Rate of Abortion is highest in countries where it is illegal

[S.ilvio]

How about we start putting the baby first instead of the possible offence caused to the Politically Correct mob.

Protect the lives of future babies by banning abortion on demand immediately. Close down the death clinics and punish any abortionist with a Life Sentence if caught in the act.

Then we can ensure that future mothers to be get as much support (financial, psychological and practical) as possible to endure both mother and child are given the best start in their new lives together, or apart if the need arises.

Killing the baby is never the right answer...

 

[MKJ]

So you agree with me then on immediately criminalising those who carry out abortions while provinding every support necessary for vulnerable mothers to be..?

It isn't a matter of agreeing or not - I don't think it is possible to do it in the US or Canada, because there is no political mandate. (In fact, I think for the Republicans it is more politically expedient that abortion is legal, and that makes it even trickier.)

In order to get a political mandate would require more people believe it is a good idea.

However - if somehow we suddenly did make it illegal with only about half the population supporting it, it would only be slightly effective. We could probably eliminate some mid and late term abortions, but early abortions are not hard to do at home safely these days, and they are a very substantial number of abortions.

I also don't think that simply making it illegal would change attitudes. It could possibly however make people think that law and morality have no connection, which would be negative.

A good example of this is that here in Canada, before we lost our abortion legislation, women who wanted an abortion needed to convince a panel of doctors that the medical case for serious risk to her health was a good one. But toward the end of that time, the majority supported open access to abortion. The panel of doctors became a rubber stamp - if women said the right thing "if I stay pregnant I'll kill myself" they would approve, and everyone knew it. The law became largely ineffective.

I don't think that the legal battle is separate from the battle for people's hearts. To change the law, you need to win hearts. To keep people respecting the law, you need to win hearts. To have them follow the law, you need to win hearts.

I think the primary focus of most pro-life groups should be convincing individuals, voters, that abortion is a bad thing, and making sure they do not get into such desperate situations that they do it anyway.

If that happens, then the law is more of a focus, though it may actually follow naturally on it's own.

 

[S.ilvio]

So while you're working away on changing hearts and minds how many more babie will be massacred..?

Have a referendum of the People. Make it nice and simple. 'Do you support the criminalisation of abortion?' Yes on No.

We did it in Ireland and there is no baby killing, sanctioned here...

 

[Davidnic]

One thing about the article that just is kooky is saying 95% of the abortions in the third world are unsafe. 100% of all abortions are unsafe for someone. It says 47,000 women have died. No, 48.3 million abortions a year from the study. 25ish million women have died. It's just no one wanted to see the faces of or admit the other 24,000,450 were human.

I know that does not matter if someone does not believe they are people, and that is a big part of this. But it just made me mad the way the article phrased it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

 

[MikeK]

One thing about the article that just is kooky is saying 95% of the abortions in the third world are unsafe. 100% of all abortions are unsafe for someone. It says 47,000 women have died. No, 48.3 million abortions a year from the study. 25ish million women have died. It's just no one wanted to see the faces of or admit the other 24,000,450 were human.

I don't know, David, I'm not sure you can call a fetus or a newborn or a toddler a "woman".

 

[WarriorAngel]

It isn't a matter of agreeing or not - I don't think it is possible to do it in the US or Canada, because there is no political mandate. (In fact, I think for the Republicans it is more politically expedient that abortion is legal, and that makes it even trickier.)

In order to get a political mandate would require more people believe it is a good idea.

However - if somehow we suddenly did make it illegal with only about half the population supporting it, it would only be slightly effective. We could probably eliminate some mid and late term abortions, but early abortions are not hard to do at home safely these days, and they are a very substantial number of abortions.

I also don't think that simply making it illegal would change attitudes. It could possibly however make people think that law and morality have no connection, which would be negative.

A good example of this is that here in Canada, before we lost our abortion legislation, women who wanted an abortion needed to convince a panel of doctors that the medical case for serious risk to her health was a good one. But toward the end of that time, the majority supported open access to abortion. The panel of doctors became a rubber stamp - if women said the right thing "if I stay pregnant I'll kill myself" they would approve, and everyone knew it. The law became largely ineffective.

I don't think that the legal battle is separate from the battle for people's hearts. To change the law, you need to win hearts. To keep people respecting the law, you need to win hearts. To have them follow the law, you need to win hearts.

I think the primary focus of most pro-life groups should be convincing individuals, voters, that abortion is a bad thing, and making sure they do not get into such desperate situations that they do it anyway.

If that happens, then the law is more of a focus, though it may actually follow naturally on it's own.

More than half of Americans disagree with abortions.
And only less than 10% agree with gay marriage - but that doesnt stop the politicians.

So as we can see it evident the people wont get what they really want - the majority choice. So it is due to ignoring the issues that we seem to have these things....and because ppl think other issues are more important.

There are in fact very conservative Catholic politicians who would love to eliminate abortion. It is not expedient to have it.

What good do you think comes from it?
Doing it at home is probably just as safe - but not too many women would go that route.

In the past - the numbers were one tenth of a fraction percent who were so insane to attempt it.

It is a deterrent. It is ideas and speeches that say nothing would change that causes ppl to think it wouldnt change. But it would change.

I repeat = regarding the OP - there was no such study done.
NONE!

You would never in a billion years get doctors to implicate themselves and go to jail in countries it is illegal. So the study if false.
WOULD anyone take the chance of giving this sort of information when they could face criminal charges? For stat purposes? Really?

In America - they are closing these chop shops because they are so vile and filthy. But it comes with the territory. If someone does not regard life, they certainly arent going to regard their workers lives either by sterile clean methods - nor the womens lives.
ONCE you leave the chop shop - and die - they are not held accountable.

Abortions are unsafe, impractical, and hideously unfair to the unborn and DEFENSELESS child.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Totally disagree with you. How about we start putting the baby first instead of the possible offence caused to the Politically Correct mob.

Protect the lives of future babies by banning abortion on demand immediately. Close down the death clinics and punish any abortionist with a Life Sentence if caught in the act.

Then we can ensure that future mothers to be get as much support (financial, psychological and practical) as possible to endure both mother and child are given the best start in their new lives together, or apart if the need arises.

Killing the baby is never the right answer...

Something else would occur - women would stop being so permissive and loose.

 

[Antigone]

So while you're working away on changing hearts and minds how many more babie will be massacred..?

I think the point was that babies will be massacred whether or not you criminialise abortion and that criminalisation will be ineffective if you force it down people's throats.

This point has been made so often that I'm beginning to wonder what those who react so violently against it really want: do they want to save lives or do they just want to make a point?

Have a referendum of the People. Make it nice and simple. 'Do you support the criminalisation of abortion?' Yes on No.

We did it in Ireland and there is no baby killing, sanctioned here...

But then again, Ireland is a country where most people can either afford to go abroad to have an abortion or find a non-profit organisation that will pay for you.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is all about human nature. A fetus, zygote...all as human as a teenager, baby or senior. Just titles of human. Those who want to argue that in biology the zygote is not human (which is something most doctors disagree with) have the burden of proof that the fetus lacks a human nature. And nothing is one thing then becomes another.

If you extend the argument that the fetus is not human because it is dependent on external means for life...we then get into the issue that a 5, 10, 20, 30....whatever year old is not human if they are on transitory life support. Or if they need an organ transplant.

That line of thinking, combined with a conversion of heart, will help to convince any who honestly engage in the debate.

But it needs to be illegal because killing people is illegal, it does not matter if people do not recognize someone as human. True, the real effectiveness of the law in practical application will have a great deal to do with people's perceptions. But the fact of it being right or wrong is independent of perceptions.

We can make arguments founded in Catholic principles that are not dependent upon them. We can prove that the fetus is human logically without recourse to faith. The truth of it all comes from God, but He gives us other means to illustrate the fact.

Those who want to argue that a fetus has no human rights must come up with why someone is human and what is the condition for human rights. If that condition is anything other than: From the moment of biological existence a human nature is present that brings human rights. Then they have a burden of proof to come up with a consistent measure for what endows human rights.

And there is no other criteria that does not remove the right to life from those already born as well. The only view that is consistent is the possession of a human nature from the moment of conception. Anything else logically allows us to remove life from people in multiple sets of arbitrary conditions.

The only biological and philosophical criteria that make a consistent sense, meets with genetic facts and satisfies all logical terms is that a human nature is present from the moment of conception. It may be the hardest in what it makes incumbent on us, but it also is the only one that does not contradict itself.

If people respected humanity - murder would not occur at all. To kill someone, someone has to be able to remove themselves from the fact their victim is even human and they probably become an object of disdain and of 'needing to die' because they are bothersome to the murderer.

What makes the average murderer any more horrible than the person who can legally and without recourse destroy a life inside of them... because they are not wanted?

The entire abortion mind set has increased people's desensitization toward all life which is the natural outset of having such a choice in place --- in the first place.

 

[Antigone]

If people respected humanity - murder would not occur at all. To kill someone, someone has to be able to remove themselves from the fact their victim is even human and they probably become an object of disdain and of 'needing to die' because they are bothersome to the murderer.

The entire abortion mind set has increased people's desensitization toward all life which is the natural outset of having such a choice in place --- in the first place.

I don't think that's true. If you look at all the bloodshed in the middle ages - when everyone was a Catholic and deferred to the church - or the gruesome ways they'd execute people, the way they'd carelessly sacrifice serfs and the lower rungs of society, I don't think that speaks well of their respect for life.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think the point was that babies will be massacred whether or not you criminialise abortion and that criminalisation will be ineffective if you force it down people's throats.

This point has been made so often that I'm beginning to wonder what those who react so violently against it really want: do they want to save lives or do they just want to make a point?



But then again, Ireland is a country where most people can either afford to go abroad to have an abortion or find a non-profit organisation that will pay for you.

Then they take it on themselves - BUT the inutero infant mortality rate would drastically decrease because human nature is about convenience... and the easier the better. [especially in this society where immediate gratification is the chief motivator]

Finding a doctor wanting to risk their license and paying thru the nose for services would be a deterrent. Secondly - the likelihood of a woman wanting to attempt such a thing at home - would be vastly a minority. Vastly.

The NARAL numbers purportedly showing this dramatic number of illegal abortions in back alleys [which are no different than the legal abortion mills - today] were so inflated - and ppl still today 'quote' those fabrications as truth.

In actuality - the numbers were so minor - it hardly dignifies legally killing babies. Taking a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.
IE - you can kill a gnat with a sledgehammer - but why would you?

Women so desperate to murder - have increased mothers with babies outside the womb to murder. So it is two fold now. You make abortion illegal - you pin it down for what it is - killing a human life - it will or should retroactively decrease the numbers of mothers killing their children. Because society deems it fine to kill them at one stage of development, what makes it so horrible at a later stage? The society suffers greatly so long as abortion exists and is stays in place.

 

[S.ilvio]

I think the point was that babies will be massacred whether or not you criminialise abortion and that criminalisation will be ineffective if you force it down people's throats.

This point has been made so often that I'm beginning to wonder what those who react so violently against it really want: do they want to save lives or do they just want to make a point?



But then again, Ireland is a country where most people can either afford to go abroad to have an abortion or find a non-profit organisation that will pay for you.

Why have laws criminalising puppy abuse then? If someone want to drown a puppy they're going to do it anyway.

Such defeatist attitudes are so common among pro-choice apologists. Any excuse to continue with the status quo of killing babies and trying, in vain, to sugar coat it to make it acceptable.

 

[Davidnic]

I don't know, David, I'm not sure you can call a fetus or a newborn or a toddler a "woman".

If allowed to live they would be about 50% female is my point. It has always bothered me that Women's rights groups are only advocating for the women they see. And when they hypothetically want to make things better for the future women that includes killing about 25 million of them a year.

Just kooky.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That's ideal. But politics doesn't seem that obvious to me.

Politicians are not outside of morality, judgment, or anything else when it comes to how the nation as a whole should be run.

THIS is why we need religious leaders who can balance - take out the immoral - while still being able to work on the secular.
Kings have done it in the past.
Politicians have too.

But because ppl divide God from politics - a blurred line without 20/20 is the sight our countries have now.

Personally I viewed the war very differently from some. I am utterly convinced that it was built on lies and that these women and children and so many men on both sides died for a selfish cause that was kept from us. (I hope I am wrong, but based on what I have read and seen, I really don't think I am). I don't expect or even care to convince you. My point is to show you why I could not in good conscience vote for a second term Bush and instead voted for a third party. But I can see how others might vote for Bush despite their beliefs against the war for the moral reason of not allowing abortion rights to further in the Supreme Court. I can also see why someone might vote for a pro-choice president despite his or her stance on abortion in order to stop more unjust wars coming about. Even if I don't agree with either vote, I wouldn't judge the person's faith or morals based purely on who they vote for but rather WHY they vote for them.

Dont want to get into the just war thing.
Will say - the country was attacked. The CIA gave reports where the main activity came from...and Congress voted. This was not solo Bush - acting as Lone Ranger.

 

[S.ilvio]

If allowed to live they would be about 50% female is my point. It has always bothered me that Women's rights groups are only advocating for the women they see. And when they hypothetically want to make things better for the future women that includes killing about 25 million of them a year.

Just kooky.

Sums things up pretty perfectly...

 

[Antigone]

Why have laws criminalising puppy abuse then? If someone want to drown a puppy they're going to do it anyway.

Such defeatist attitudes are so common among pro-choice apologists. Any excuse to continue with the status quo of killing babies and trying, in vain, to sugar coat it to make it acceptable.

That's because abortion involves moral complexities for most people that don't exist for Catholics. Not all people are Catholic and therefore you can't just brush these complexities aside with 'it's babykilling'.

You can't compare it to killing a puppy for reasons that you as well as I understand, so I won't do any of us the injustice of prentending you are stupid enough to need them typed out.

 

[Antigone]

If allowed to live they would be about 50% female is my point. It has always bothered me that Women's rights groups are only advocating for the women they see. And when they hypothetically want to make things better for the future women that includes killing about 25 million of them a year.

Just kooky.

That's unfair. Abortion is a women's rights issue, no matter which way you look at it. And there are plenty of feminist organisations lobbying against the selective abortions that take place (mostly) in India and China.

 

[MikeK]

If allowed to live they would be about 50% female is my point. It has always bothered me that Women's rights groups are only advocating for the women they see. And when they hypothetically want to make things better for the future women that includes killing about 25 million of them a year.

Just kooky.

Agreed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

So murder is proper to end someone else's life who is unwanted - as an acceptable means if one is not Catholic??

Politicians ought to call it what it is - and science agrees - the baby in the womb is human and as such has rights.
To take their life is murder. There is nothing so complex unless we try to make it complex as to confuse the masses.