing facts. There’s not a shred of evidence to support the pro-abortionists’ allegations that Poland has close to 200,000 illegal abortions per year. I realize that precise figures for illegal activities are unattainable, but other related statistics are readily available. One that is particularly noteworthy is maternal mortality. A central argument for abortion legalization is that outlawing abortion supposedly puts women in grave physical danger. The empirical data indicates otherwise: Intimations that high maternal mortality rates are related to abortion's illegality are contradicted by examples from the United Nation's own database. Neighboring countries such as the United Kingdom (Britain, Scotland, and Wales), where abortion on demand has been legal for some time, and the Republic of Ireland, which has long banned the practice, provide an interesting contrast. According to the 1990 UN Demographic Handbook, it was Ireland, not the UK, that reported the lowest maternal mortality rates for 1988 - - some three and a half times lower than that reported for the British. At least in these two countries, mothers appear to be safer in the country where abortion is not legal. The idea that there is a necessary correlation between abortion's illegality and higher maternal mortality rates is also challenged by government statistics from Poland. Poland banned abortion in 1993 after decades of abortion on demand as a Soviet satellite. Since then, not only has the number of legal abortions dropped considerably, from 59,417 in 1990 to 151 in 1999 (these were for rape, problems with the fetus, or threats to the mother's life or health), but so has maternal and infant mortality. Maternal mortality, recorded at 15.2 per 100,000 live births in 1990, dropped to 7.3 per 100,000 by 1999. Infant mortality also showed a steady decline, from 18.1 in 1991 to just 8.9 in 1999 (and dropped again to 8.1 in 2000). The evidence confirms that the world would be a safer place without abortion. Not only would millions of innocent unborn lives be saved, but so would the lives of many of their mothers. This would especially be so if the international agencies which have invested so much money and energy into promoting abortion would drop that death campaign and put the same effort into improving overall medical conditions in the developing world. - http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/world_abortion_estimates.htm
I have been pleading from the beginning that what is needed in tackling this issue is a desire to understand and a willingness to actually help people. And I have had to point out time and again that some are so biased and eager to score points against the other that they often see what they want to see or manipulate the ‘evidence’ the ‘facts’ to fit in with their predetermined viewpoint. Huck makes it very clear that at this point he just wants to score points “A central argument for abortion legalization is that outlawing abortion supposedly puts women in grave physical danger. The empirical data indicates otherwise:” He is like an overgrown puppy wagging it’s tail in eager anticipation of chewing aunt Maud’s ankle, look he seems to yap ‘you think this but I have facts from unbiased people to prove you wrong’ Well before I come to his ‘evidence’ and the ‘objective’ people presenting it, I would ask him to take a look at what he seem to be saying and see if he can see if their might be a flaw? From what I can tell he want to imply that in places where abortion is illegal the reported cases of death due to abortion are lower than in places were abortion is legal. Think about that statement. Are the reported deaths in a society were abortion is legal and out in the open likely to be more accurate about the reason for death than in places were abortion is illegal and hidden? As you say “precise figures for illegal activities are unattainable” how true, but for Huck the problem is that prejudice can cloud his judgement. **
So we come to an analysis of the article itself. It’s objectivity - It is written for and by employees of the NRLC who are the National Right to Life Committee. A body devoted to the anti’s cause. Randall K. O’Bannon I believe the PhD is in Philosophy He is a member of the Assembly of God. These are just two of the 16 nonnegotiable tenets of faith that all Assemblies of God churches and their members adhere to (1)The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. (15) There will be a final judgment in which the wicked dead will be raised and judged according to their works. Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, together with the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, will be consigned to the everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. http://ag.org/top/beliefs/truths_condensed.cfm ** To quote O’Bannon: We should treat life as one of God’s greatest gifts. People need to see our joy in serving Christ and living in this beautiful world He has made. A Christian who only sees life’s tribulations can’t convince anyone of the value of life. We need to celebrate births, weddings and other milestones with great joy. And we can even celebrate the value of life when faced with the death of believers. The Bible tells us that the death of those who have lived a godly life is precious in God’s sight. People must see the joy of our transformed life, the joy of our eternal hope, and that we have divine purpose in all that we do. http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/conversations2001/4524_bannon.cfm Laura Antkowiak Hussey, M.P.M I believe the MPM stands for Master of Arts in Pastoral Ministry ** The content Now remember what I said about predetermined viewpoint, personal prejudice and wanting to score points getting in the way of objective thought. Experts comment on the difficulty in interpreting these complex statistics as one put it “Scanty data, however, make an accurate assessment of the status of abortion and abortion laws throughout the world a daunting, virtually impossible task”. In other words since the data doesn’t always say when and where abortion was or wasn’t a cause of death it is difficult to say how important it was in each case or country. This can be down to the methods of data collection. But even given these difficulties The articles wants to score a point so its argument is that pro abortionist believe that the legalization of abortion eliminates many threat to women's health. In that illegal abortions cause women to die. Personally I’d need more evidence one way or the other than set out in this poorly constructed piece. Also that is not my argument, if you asked me what was the major threat to women’s health in the world, I’d say it was the often dire social, economic and cultural conditions they have to live under. Abortion might be part of it but first we would need to understand the situation then act on it not go with a pre determined idea. They agree that social, economic and cultural conditions are important but they desperately want to score that point so they seem to claim that pro abortions say that abortion would bring maternal mortality figures down everywhere at a stroke. Well if someone did I’d call them a fool, but that is Randall and Laura’s assertion. So they argue that the biggest killer for people in undeveloped countries is such things as poor drinking water and sanitation, famine, malnutrition, the distance from healthcare if any healthcare is available and so on. Basic social, economic and cultural problems. Do they argue that governments like theirs (USA) that gives the lowest amount of aid (per gdp) should give more or have fair trade agreements or cancel third world debt. No. They seem to be implying aid money shouldn’t go to groups that in any way support abortion. You see they want to score points so the reason why resources don’t go to the upgrading of hospitals, equipment, emergency care, and medicines; meeting sanitation challenges and insuring the availability of clean water; and addressing agricultural, economic, and transportation issues that hinder food production and distribution. Is because so many resources are going to promote abortion. So the reason why things are so bad for women in the third world is because of pro abortionists. Twaddle really if you think about it. It therefore stands to reason (and here again they find ‘evidence’ to back them up) that the pro abortionist argument is bad for women’s health in the developed world. So they first seem to claim that the maternal mortality rates of a country reflect the number of death due to abortion (unproven). They then claim that countries that have legal abortion have drastically higher maternal mortality rates than countries that have made abortion illegal (unproven). For example that Ireland were abortion is illegal had MMR rates three and a half times lower than that reported for the UK where abortion is legal. I couldn’t find many of the figures that are quoted in the article anywhere else except in that article do you know where they got them since they don't seem to say. So I have used the official figures from the WHO. And they don’t seem to back up the articles claims. The WHO and UN figure (http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=whosis&language=english) for 1990 and 1995 were Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 1990 Ireland 10 Poland 19 UK 9 USA 12 Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 1995 Poland 12 Ireland 9 UK 10 USA 12 Here is a long report on the 1995 figures http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/mat_mortal/matmor.pdf **
So let us look at another veiwpoint Maternal mortality and its prevention. Schuitemaker NW, Gravenhorst JB, Van Geijn HP, Dekker GA, Van Dongen PW. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Maternal mortality rates in developed countries have declined steeply during the last 50 years. The introduction of sulphonamides and blood transfusion techniques contributed much to lowering maternal mortality rates. The maternal mortality rate in The Netherlands in 1983-1988 was 8.8/100,000 livebirths. In 57% substandard care factors could be identified. This suggests that further improvement in preventing maternal mortality is possible. Maternal mortality rates in developing countries are still unacceptably high as a result of high fertility and a high risk of dying each time a woman becomes pregnant. Complications of illegal abortion are responsible for 25-50% of maternal deaths. Safe contraception could probably result in an important reduction in the number of maternal deaths, but also the provision of accessible maternal health services is essential to reduce maternal mortality in developing countries. PIP: Physicians analyzed 1983-88 data on 99 maternal deaths in the netherlands to examine causes of death and to what degree substandard care contributed to the deaths. 65 cases were classified as direct maternal deaths, 14 ad indirect maternal deaths, and 20 as fortuitous maternal deaths. They did not include the 20 fortuitous deaths in the maternal mortality rate which stood at 8.8/100,000 live births. The physicians knew all the details in 66 maternal deaths. They identified substandard factors in 57% of these cases. Most of the cases associated with substandard care were women with pregnancy induced hypertension (eclampsia). The substandard care factors included patient or physician's delay, wrong diagnosis, insufficient knowledge of proper treatment, operating without knowledge of clotting disorders, interventions on patients in an unstable condition, inadequate postpartum and postoperative surveillance, and lack of organization. The leading direct cause of maternal death was eclampsia (34%) then thromboembolism (21%), and obstetric hemorrhage (19%). 41% of the women who died from eclampsia also suffered from cerebrovascular hemorrhage. Only 2 women died from septic abortion. The major indirect cause of maternal death was cerebrovascular hemorrhage (57%). Among the direct maternal deaths, 52% had disseminated intravascular coagulation and 25% had a cesarean section. As recently as 1935 in developed countries, puerperal sepsis was the leading cause of maternal deaths (50%) then obstetrical hemorrhage and eclampsia (25%). Mortality rates began to fall with the introduction of sulphonamides and later penicillin. In developing countries, however, maternal mortality remains very high. High rates are due to high fertility and a high risk of death each time a woman is pregnant. Availability of safe contraception and elimination of illegal abortions would reduce maternal mortality considerably. PMID: 1809606 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1809606&dopt=Abstract **
So you now argue that although social, economic and cultural reasons exist, these in your opinion do not cover the reasons for “all (or even most) abortions”. So what are these ‘other’ reasons for most women wanting abortions? (And I hope you’re not going to go on about sinners, immorality and hedonism, again are you?) **
What "they" are you referring to? If you mean NRLC, then you are correct; their focus is admittedly (and purposely) narrow. That is true of most advocacy groups. This is a purely tactical consideration. If a group's agenda becomes too broad, its political effectiveness is often diluted. However, there are many (theologically) conservative Christian organizations devoted to fighting poverty in the developing world: http://www.bread.org http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/wvususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_homepage http://www.floresta.org http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/index.htm These numbers belie the pro-abortionist claim that legally restricting/banning abortion will sentence countless women to their deaths from "back alley" abortions. Ireland's maternal death rate is equivalent to Britain's, and Poland's has decreased since abortion was largely outlawed.
This a ridiculous argument that ignores the essential point to this discussion. No government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. The examples you have given are all crimes against other citizens. A fetus, no matter how hard some try by ascribing personhood status to a fetus, is not a citizen.
Are you saying that an unborn baby is somehow an appendage of the mother's body? Now that's ridiculous!
Abortion to me is a simple case of womens rights. It should be allowed. I dont support it 100% but someways I do. But you will never know the truth of why or when so its just the right that women have in this fucked up world. peace chickens
It's a human life is it not? Are you telling me the only reason it's not wrong is because it is a citizen? Yeah, Milosivich killed other non citizens of Serbia, but I guess that does not matter, right? Hitler had non Jews killed too, that does not matter either? I mean, I can't beleive people actually support abortion, I mean it's bad enough in the first and second trimesters, but the third? They stab blades in it's skull and crush it! How is that not murder, ending another human life? It's bullshit.
I am confused by your post. Too many pronouns without antecedents. I don't see any reason to be obnoxious about this. I was not referring to any particular form of abortion (by the way, so called partial-birth abortions account for an extremely small percentage of abortions and usually to save the mother--they are used as extreme examples to make emotional appeals), I am simply saying that the fetus is a part of the woman carrying it. Don't try to confuse this issue by discussing the killing of people by Hitler and Milosevic--it is not the same issue at all. In addition, neither of us is capable of deciding when life begins. There have been cultures that did not even bother naming children until they were several months old (i.e. until they were sure the child would live). There is no gray area about what constitutes a person once a child is born. My argument remains the same. The coercive power of the state should not have control over a woman's body. If you think that abortion is murder, then don't have an abortion.
Balbus jumps up and down waving his hands in the air "OVER HERE" he shouts, can you see him people? Do you think Huck can see him? So you now argue that although social, economic and cultural reasons exist, these in your opinion do not cover the reasons for "all (or even most) abortions". So what are these ‘other’ reasons for most women wanting abortions? (And I hope you’re not going to go on about sinners, immorality and hedonism again, are you?) They say "third time luck" "threes a charm" and "after three" so I’m sure Huck will see it this time? **
I think that rational people just become amazed at the anti’s capacity to believe in their view and to only see what they want to see. This issue for them has left the realms of reality and entered that of their beliefs, you could say the religious. It is very hard to argue with a persons beliefs because they are not always based on the reasonable or rational, in fact it can be very much the opposite of those. Believers have an advantage over their opponents, they begin with the certainty of their belief, that they are right whatever is said and so if anything doesn’t fit into that view it isn’t examined since it is by definition wrong. That is - I think - why point scoring against an unbeliever is more important than an actual examination of the issues and the arguments involved in it.
