Abortion

[MooTipping]

Hm, abortion isn't right, but I support pro-choice a bajillion percent!

 

[Ave Maria]

http://www.mikerock.com/facts_abortion.html




Child Abuse Has Increased Over 600% Since Abortion’s Legalization in 1973.

• Legalizing abortion was supposed to help reduce child abuse, since it was assumed most abused children were unwanted at birth. But this theory has been disproved by scientific studies as well as by the obvious evidence that child abuse has sharply increased since abortion became legal.

• Rather than helping stop child abuse, legal abortion has actually contributed to its sharp rise due to effects abortion has on women’s self esteem and ability to deal with stress-two important factors which cause child abuse.
• Cites Dr. Philip Ney in a widely read study on the connection between abortion and child abuse: "…elective abortion is an important cause of child abuse."
• "Recent evidence indicates many women harbor strong guilt feelings long after their abortions. Guilt is one important cause of child battering and infanticide. Abortion also lowers women’s self-esteem and there are studies reporting a major loss of self-esteem in battering parents…"

[size=-2]-P. Ney, M.D., "Relationship Between Abortion & Child Abuse", Canada Jour. Psychiatry, vol. 24, 1979, pg. 610-620[/size]

Do you have any alternative sites? I wouldn't exactly consider an election campaign site to be a good site for scientific survey or research results.

 

[aimejl]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

 

[Ave Maria]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Much better. But I honestly still have serious doubts that abortion increases the rate of child abuse. And even if it does, there is probably things that can be done to prevent it. It is not a good reason to ban abortion in my opinion.

 

[Clem is Me]

http://www.mikerock.com/facts_abortion.html




Child Abuse Has Increased Over 600% Since Abortion’s Legalization in 1973.

• Legalizing abortion was supposed to help reduce child abuse, since it was assumed most abused children were unwanted at birth. But this theory has been disproved by scientific studies as well as by the obvious evidence that child abuse has sharply increased since abortion became legal.

• Rather than helping stop child abuse, legal abortion has actually contributed to its sharp rise due to effects abortion has on women’s self esteem and ability to deal with stress-two important factors which cause child abuse.
• Cites Dr. Philip Ney in a widely read study on the connection between abortion and child abuse: "…elective abortion is an important cause of child abuse."
• "Recent evidence indicates many women harbor strong guilt feelings long after their abortions. Guilt is one important cause of child battering and infanticide. Abortion also lowers women’s self-esteem and there are studies reporting a major loss of self-esteem in battering parents…"

[size=-2]-P. Ney, M.D., "Relationship Between Abortion & Child Abuse", Canada Jour. Psychiatry, vol. 24, 1979, pg. 610-620[/size]

This would be very compelling if it could be shown that the women who had abortions are the ones who are commiting most of the abuse. 600%? This number all by itself suggests that simply legalizing abortion didn't account for the rise. It wouls suggest that between Roe v Wade and 1979 there was a sudden spike in child abuse cases, which seems suspect. What about factors like the percentage of reportage of abuse? How do those numbers stack against this? Was there any direct connection between women who had abortions and the abuse spike or is ot simply annecdotal? What kind of criteria were used? What kind of research was used before Roe v Wade and how does it compare to the research used after?

 

[Ave Maria]

This would be very compelling if it could be shown that the women who had abortions are the ones who are commiting most of the abuse. 600%? This number all by itself suggests that simply legalizing abortion didn't account for the rise. It wouls suggest that between Roe v Wade and 1979 there was a sudden spike in child abuse cases, which seems suspect. What about factors like the percentage of reportage of abuse? How do those numbers stack against this? Was there any direct connection between women who had abortions and the abuse spike or is ot simply annecdotal? What kind of criteria were used? What kind of research was used before Roe v Wade and how does it compare to the research used after?

I agree. The increase in child abuse may not be related to women who have abortions at all. This argument does nothing to convince me of the Pro-Life position.

 

[Natman]

Just happenstance that the (juvenile) crime rate started dropping 15 years after Roe v. Wade?

Where did you get THAT statistic?

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Aimee30]

I guess I would say it should only be permissable if the baby is dying and the mother is in danger of dying. So only in extreme cases. All other uses are vanity to me.

I have reason to believe a baby delivered early can be kept alive if it is healthy--so there is really no reason to have an abortion if the mother's life is in danger only. The baby could be taken out and given the chance to live, depending also on how mature it is.

I really don't know when it begins, I would guess at about the day after conception? Not certain.

 

[Clem is Me]

I think life began at the big bang event. Everything since then has simply been a shift in the overall pattern of spacetime, matter and energy.

 

[shprdslamb7]

I ask this question of the pro-choice Christians. I don't usually get answers but we'll see.

Do YOU think that God made a mistake and humans are allowed to "fix" that mistake with abortion?

 

[Ave Maria]

I ask this question of the pro-choice Christians. I don't usually get answers but we'll see.

Do YOU think that God made a mistake and humans are allowed to "fix" that mistake with abortion?

Nope, I feel that God created us with free will and that we have the free will to have sex without birth control. Doing so can cause pregnancy. I don't think God chooses when someone gets pregnant and when they don't. I think he lets the laws of physics work themselves. I never really was one to believe that God micromanages the world. Therefore, God did not make a mistake in allowing someone to have an unwanted pregnancy because he didn't directly cause the pregancy. Instead, he gave us the free will to either try and prevent the pregnancy or to have unprotected sex and run the risk of getting pregnant.

 

[shprdslamb7]

Nope, I feel that God created us with free will and that we have the free will to have sex without birth control. Doing so can cause pregnancy. I don't think God chooses when someone gets pregnant and when they don't. I think he lets the laws of physics work themselves. I never really was one to believe that God micromanages the world. Therefore, God did not make a mistake in allowing someone to have an unwanted pregnancy because he didn't directly cause the pregancy. Instead, he gave us the free will to either try and prevent the pregnancy or to have unprotected sex and run the risk of getting pregnant.

Holly, didn't you just pick this argument up from Vylo? A month or so ago...you had no rebuttal. Don't just agree with something because it looks good to you...come up with your own reasonings why you think something is or isn't ok.

 

[Ave Maria]

Holly, didn't you just pick this argument up from Vylo? A month or so ago...you had no rebuttal. Don't just agree with something because it looks good to you...come up with your own reasonings why you think something is or isn't ok.

Please don't accuse me of picking up someone else's argument. I can assure you with total honesty that I came up with this argument completely on my own. In fact, if you look, I think my post came before his. I'm not certain though. No, I was wrong. My message did come after his. But I can assure you with complete honesty that I did not just pick up his argument. I don't believe in lying.

 

[shadowed_eyes]

Abortion...

Personally, i think that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregancy, but ONLY if the foetus is either:

a) killing her
b) a result of rape
c) not going to be able to live a life - by that i mean if it is going to be born with a serious birthdefect that could stop the child from living a full and happy life. Things like serious deformity, brain-damage and other such problems.
d) if the mother is in an unfit state of mind to care for and/or love the child.

But, on further reflection, i would say that reasons B and D should not promote abortion, but rather adoption. If the mother cannot or will not cope with having a baby, then that child should be allowed to live a full and happy life with people who are willing to give them the care and attention they deserve.

Abortion is a very touchy subject, and really, you need to be able to know where life begins to be able to know whether or not abortion is morally correct or not.

I believe that Life begins at the stage where the heart starts to beat in the foetus. However, this does not mean to say that i believe that up until this stage, the foetus has no rights to be there. It is still a potential person, and it still has a right to survive and have the right to live. Then again, if the foetus's right to live surpasses that of the mother who is carrying it, then i believe that to be wrong. The foetus is totally dependent on the mothers body, so if the foetus is killing its 'host' then the 'host' must be saved... this may seem heartless, but a foetus cannot live without the mother, and so the mother should be saved as opposed to the foetus (in a situation where it is definatly a case of either/or) as the baby cannot survive, but the mother could be saved.

Again, depending on the circumstances, every foetus has the RIGHT to live - i dont dispute that - i only dispute the fact that this right should extend to putting the mothers mental/physical health in jeapordy.

Another side could be that we have no right to 'play God' as it were, and that only God has the power to give and to take life (ecclesiastes 3: 1-3)

Personally - my view is that a foetus has every right to be inside its mothers body, but that right can be over-ruled when, AND ONLY WHEN the mother's life is in jeapordy or the child's chance of survival after birth, or its life after birth, is so minimal, or poor, that it is not worth putting that child through that amount of pain and suffering.

Mercy.

 

[Ave Maria]

Abortion...

Personally, i think that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregancy, but ONLY if the foetus is either:

a) killing her
b) a result of rape
c) not going to be able to live a life - by that i mean if it is going to be born with a serious birthdefect that could stop the child from living a full and happy life. Things like serious deformity, brain-damage and other such problems.
d) if the mother is in an unfit state of mind to care for and/or love the child.

But, on further reflection, i would say that reasons B and D should not promote abortion, but rather adoption. If the mother cannot or will not cope with having a baby, then that child should be allowed to live a full and happy life with people who are willing to give them the care and attention they deserve.

Abortion is a very touchy subject, and really, you need to be able to know where life begins to be able to know whether or not abortion is morally correct or not.

I believe that Life begins at the stage where the heart starts to beat in the foetus. However, this does not mean to say that i believe that up until this stage, the foetus has no rights to be there. It is still a potential person, and it still has a right to survive and have the right to live. Then again, if the foetus's right to live surpasses that of the mother who is carrying it, then i believe that to be wrong. The foetus is totally dependent on the mothers body, so if the foetus is killing its 'host' then the 'host' must be saved... this may seem heartless, but a foetus cannot live without the mother, and so the mother should be saved as opposed to the foetus (in a situation where it is definatly a case of either/or) as the baby cannot survive, but the mother could be saved.

Again, depending on the circumstances, every foetus has the RIGHT to live - i dont dispute that - i only dispute the fact that this right should extend to putting the mothers mental/physical health in jeapordy.

Another side could be that we have no right to 'play God' as it were, and that only God has the power to give and to take life (ecclesiastes 3: 1-3)

Personally - my view is that a foetus has every right to be inside its mothers body, but that right can be over-ruled when, AND ONLY WHEN the mother's life is in jeapordy or the child's chance of survival after birth, or its life after birth, is so minimal, or poor, that it is not worth putting that child through that amount of pain and suffering.

Mercy.

I agree somewhat. I feel that abortion for any reason should be allowed within the first trimester. Afterwards, restrictions like you said should be put in place with the addition that abortion is allowed if the mother was a victim of incest or any form of sexual abuse that caused the pregnancy.

 

[shadowed_eyes]

again, mutual agreement, apart form the issue of abortion should be allowed in the forst trimester..... dos this mean you endorse abortion under ANY circumstance in that section of time?

 

[Ave Maria]

again, mutual agreement, apart form the issue of abortion should be allowed in the forst trimester..... dos this mean you endorse abortion under ANY circumstance in that section of time?

I don't endorse abortion for any reason at any time. I just simply choose not to judge those who do choose to have an abortion. Even if the restrictions mentioned were not in place and someone had an abortion for something other than those reasons after the first trimester, I still would not judge them.

 

[shprdslamb7]

I'm not saying that you are lying...forgive me if you think that I thought that.

My point about that is that people's ideas have a way of rubbing off on someone else. Just think things through yourself...that's all I ask.

Anyway,

Nope, I feel that God created us with free will and that we have the free will to have sex without birth control. Doing so can cause pregnancy. I don't think God chooses when someone gets pregnant and when they don't. I think he lets the laws of physics work themselves. I never really was one to believe that God micromanages the world. Therefore, God did not make a mistake in allowing someone to have an unwanted pregnancy because he didn't directly cause the pregancy. Instead, he gave us the free will to either try and prevent the pregnancy or to have unprotected sex and run the risk of getting pregnant

Micromanaging is NOT creating life. Micromanaging would be helping you pick out what color shirt to wear....no, I don't think God needs to be "involved" in every little detail of your life. But, do you not agree that a life created is a big deal?

What sparks that life to begin, Holly? Do you think it is God? If not, what is it?

 

[shadowed_eyes]

fair play.

I wouldnt personally judge them, i would just find it hard to accept that someone would destroy a life that could have been perfectly happy... But i wouldnt judge....

 

[shprdslamb7]

fair play.

I wouldnt personally judge them, i would just find it hard to accept that someone would destroy a life that could have been perfectly happy... But i wouldnt judge....

For you and Holly, how is admitting that a sin is a sin a "judgment"?