PP Abortions vs. firearm murders

[JerseyGator01]

Where is the liberal media and Dems on making abortion "rare" to use a word from Bill Clinton over 10 years ago?

Just some facts:

Firearm deaths in the US in 2011: 11,101 per the CDC

Number of abortions done just by Planned Parenthood in 2010: 329,445 (over 300K for the 4th year in a row).

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/planned-parenthood-marks-96th-birthday-with-6-million-abortions/

Why doesn't the media hold Planned Parenthood and friends like the PAC called Emily's List for making abortion "rare" like it's recently putting the NRA to the fire? Emily's List has long been one of the largest PAC's in the country whose purpose is to campaign for pro-abortion women. This past election cycle, their receipts tripled that of the evil NRA ($45M to $14M).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?cycle=2012&Type=R&filter=P

With all this concern for the slaughtering of innocence recently, why so little discussion on abortion for convenience, which is over 90% of abortions, for the past 40 years?

As the first link above notes, the number of abortions done by Planned Parenthood increased every year from 1994 to 2009. 2010 brought a slight decrease of a few thousand. This link also shows that PP got 46% of its money in its FY 2010 from taxpayers.

Again, where is the media outrage given all of this government funding?

[Dreamliner]

It's okay, at worst, sad that 329,445 children are killed by dismemberment or poisoning every year, but we're OUTRAGED and numbed when you shoot 20 of them.

A possible solution to the abortion conumdrum, something which would mobilize public outrage and political action, would be to extract the children from the womb and then shoot them.

[theorangebluewinagain]

No Outrage because you can't hear them screaming in utero as they suck out their little brains.

[g8trjax]

It's okay, at worst, sad that 329,445 children are killed by dismemberment or poisoning every year, but we're OUTRAGED and numbed when you shoot 20 of them.

A possible solution to the abortion conumdrum, something which would mobilize public outrage and political action, would be to extract the children from the womb and then shoot them.



Give that man a cee gar.

[PIMking]

It's weird, in the womb ='s not murder, once the baby goes through the birth canal it's an American tragedy?

[108]

your issues with legal abortion can stand on its own without falsely being equated to gun deaths

[g8orbill]

killing is killing 108

[theorangebluewinagain]

It's okay, at worst, sad that 329,445 children are killed by dismemberment or poisoning every year, but we're OUTRAGED and numbed when you shoot 20 of them.

A possible solution to the abortion conumdrum, something which would mobilize public outrage and political action, would be to extract the children from the womb and then shoot them.

What if intead of using a suction catheter to commit the murder, they used a little 1-2cm assault rifle to end the lives of these babies, now that would be a conundrum.

[wygator]

your issues with legal abortion can stand on its own without falsely being equated to gun deaths

Both Newtown and abortion are the slaughter of innocent children.

A little math for perspective. From the CDC:

In 2009, 784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births.

The 784,507 legal induced abortions annually is equivalent to

107 Newtown shootings...

every day...

for a year!

And the abortion rate means a child conceived in the US has a worse chance of surviving to birth than someone putting a revolver with one bullet to their head and pullling the trigger.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/Abortion.htm

[GatorFanCF]

We are numb to abortion and its effects.
We don't see it nor hear about it, typically.
It fits well with our god of convenience; and, too many of us hypocrites have sisters, girlfriends, spouses, and daughters whom have elected to have an abortion vs. address the difficult challenges of letting the natural result if our actions come to term.
We have blood on our hands and are not willing to be transparent, nor accept the consequences of our action and inaction.

[wargunfan]

Someone please detail for me the magic which happens from one minute before birth to one minute after birth which transforms a non person into a person with all the protections of the law. One minute it's a legal? abortion; the next minute it's murder.
This travesty is but one aspect of the moral decay of Americans. With thousands of couples traveling to China and other third world countries to adopt a child it becomes obvious that American women cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term.

[ufhomerj31]

Someone please detail for me the magic which happens from one minute before birth to one minute after birth which transforms a non person into a person with all the protections of the law. One minute it's a legal? abortion; the next minute it's murder.
This travesty is but one aspect of the moral decay of Americans. With thousands of couples traveling to China and other third world countries to adopt a child it becomes obvious that American mothers cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term.

easy, before birth, it is just a thought, no real connections, still part of the mom.
After, well, it is a living human, that's murder now.

[wygator]

easy, before birth, it is just a thought, no real connections, still part of the mom.
After, well, it is a living human, that's murder now.

Just a thought?????

It is a genetically distinct human life.

[wargunfan]

"Someone please detail for me the magic which happens from one minute before birth to one minute after birth which transforms a non person into a person with all the protections of the law. One minute it's a legal? abortion; the next minute it's murder.
This travesty is but one aspect of the moral decay of Americans. With thousands of couples traveling to China and other third world countries to adopt a child it becomes obvious that American women cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term."

I have edited my post to change the word mothers to women. A woman who kills her unborn baby because a pregnancy is inconvenient is not, in any sense of the word, a mother.

[AzCatFan]

"Someone please detail for me the magic which happens from one minute before birth to one minute after birth which transforms a non person into a person with all the protections of the law. One minute it's a legal? abortion; the next minute it's murder.
This travesty is but one aspect of the moral decay of Americans. With thousands of couples traveling to China and other third world countries to adopt a child it becomes obvious that American women cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term."

I have edited my post to change the word mothers to women. A woman who kills her unborn baby because a pregnancy is inconvenient is not, in any sense of the word, a mother.

Been busy but want to answer. The magic that happens is the number of specific individuals who can nuture the life to the next stage. For example, if a woman comes up to you who has just given birth within the hour, hands you the newborn and says she wants absolutely nothing to do with it, you would be able to raise the child. So would millions of people on the planet. But rewind 4 1/2 months and have that same woman come up to you and say she wants zero to do with the fetus and wants you to take care of it, that is impossible. At this point in development, the pregnant woman and only she can nuture the life inside her to the next phase.

Simply put, the magic is the ability for others to take care of the life. Until viability outside the womb, if we force all pregnant women to carry without recourse, we are essentially telling them they are slaves to the fetus and must submit to its rights over their own. In every other instance, parents can abdicate their rights, and the child(ren) go with family or CPS. Pregnant women should have the ability to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities too, which unfortunately means death to the fetus, since nobody else can take a fetus and nuture it like one can with a newborn.

[g8orbill]

no azcat, what you are telling them is it is okay to kill their unborn child

[JerseyGator01]

Az,

It's not going to be impossible forever. That's a weak argument at best.

[AustinGator1]

Been busy but want to answer. The magic that happens is the number of specific individuals who can nuture the life to the next stage. For example, if a woman comes up to you who has just given birth within the hour, hands you the newborn and says she wants absolutely nothing to do with it, you would be able to raise the child. So would millions of people on the planet. But rewind 4 1/2 months and have that same woman come up to you and say she wants zero to do with the fetus and wants you to take care of it, that is impossible. At this point in development, the pregnant woman and only she can nuture the life inside her to the next phase.

Simply put, the magic is the ability for others to take care of the life. Until viability outside the womb, if we force all pregnant women to carry without recourse, we are essentially telling them they are slaves to the fetus and must submit to its rights over their own. In every other instance, parents can abdicate their rights, and the child(ren) go with family or CPS. Pregnant women should have the ability to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities too, which unfortunately means death to the fetus, since nobody else can take a fetus and nuture it like one can with a newborn.



Actually, what we are telling them and the men in their lives is they have to be responsible. Somehow, some way our society has decided telling people they have to be responsible for their actions is taboo.

[surfn1080]

easy, before birth, it is just a thought, no real connections, still part of the mom.
After, well, it is a living human, that's murder now.

you are kidding me right? guess you failed to realize that living human inside the womb has it own heart beat, its own thoughts, emotions, and is only living off the mom for nutrition supply. An abortion is in fact killing a living human being.

[108]

at this point, what constitutes individual human life is subjective

and therefore, there is a period that is given early on in pregnancy for a mother to terminate her pregnancy

personally, i don't even believe that there is a begging and end to life, just its shifting of forms...but that is for another discussion

[AzCatFan]

Az,

It's not going to be impossible forever. That's a weak argument at best.

If and when there comes a time we can transplsnt a fetus in utero and have it stay viable, then yes, my argument becomes weak. Until that time, is there anything we can do to help that pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the fetus? While you can suggest to her what she is doing is wrong, plead for her to take responsibilty for her action, and make the case that abortion is murder, I believe that forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her rights. As again, she is the only unique person with the ability to nurture the fetus to birth. And again, once science comes up with a viable fetus transplant...well, that's a game changer.

[g8orbill]

with as many Americans who are going abroad to adopt-there are other options than for her to kill her unborn child

[wygator]

If and when there comes a time we can transplsnt a fetus in utero and have it stay viable, then yes, my argument becomes weak. Until that time, is there anything we can do to help that pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the fetus? While you can suggest to her what she is doing is wrong, plead for her to take responsibilty for her action, and make the case that abortion is murder, I believe that forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her rights. As again, she is the only unique person with the ability to nurture the fetus to birth. And again, once science comes up with a viable fetus transplant...well, that's a game changer.

Pregnancy and the beginning of human life are an easily forseeable consequence of sexual activity. A woman takes on the responsibility of, at least, nurturing the child to birth when she decides to spread her legs.

This is one important reason that intimate sexuality should be reserved for marriage. If
people want to engage in sex outside matrimony, they pay to play.

[AustinGator1]

If and when there comes a time we can transplsnt a fetus in utero and have it stay viable, then yes, my argument becomes weak. Until that time, is there anything we can do to help that pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the fetus? While you can suggest to her what she is doing is wrong, plead for her to take responsibilty for her action, and make the case that abortion is murder, I believe that forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her rights. As again, she is the only unique person with the ability to nurture the fetus to birth. And again, once science comes up with a viable fetus transplant...well, that's a game changer.



Society doesn't and wouldn't plead for the Sandy Hook shooter to be responsible. Society would provide consequences for the shooter whether they took responsibility or not. Killing is killing and until you can prove you came from somewhere other than your mother then those are humans that are being killed. Those who kill them should be held responsible whether they want to take responsibility or not.

[Dreamliner]

I know I'm getting tired of all this manufactured outrage about the mass-shooting from Americans who give either active or tacit approval to the killings of one-million children a year (as long as they're inn the womb).

[brainstorm]

Too bad the unborn can't sue the female carrier for false imprisonment.

[Dreamliner]

"Get your laws off my body!"

-- fetus --

[candymanfromgc]

If and when there comes a time we can transplsnt a fetus in utero and have it stay viable, then yes, my argument becomes weak. Until that time, is there anything we can do to help that pregnant woman who wants nothing to do with the fetus? While you can suggest to her what she is doing is wrong, plead for her to take responsibilty for her action, and make the case that abortion is murder, I believe that forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her rights. As again, she is the only unique person with the ability to nurture the fetus to birth. And again, once science comes up with a viable fetus transplant...well, that's a game changer.

If that child is born and she does not take care of it she has at minimum comitted child neglect and guilty of a crime. Problem is, the child inside still needs to be taken care of also or she should be guilty of a crime.

I wonder why so many who support abotion rights are in favor of strong animal rights protection and yet care little to nothing about a helpless human in the womb.

[KelticGator]

Why are gun control and abortion such hotly contested topics while overpopulation is never discussed? By my count only one of those items affects the survival of our species as a whole while the other two issues actually work to the benefit of the third, less publicized, yet more crucial issue.

[MichiGator2002]

Why are gun control and abortion such hotly contested topics while overpopulation is never discussed? By my count only one of those items affects the survival of our species as a whole while the other two issues actually work to the benefit of the third, less publicized, yet more crucial issue.

Because unlike overpopulation, those issues exist. Other than by immigration, US birthrate is hovering barely at replacement (2.1 live births per woman), and almost every other country in the northern hemisphere is below that, some direly so. The countries with high birthrates are exporting their extras, to places where more elbow room is available. Under current trends, world population will peak around mid century and then enter net decline. The population bomb was a dud.

[AzCatFan]

If that child is born and she does not take care of it she has at minimum comitted child neglect and guilty of a crime. Problem is, the child inside still needs to be taken care of also or she should be guilty of a crime.

I wonder why so many who support abotion rights are in favor of strong animal rights protection and yet care little to nothing about a helpless human in the womb.

Again, it comes down to options. A woman with a baby can neglect it and still not face s crime is the child is cared for by another, like a family member, friend, or CPS. What options does the pregnant lady have that allows her to give up her parental rights and responsibilities while allowing the fetus to live?

[Gatoragman]

Az, I guess in your world as soon as the baby in the womb becomes viable, then the woman loses right to abortion?
With technology these days when is that? 25-26th week?
So you are for restricting a woman's right to choose death for her child at some point in the pregnancy?

[ufhomerj31]

you are kidding me right? guess you failed to realize that living human inside the womb has it own heart beat, its own thoughts, emotions, and is only living off the mom for nutrition supply. An abortion is in fact killing a living human being.

I was trying to be sarcastic. I do not know how it is not considered murder in the first place.
Woman have a choice, don't try and procreate then you don't have to kill a human for your convenience.
I dont know why that is not part of the discussion.

[Gatormb]

Because unlike overpopulation, those issues exist. Other than by immigration, US birthrate is hovering barely at replacement (2.1 live births per woman), and almost every other country in the northern hemisphere is below that, some direly so. The countries with high birthrates are exporting their extras, to places where more elbow room is available. Under current trends, world population will peak around mid century and then enter net decline. The population bomb was a dud.

With the exception of Muslims whose replacement rate is 8%. Part of the big plan but that's another subject.

[AzCatFan]

Az, I guess in your world as soon as the baby in the womb becomes viable, then the woman loses right to abortion?
With technology these days when is that? 25-26th week?
So you are for restricting a woman's right to choose death for her child at some point in the pregnancy?

If I made the laws then yes, late term abortions would only be legal if and when the mother's life was at risk. 5 1/2 months is enough time to choose.

[wargunfan]

Been busy but want to answer. The magic that happens is the number of specific individuals who can nuture the life to the next stage. For example, if a woman comes up to you who has just given birth within the hour, hands you the newborn and says she wants absolutely nothing to do with it, you would be able to raise the child. So would millions of people on the planet. But rewind 4 1/2 months and have that same woman come up to you and say she wants zero to do with the fetus and wants you to take care of it, that is impossible. At this point in development, the pregnant woman and only she can nuture the life inside her to the next phase.

Simply put, the magic is the ability for others to take care of the life. Until viability outside the womb, if we force all pregnant women to carry without recourse, we are essentially telling them they are slaves to the fetus and must submit to its rights over their own. In every other instance, parents can abdicate their rights, and the child(ren) go with family or CPS. Pregnant women should have the ability to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities too, which unfortunately means death to the fetus, since nobody else can take a fetus and nuture it like one can with a newborn.

Let's go back another 4 1/2 months to the point at which this woman made a volitional choice to engage in intercourse knowing that pregnancy may result. Once that pregnancy occurs she has a responsibility for the life of another individual. If she takes no action to end that life no nurturing is required and the child will come to term and be born. Finally, parents do not have the right to abdicate their rights if the death of the child will result. A woman's temporary inconvenience does not rise to the definition of slavery. However, abortion for no other reason than inconvenience, DOES rise to the definition of murder. The chasm which separates you and me is that you believe the child is nothing more than a blob of tissue which if allowed to live may have some material value and may even be loved, insofar as an atheist can engage in the emotion of love in direct contrast to their belief only in a materialistic world view. I, on the other hand, believe that the woman is carrying a living eternal soul given from God. I believe that this soul has intrinsic value and deserves love because it is God given. I believe that it is a woman's denial of the worth of this soul that allows her to callously end the life of a real person. She has to lie to herself and pretend that it is only tissue that she is killing. This is why there is so much regret and sorrow expressed by women who have killed their unborn babies. They know they have killed a living soul who deserved to be loved. That is my world view. You must borrow from my world view in order to have love and caring and sentimentality towards those persons you value. Without borrowing from the Christian world view those you love are nothing more than older blobs of tissue.

[brainstorm]

Again, it comes down to options. A woman with a baby can neglect it and still not face s crime is the child is cared for by another, like a family member, friend, or CPS. What options does the pregnant lady have that allows her to give up her parental rights and responsibilities while allowing the fetus to live?

Adoption maybe?

[ufhomerj31]

Let's go back another 4 1/2 months to the point at which this woman made a volitional choice to engage in intercourse knowing that pregnancy may result. Once that pregnancy occurs she has a responsibility for the life of another individual. If she takes no action to end that life no nurturing is required and the child will come to term and be born. Finally, parents do not have the right to abdicate their rights if the death of the child will result. A woman's temporary inconvenience does not rise to the definition of slavery. However, abortion for no other reason than inconvenience, DOES rise to the definition of murder. The chasm which separates you and me is that you believe the child is nothing more than a blob of tissue which if allowed to live may have some material value and may even be loved, insofar as an atheist can engage in the emotion of love in direct contrast to their belief only in a materialistic world view. I, on the other hand, believe that the woman is carrying a living eternal soul given from God. I believe that this soul has intrinsic value and deserves love because it is God given. I believe that it is a woman's denial of the worth of this soul that allows her to callously end the life of a real person. She has to lie to herself and pretend that it is only tissue that she is killing. This is why there is so much regret and sorrow expressed by women who have killed their unborn babies. They know they have killed a living soul who deserved to be loved. That is my world view. You must borrow from my world view in order to have love and caring and sentimentality towards those persons you value. Without borrowing from the Christian world view those you love are nothing more than older blobs of tissue.

well said, I agree.

[gatordavisl]

your issues with legal abortion can stand on its own without falsely being equated to gun deaths Agreed. It's amazing the arguments about car deaths, abortions, etc., none of which have anything to do shooting children.

[gatordavisl]

I know I'm getting tired of all this manufactured outrage about the mass-shooting from Americans who give either active or tacit approval to the killings of one-million children a year (as long as they're inn the womb). I know I'm getting tired of all this manufactured outrage from Americans who insist upon stratifying the gun debate along party lines. There is no reason one can't be outraged with abortion and outraged about idiots who shoot innocents. The issues are completely exclusive.

[AzCatFan]

Let's go back another 4 1/2 months to the point at which this woman made a volitional choice to engage in intercourse knowing that pregnancy may result. Once that pregnancy occurs she has a responsibility for the life of another individual. If she takes no action to end that life no nurturing is required and the child will come to term and be born. Finally, parents do not have the right to abdicate their rights if the death of the child will result. A woman's temporary inconvenience does not rise to the definition of slavery. However, abortion for no other reason than inconvenience, DOES rise to the definition of murder. The chasm which separates you and me is that you believe the child is nothing more than a blob of tissue which if allowed to live may have some material value and may even be loved, insofar as an atheist can engage in the emotion of love in direct contrast to their belief only in a materialistic world view. I, on the other hand, believe that the woman is carrying a living eternal soul given from God. I believe that this soul has intrinsic value and deserves love because it is God given. I believe that it is a woman's denial of the worth of this soul that allows her to callously end the life of a real person. She has to lie to herself and pretend that it is only tissue that she is killing. This is why there is so much regret and sorrow expressed by women who have killed their unborn babies. They know they have killed a living soul who deserved to be loved. That is my world view. You must borrow from my world view in order to have love and caring and sentimentality towards those persons you value. Without borrowing from the Christian world view those you love are nothing more than older blobs of tissue.

Your ignorance of atheism makes it very difficult to for you to understand those different than you. My best guess is that you believe people must worship something, and atheists replace a deity with materialism and that is what we worship. I can assure you, I'm not a materialistic person, and do not worship materials. I can also assure you that I love, and love incredibly deeply, and I do not need to borrow anything from you to do so. I've been married for over 15 years to a wonderful woman, and we've been together for over 20 (met in high school). I have an amazing 7-year-old daughter that I love unconditionally, as any parent, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist, etc., would love their own child. I also have a rotty/shepherd mix that is 14-years old that probably won't be around this time next year. I can tell you, I love him so much that when his time finally comes, I'll be a basket case.

I also believe the fetus to be alive, but regardless of what you believe, I understand that between a pregnant woman that doesn't want to carry to term and the fetus, there is a competition of rights. And for every other case, I would argue that life takes precedence, in the case of a pregnant woman that wants an abortion, I feel I do not have the right to tell a woman that she must carry to term regardless of her desires. Just the same way I would never force a person to give up a kidney to save a life, as another person's body is not my dominion; it should be their own. I can plead, beg, and make the best case for a person to give up their kidney to save another person's life, just as I can do the same to attempt to convince a pregnant woman to carry to term, but the bottom line is their body is their own, and not mine to dictate what to do.

Again, it's not a black and white thing, as I would argue one's rights ends when impedes on the rights of another, and certainly, abortion impedes the fetus' right to live. But we go back to the competing rights between the pregnant woman and the fetus, and the fact that the fetus is completely and wholly dependant on the individual pregnant woman, and only the individual pregnant woman for life. And because of that reason, I believe the woman has ultimate authority. Again, anyone who asks my opinion, I would argue that is almost all cases to carry to term. But it's not my body, and ultimately, not my decision.

[g8orbill]

azcaat- we should always protect the unborn child

[wygator]

One of the important measures of the character of a society is how it treats the weakest and most helpless among us. How are we doing?

[AzCatFan]

How far are we willing to go to protect the unborn? You can try everything to convince a woman to carry to term, but what do you do with the pregnant woman at the start of the second trimester hell bent on abortion? Do you hold her against her will and care for her for 6 months? Do you think outlawing abortion will stop them from happening? Do you think preventing women from going into a clinic will prevent women from trying dangerous things at home? Again, how far are we willing to go?

The best answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is not that difficult. Want to end abortion, don't attack the supply, which performs a necessary evil (again, look at the alternatives). Best way is to limit demand. And if every woman who got pregnant felt blessed to do so, abortions would plummet.

[wygator]

How far are we willing to go to protect the unborn? You can try everything to convince a woman to carry to term, but what do you do with the pregnant woman at the start of the second trimester hell bent on abortion? Do you hold her against her will and care for her for 6 months? Do you think outlawing abortion will stop them from happening? Do you think preventing women from going into a clinic will prevent women from trying dangerous things at home? Again, how far are we willing to go?

The best answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is not that difficult. Want to end abortion, don't attack the supply, which performs a necessary evil (again, look at the alternatives). Best way is to limit demand. And if every woman who got pregnant felt blessed to do so, abortions would plummet.

We agree that prevention isn't difficult, but we are still apparently are having at least 3/4 million unwanted pregnancies per year. It remains unimportant, or inconvenient for many. When you consider the availability of "free" contraception in high schools, colleges and planned parenthood, what more would you suggest to "limit demand"?

On the supply side, I think balancing the life of the baby against a few months of pregnancy is a no brainer on the side of the baby. You obviously think differently.

Considering the "necessary evils" is a cop-out. I think if you ask most people if they would rather be raised in challenging poverty, or to be aborted, I think most folks would prefer their shot at life. I know I would.

Aren't you glad your mother didn't "choose" abortion?

[ufhomerj31]

Have there been any cases were a pregnant woman is killed and the murder has been charged with both the mother and unborn Childs death?

[wygator]

Have there been any cases were a pregnant woman is killed and the murder has been charged with both the mother and unborn Childs death?

Thanks for bringing this up. Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide. There's a real irony in this:

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

OK for the mom to kill their baby in the womb...no one else, except their abortionist, I guess.

You can see the detailed laws by state at the link:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

[AzCatFan]

We agree that prevention isn't difficult, but we are still apparently are having at least 3/4 million unwanted pregnancies per year. It remains unimportant, or inconvenient for many. When you consider the availability of "free" contraception in high schools, colleges and planned parenthood, what more would you suggest to "limit demand"?

On the supply side, I think balancing the life of the baby against a few months of pregnancy is a no brainer on the side of the baby. You obviously think differently.

Considering the "necessary evils" is a cop-out. I think if you ask most people if they would rather be raised in challenging poverty, or to be aborted, I think most folks would prefer their shot at life. I know I would.

Aren't you glad your mother didn't "choose" abortion?

There are still those who believe in abstinance only education, which doesn't work. And with all the education out there, the amount of ignorance around still abounds. Just take a quick read (http://www.alternet.org/story/155396/why_are_american_teens_so_ignorant_about_sex_and_b irth_control):

It’s also how you get figures like the one from the CDC that found that 31.4 percent of pregnant teens didn’t use contraception because they "thought they could not get pregnant at the time."

There's severel hundred thousand unwanted pregnancies right there that can be prevented with proper education. In short, we aren't doing anywhere near enough.

And you still didn't answer the question. Sure, I'm thrilled my mother chose life, but what can you do/how far are you willing to go to protect the fetus of a pregnant woman that is hell-bent on abortion? Should we have pregnancy internment camps for those who don't want to carry to term? Live-in life counselors that prevent at-home abortion attempts? Where do you draw the line? I agree the 9 months of pregnancy is a small price for the woman to pay when it comes to saving a life, but is it your choice and your body?

[wygator]

There are still those who believe in abstinance only education, which doesn't work. And with all the education out there, the amount of ignorance around still abounds. Just take a quick read (http://www.alternet.org/story/155396/why_are_american_teens_so_ignorant_about_sex_and_b irth_control):



There's severel hundred thousand unwanted pregnancies right there that can be prevented with proper education. In short, we aren't doing anywhere near enough.

And you still didn't answer the question. Sure, I'm thrilled my mother chose life, but what can you do/how far are you willing to go to protect the fetus of a pregnant woman that is hell-bent on abortion? Should we have pregnancy internment camps for those who don't want to carry to term? Live-in life counselors that prevent at-home abortion attempts? Where do you draw the line? I agree the 9 months of pregnancy is a small price for the woman to pay when it comes to saving a life, but is it your choice and your body?

You made my point. Plenty of resources out there already. Some will still be willfully ignorant. Life lessons are hard sometimes.

Again, I contend that the woman gives up her right to terminate a human life when she decides to have sex. It isn't her body either...it is a distinct different human being.

I also believe the man creates an obligation to help support and care for the woman and the baby when he makes the sex decision. Rather primitive...I know. Honor, character...that sort of thing which is absent from most of your arguments.

No, I don't favor internment, but laws against providing abortion. Their "choice" whether or not to break the law and commit murder. Probably work about as well as gun laws do, but at least the law will be on the right side rather than enabling murder.

[AzCatFan]

You made my point. Plenty of resources out there already. Some will still be willfully ignorant. Life lessons are hard sometimes.

Again, I contend that the woman gives up her right to terminate a human life when she decides to have sex. It isn't her body either...it is a distinct different human being.

I also believe the man creates an obligation to help support and care for the woman and the baby when he makes the sex decision. Rather primitive...I know. Honor, character...that sort of thing which is absent from most of your arguments.

No, I don't favor internment, but laws against providing abortion. Their "choice" whether or not to break the law and commit murder. Probably work about as well as gun laws do, but at least the law will be on the right side rather than enabling murder.

Honor and character are great, but how do you instill them? And does that help the woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be? Does changing the law back to making abortion illegal help her? Or will it force her to attempt to terminate her pregnancy in other, more dangerous ways?

For the most part, we are on the same side. The difference is I understand that abortion is a necessary evil, especially given the alternatives. It's ugly, but then reality isn't always pretty and nice. And given the alternatives, I choose to keep abortions safe and legal, and yes, rare. And while there are plenty of resources out there, we can still do worlds better, especially when nearly 1 in 3 pregnant teenagers believe they couldn't get pregnant at the time they had sex. Clearly, the sex education message didn't get through completely.

[wygator]

Honor and character are great, but how do you instill them? And does that help the woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be? Does changing the law back to making abortion illegal help her? Or will it force her to attempt to terminate her pregnancy in other, more dangerous ways?

For the most part, we are on the same side. The difference is I understand that abortion is a necessary evil, especially given the alternatives. It's ugly, but then reality isn't always pretty and nice. And given the alternatives, I choose to keep abortions safe and legal, and yes, rare. And while there are plenty of resources out there, we can still do worlds better, especially when nearly 1 in 3 pregnant teenagers believe they couldn't get pregnant at the time they had sex. Clearly, the sex education message didn't get through completely.

Sometimes people learn honor and character when they are forced to confront uncomfortable realities.

The safe, legal and rare quote is nice, and a great goal, but nearly 1 in 4 pregnancies ending in abortion is nowhere near rare. We have a very long way to go. If we cut the abortion rate by 90%, you'd still be looking at the equivalent of 10 Newtown shootings per day, every day.

[wargunfan]

Your ignorance of atheism makes it very difficult to for you to understand those different than you. My best guess is that you believe people must worship something, and atheists replace a deity with materialism and that is what we worship. I can assure you, I'm not a materialistic person, and do not worship materials. I can also assure you that I love, and love incredibly deeply, and I do not need to borrow anything from you to do so. I've been married for over 15 years to a wonderful woman, and we've been together for over 20 (met in high school). I have an amazing 7-year-old daughter that I love unconditionally, as any parent, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist, etc., would love their own child. I also have a rotty/shepherd mix that is 14-years old that probably won't be around this time next year. I can tell you, I love him so much that when his time finally comes, I'll be a basket case.

I also believe the fetus to be alive, but regardless of what you believe, I understand that between a pregnant woman that doesn't want to carry to term and the fetus, there is a competition of rights. And for every other case, I would argue that life takes precedence, in the case of a pregnant woman that wants an abortion, I feel I do not have the right to tell a woman that she must carry to term regardless of her desires. Just the same way I would never force a person to give up a kidney to save a life, as another person's body is not my dominion; it should be their own. I can plead, beg, and make the best case for a person to give up their kidney to save another person's life, just as I can do the same to attempt to convince a pregnant woman to carry to term, but the bottom line is their body is their own, and not mine to dictate what to do.

Again, it's not a black and white thing, as I would argue one's rights ends when impedes on the rights of another, and certainly, abortion impedes the fetus' right to live. But we go back to the competing rights between the pregnant woman and the fetus, and the fact that the fetus is completely and wholly dependant on the individual pregnant woman, and only the individual pregnant woman for life. And because of that reason, I believe the woman has ultimate authority. Again, anyone who asks my opinion, I would argue that is almost all cases to carry to term. But it's not my body, and ultimately, not my decision.

You sound like a decent person who loves his family. Perhaps some day science will rescue women from this awful decision and save the baby as well. One day it may be possible to transplant the unborn baby into a surrogate mother who could not otherwise have children or who will give the baby up for adoption. In the meantime we will go on killing the weakest of our brothers and sisters for no excusable reason.

[GatorFanCF]

Human nature being what it is we usually choose the reactive (abortion) in lieu of the proactive (birth control).
Our "leaders" wait until the last minute to resolve a conflict of the own making 13 months ago.
Students will (usually) wait until the 11th hour to study and/or write that term paper.
Most of us spend beyond our means, and at old age are dependent on additional work ("welcome to Walmart"), government (SS), or family.
If abortion is legal many people will default to that option as it requires no planning, is convenient (sex at any time), and can often be paid by someone else (Father-government) - it fits our human nature perfectly! What's not to love a few dozen milliion creations for convenience sake?

[corpgator]

Those so against abortion should be working in two ways to stop it: preventing pregnancy as already discussed here, and matching those who want to adopt with mothers who want to abort. Can't we come up with laws allowing for potential parents to incentivize women to not abort?

[MichiGator2002]

It shouldn't take a law. Social stigma used to do the job of getting irresponsible or indecent people to take responsibility for the children they conceive as a consentual product of consentual sex. For that matter, it did a passing fair job of getting people to be at least somewhat judicious about when, with whom, and gotten they had sex at all. We don't need to issue government licenses, we need to withdraw some social licenses.

[wargunfan]

A couple of generations ago if a girl got in a "family way" (you didn't even use the word pregnant) she went away for a while. Several months later she returned from her "sabbatical" and that was that. The social stigma of an out of wedlock pregnancy was enough to guarantee that the baby would be born and put up for adoption in another city (usually where a relative lived). Illegal abortions resulted in long prison terms for the perpetrators and as a result abortions were unsafe and truly rare. A woman dying from a botched abortion is a horrible thought but to me 53,000,000 abortions is a national sin of gigantic proportions. Actions have consequences and I think abortion should be illegal and life in prison for an abortion provider sounds about right.

[g8orbill]

I have to ask why women continue to have unprotected sex

[busigator96]

I have to ask why women continue to have unprotected sex

Because it feels better?

[GatorFanCF]

I have to ask why women continue to have unprotected sex


Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?p=6264745#post6264745#ixzz2GPPjFe6C

See my post above: it's more pleasurable (per busigator), it's more convenient (fun, spontaneous sex), there is minimal stigma of being unwed; and, our tremendous capitalistic machine has made abortion relatively accessible and reasonably priced. It's a brave new world.

[gs_gator]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/abortion_c49662_4191344.png

so weve got the pandering, the fundie nonsense, and all the grumpy old men weighing in on a womans right to her own body...

but what we dont have is.... FUN.

far too stuffy with all these negative ideologies being bandied about...lighten up fellas

its as american as apple pie and colorado koolaid...youll feel better if you just let it go

[ATLitigator]

Honor and character are great, but how do you instill them? And does that help the woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be? Does changing the law back to making abortion illegal help her? Or will it force her to attempt to terminate her pregnancy in other, more dangerous ways?

For the most part, we are on the same side. The difference is I understand that abortion is a necessary evil, especially given the alternatives. It's ugly, but then reality isn't always pretty and nice. And given the alternatives, I choose to keep abortions safe and legal, and yes, rare. And while there are plenty of resources out there, we can still do worlds better, especially when nearly 1 in 3 pregnant teenagers believe they couldn't get pregnant at the time they had sex. Clearly, the sex education message didn't get through completely.

You instill them by attaching consequences to their choices....personal responsibility
if you choose to have sex and you get pregnant, absent medical issues, you carry to term..then make a choice in the best interest of the child.

we do not need to do more education for adults, children and teens always, but adults no.....if you are an adult and you dont know how to prevent pregnancy, you are too stupid to live and dangerous to a child

[austingtr]

"
This travesty is but one aspect of the moral decay of Americans. With thousands of couples traveling to China and other third world countries to adopt a child it becomes obvious that American women cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of carrying a baby to term."

I have edited my post to change the word mothers to women. A woman who kills her unborn baby because a pregnancy is inconvenient is not, in any sense of the word, a mother.

Me first society. Me, me, me. We have no regard for others. This is why America is decaying and murdering it's own children, like in Sandy Hook. The mother of that kid who had mental problems didn't think of others, only thought about herself and her son. We are truly doomed.

[Dreamliner]

I know I'm getting tired of all this manufactured outrage from Americans who insist upon stratifying the gun debate along party lines. There is no reason one can't be outraged with abortion and outraged about idiots who shoot innocents. The issues are completely exclusive.

Sure, but where are these people ?

*crickets*

[Dreamliner]

Only 999,945 more mass-shooting deaths, by the end of the year, and we equal the number of children we kill in the womb.

There's still time! There are plenty of Gun-Free Zones!

[KelticGator]

Because unlike overpopulation, those issues exist. Other than by immigration, US birthrate is hovering barely at replacement (2.1 live births per woman), and almost every other country in the northern hemisphere is below that, some direly so. The countries with high birthrates are exporting their extras, to places where more elbow room is available. Under current trends, world population will peak around mid century and then enter net decline. The population bomb was a dud.

These issues exist? Hahahaha. Wow. That's a lot of denial. Sure lets assume that u are right. Lets assume that one wild ass guess on population growth holds true, despite the fact it's harder to model than the weather, there's many more models that conflict with it and it assumes certain short term trends will become permanent human behavior. And let's also assume that medical technology and science will halt. Tissue and organ growth that could extend life will prove fruitless, advancements in discovering the cause of aging will turn out false and cures for other diseases, illness and various medical treatments will not progress past today. But while we do that we can also assume that all OTHER technologies (besides medicine) needed to support a larger human population continue to advance. Using this type of unrealistic, selective reasoning we can proudly declare that overpopulation is OFFICIALLY no longer a problem!!!

Of course since we are living in this fantasy we can also state that all abortion victims would later go on to be suicide victims due to their questionable family environments and shooting victims are actually chosen by God to have their lives ended for some spiritual purpose we are not privy too.

I'm sure you have another study you can refer to that nature's primary means of population control (plague, famine and war) are also obsolete and soon coming to an end. This is all great news. Hooray, self-delusion rocks! It's much easier to flippantly go through life assuming every problem will fix itself. Thanks for the tip!

[JerseyGator01]

Keltic,

Weak response. I really don't know what you're getting at in terms of quoting Michi and attempting a credible response. The two don't fit.

[AustinGator1]

These issues exist? Hahahaha. Wow. That's a lot of denial. Sure lets assume that u are right. Lets assume that one wild ass guess on population growth holds true, despite the fact it's harder to model than the weather, there's many more models that conflict with it and it assumes certain short term trends will become permanent human behavior. And let's also assume that medical technology and science will halt. Tissue and organ growth that could extend life will prove fruitless, advancements in discovering the cause of aging will turn out false and cures for other diseases, illness and various medical treatments will not progress past today. But while we do that we can also assume that all OTHER technologies (besides medicine) needed to support a larger human population continue to advance. Using this type of unrealistic, selective reasoning we can proudly declare that overpopulation is OFFICIALLY no longer a problem!!!

Of course since we are living in this fantasy we can also state that all abortion victims would later go on to be suicide victims due to their questionable family environments and shooting victims are actually chosen by God to have their lives ended for some spiritual purpose we are not privy too.

I'm sure you have another study you can refer to that nature's primary means of population control (plague, famine and war) are also obsolete and soon coming to an end. This is all great news. Hooray, self-delusion rocks! It's much easier to flippantly go through life assuming every problem will fix itself. Thanks for the tip!



The only fantasy I have read in this thread and in Keltic's reply are the various fantasies trying to justify murder.

[KelticGator]

The only fantasy I have read in this thread and in Keltic's reply are the various fantasies trying to justify murder.

I'm not justifying murder but rather illuminating the fact that death is part of the human condition. The idea that you can protect the unborn while ignoring the deaths and murders of those already born seems foolish and self righteous. War, famine, disease, murder, genocide, poverty, abortion, etc. All sad and regrettable but let's focus on the one with the most PR and pretend the others don't exist. We are a nation of stubborn, self-deluded hypocrites.

[AustinGator1]

I'm not justifying murder but rather illuminating the fact that death is part of the human condition. The idea that you can protect the unborn while ignoring the deaths and murders of those already born seems foolish and self righteous. War, famine, disease, murder, genocide, poverty, abortion, etc. All sad and regrettable but let's focus on the one with the most PR and pretend the others don't exist. We are a nation of stubborn, self-deluded hypocrites.



Nobody is 'ignoring the deaths and murders of those already born'. Thanks for making more crap up in order to avoid the issue.