Home - List All Discussions

Anti-choice?! Argh!

by: equinox

It irks me when people refer to my position on abortion as "anti-choice." I am proudly pro-life, for I believe in upholding the sanctity and dignity of all life. The only choice I am against is taking a life unless your own is threatened. I tell them that pro-life moms still get to make choices about raising the baby or adoption. When and where did this anti-choice phrase get started? Are they afraid to call us by what we truly are? Does this mean I get to call pro-aborts anti-life?

reply from: AshMarie88

I know how you feel... I still get called that, as well as anti-woman and pro-fetus.
They just resort to insults, it's annoying... Tho I know some pro-lifers who do as well. Not the majority of lifers tho.

reply from: Alexandra

Oh, it's just mind games. Who likes to be left with "no choice"? The pro-aborts want to make the pregnant woman's situation look as desperate as possible, and they try to make it look like the pro-lifers want the woman to suffer, when nothing could be further from the truth.
BTW welcome to the forum equinox!

reply from: yoda

Dude, chill out! Look at this:
Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion

So when someone calls you "antichoice", all they are saying is that your are "antiabortion"!
And that's a title you can wear PROUDLY!!

reply from: Sigma

Pro-choice and pro-life are the generally accepted terms. If both participants were civil, those should be the terms used, imo.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Dude, chill out! Look at this:
Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion
">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...va=antiabortion
Have you ever been called this Yoda? I hace by a prochoicer, and its meant as a slur. It means someone who is prolife b/c they don't think women deserve choices and it's bad for the cause if lack of autonomy is elided with defense of life. It's wrong to call us anti-choice b/c we aren't antichoice -- any more than someone who opposes rape or murder is.
So when someone calls you "antichoice", all they are saying is that your are "antiabortion"!
And that's a title you can wear PROUDLY!!

reply from: AshMarie88

Dude, chill out! Look at this:
Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...va=antiabortion
<br ">http://www.m-w.com/cgi...dic.....tion
Have you ever been called this Yoda? I hace by a prochoicer, and its meant as a slur. It means someone who is prolife b/c they don't think women deserve choices and it's bad for the cause if lack of autonomy is elided with defense of life. It's wrong to call us anti-choice b/c we aren't antichoice -- any more than someone who opposes rape or murder is.
So when someone calls you "antichoice", all they are saying is that your are "antiabortion"!
And that's a title you can wear PROUDLY!!
Actually Ship, if you think about it, EVERYONE is anti-choice. We're anti-murder, anti-abortion, anti-rape, anti-child abuse, anti-whatever horrible...

reply from: yoda

More times than I can count!
Yep! And the fact that in their ignorance they don't realize what the term actually means just adds to my satisfaction!!
And that's a title you can wear PROUDLY!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I just think that people who are on the fence get the wrong idea about our cause when its associated with something so negative. And people who use the term are blinded from considereing our ideas. Journalists who use the term sway those in the middle unfairly.

reply from: yoda

That is the intent of the term, yes. And to some extent it might affect some people that way. But remember, we have no authority over what terms they use, just as they have none over our terms.
Mark Crutcher made a very good point about the term "choice" (which also applies to "antichoice"). He said that we should use it whenever it will be associated with the true results of abortion, such as a photo of an aborted fetus. THAT is what "choice" really is, and we need to make that association as often as possible. Then, when they say we are "antichoice", we can proudly point to photos of aborted fetuses and say "YES....... I am AGAINST THAT!!"

reply from: AshMarie88

"Pro-choice" also may lead people off, like "anti-choice"... I remember asking one of my friends if she was pro-life or pro-choice, and she was like "Oh I don't know what those are... pro-choice I guess" and I told her what both meant, and she was like "Oh I'm pro-life then".

reply from: yoda

And that is EXACTLY the intent behind the use of that term!

reply from: prolifejedi

yeah, I hate the anti-choice stuff, too. When I pray peacefully at the abortion clinic, sometimes there are volunteers that are holding signs saying "Thanks antichoice protesters" and the money raised through their disgusting "pledge a picket" fundraiser. its sickening.

reply from: yoda

Then make your own signs that say "You're welcome to your bloodmoney, babykillers!"

reply from: pray4em

"pro-fetus" works for me, I like that one better than "live-loving-nut"

reply from: nsanford

Don't try that crap.
It's equal on both sides. And if you need any proof, look no further than what I've been called on this board.

reply from: nsanford

And that is EXACTLY the intent behind the use of that term!
Care to explain that? We advocate the right of women to choose. Hence the word pro-choice.
This entire thread sickens me. You complain about the names you are called, and then turn around and justify your name-calling.

reply from: AshMarie88

And that is EXACTLY the intent behind the use of that term!
Care to explain that? We advocate the right of women to choose. Hence the word pro-choice.
This entire thread sickens me. You complain about the names you are called, and then turn around and justify your name-calling.
And we advocate giving every human being, viable or non-viable, the CHOICE to live and not be mutilated in the mom's womb and sucked out before it has the chance to live its own life and do everything possible that humans can do, to explore the world, to live freely...

reply from: Tam

And that is EXACTLY the intent behind the use of that term!
Care to explain that? We advocate the right of women to choose. Hence the word pro-choice.
This entire thread sickens me. You complain about the names you are called, and then turn around and justify your name-calling.
LOL I am pro-choice--I do support the choice to end a life, provided that the choice is made by the being whose life it is, not that being's mother or father or fourth-cousin-twice-removed or anyone else with a relationship to that individual, no matter how close the relationship. You, on the other hand, support the choice to kill babies. Just to make sure you keep this in perspective. I'm not sure what "names" you've been called on this forum, about which you are complaining and vomiting now, but if you support the choice to kill babies, I don't see why you would have any argument with "pro-babykilling advocate" being used to describe--quite accurately--your position on the matter of killing babies. Some of us oppose killing babies. Other people support it. Now, if you want to try to claim that the only way "pro-babykilling advocate" would be accurate would be if it were used to describe someone who favors killing all babies and therefore ending the human race in a single generation--I will just laugh more.

reply from: yoda

And you NEVER finish that sentence, do you? "Choose" WHAT? Why, choose ABORTION, of course!! Does either side seek to deny women any other "reproductive choice"? Of course not, so in the context of this debate, "choice" always means "abortion". But instead of being honest about your position and calling yourselves, "Proabortion" you use the confusing label "Prochoice". And BEFORE you start with the typical rant about what "ProAbortion" MEANS, LOOK IT UP IN THE DICITONARY!! It means EXACTLY the same thing as "Prochoice"!!
Au contraire, mon ami! I welcome any derogatory labels you wish to attach to my online personna. Fire away!!

reply from: yoda

Excellent summation, Marie, but the "opposition" does not recognize the humanity of unborn humans, so they give them NO choices.......
Kinda like antebellum southern whites didn't recognize the humanity of Negroes, Nazis didn't recognize the humanity of Jews, etc......

reply from: nsanford

I will try to explain this as calmly as possible.
Please do not use pro-abortion. Pro-abortion implies that we wish for abortions to be perfomed, which is not the case. If you have some need to see the word abortion, use abortion rights supporters. It is kinder and actually describes what the majority of pro-choicers believe.
Please do not use pro-babykilling advocate, or any version of those words. Most pro-choicers wish to lower abortion rates, just as you do. The two sides just don't see eye to eye on rights. That's it. Period. So actually, the majority of pro-choicers would be anti-babykilling, just like you.
I personally believe that some pro-lifers refuse to admit this issue is very complicated. Therefore they claim this is an issue that has only two sides, one bad and one good. This is not true. You have two evils, one is the murder of a baby/fetus, and the other the taking away of basic rights. The two sides disagree on what is the lesser evil. And this is what causes the debate.
I am beginning to see that this clash is one that will never be solved, the two sides would save a whole lot more babies by working together.

reply from: yoda

WHO am I to believe, YOU or THE DICTIONARY??? I CHOOSE THE DICTIONARY!
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
MANY, if not most on your side OBJECT to that label, TOO!
I fully intend to continue to use the most accurate, most basic language possible to describe the opposite sides in this debate, and those two terms are "anti" and "pro" babykilling, whether you like it or not.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So nsanford, should the people who support legalized slavery but didn't own slaves be called proslavery or prochoice in textbooks?

reply from: nsanford

Why, Yoda, did you neglect to respond to the later part of my post? Refuse to admit that I might have put some thought into this after all?
Maybe you are scared to think that some pro-choicers want to save babies too. Would make this more complicated than a good vs. evil thing, wouldn't it?

reply from: yoda

Good one, Shiprah! They didn't have "Newspeak" before the civil war,did they?

reply from: nsanford

Different case. Slaves were not part of their masters bodies. So basic control over your body does not apply there.

reply from: yoda

What's that, the part where you claimed that babykilling was a "basic right"?
Tell me, do you pull out the American Flag and salute when you talk about the "basic right to kill a baby"?
Do you think it's your patriotic duty to uphold the "basic right to kill a baby"?

reply from: yoda

Different case. Slaves were not part of their masters bodies. So basic control over your body does not apply there.
That's the CLUMSIEST DODGE I've ever seen on this forum!
Her question really floored you, didn't it?

reply from: nsanford

Yet again you did not respond to the part about pro-choicers wanting to save babies. But I'll ignore that for now.
Yoda, I believe it is my patriotic duty to protect the right for people to control their own bodies. That includes abortion, among other things. A legitimate cause. I believe that is a basic right, you don't. People can have different opinions, you know.

reply from: nsanford

Different case. Slaves were not part of their masters bodies. So basic control over your body does not apply there.
That's the CLUMSIEST DODGE I've ever seen on this forum!
Her question really floored you, didn't it?
Yes, Yoda, say it was a dodge. It saves time. Haven't I only been debating whether right to our bodies is basic? Or do I have amnesia?

reply from: yoda

Oh I thought you were just fantasizing there, because I've never seen any indication of that anywhere.
Right. So on the 4th of July, when all the fireworks are going off, and the parades are going down Main Street, and the politicans are making patriotic speeches, do you carry a big sign around saying "Hooray for the basic right to kill babies"?
Do you invoke the names of the founding fathers when you make speeches about preserving that "basic right"? Like "George Washington would've put it in the Constitution if he'd thought of it"? Or "Thomas Jefferson would've aborted his child with that slave girl if abortion had been available back then"?
Just how patriotic do you think abortion really is?

reply from: nsanford

Yoda, no, I do not think abortion is patriotic. Though I doubt you will understand this, I think abortion is a horrible procedure. Especially since it is done on a innocent baby/fetus.
BTW, the right to choose what to do with our own bodies has to do with more than abortion, as I said. So why do you continue to use the quote "hooray for the basic right to kill babies"? That is a right that falls under the right to choose, but I don't say hooray that this is the way it is.
Notice that? I'm not happy that abortion is a basic right, just like some other pro-choicers. See, I want to see abortion rates go down. Am I still on the evil side?
Or is it a little more complicated now?

reply from: yoda

Oh, so you still say abortion IS a "basic right", but you're not happy about it?
Then why not work to change that?
WHY do you "want to see abortion rates go down"?

reply from: nsanford

Yoda, how do you change a basic right? It's basic. Wasn't this country founded on the principal that some rights can't be denied?
Because it takes a life of a baby/fetus.

reply from: equinox

NSanford,
I just want to point out two things about what you said. Abortion rights supporters talk about the right to control one's own body. As a prolife person, I do not have a problem with that as long as being in charge of your own body does not interfere with or cause harm to someone else's bodily integrity. In the case of abortion, it does not just involve the mother's body but the destruction of the fetus's body. Two or more bodies are involved; therefore, I have to draw the line. Men and women's control of their bodies is the right to decide if and when to have sex. That is what a true reproductive right ought to be.
Secondly, I do not think abortion will ever be rare when it is a profitable business. The cost for a basic abortion is about $350. The fees go up the older the fetus and for complications. Multiply that by the number of abortions done annually and it is multi-million dollar industry. When organizations such as Planned Parenthood fight tooth and nail against every common sense type of regulation even health and safety codes it tells me that they do not want to reduce abortion one iota. In fact they want to make access to abortion as liberal as possible. To make abortion rare is to lose out on millions of dollars. Even their condoms failed Consumer Reports's tests.

reply from: Sigma

As a pro-choice person, I do not have a problem with the fetus being protected as long as it does not interfere with or cause harm to someone elses bodily integrity. The fetus impacts the woman's bodily integrity. She may stop this.

reply from: yoda

You've never heard of Constitutional Ammendments? And in addition to that, where was the abortion "right" when this country was founded?
Why the double term? Don't you think we know what a baby is?
But how much do you want to see the abortion rate go down, by what percentage?

reply from: AshMarie88

Different case. Slaves were not part of their masters bodies. So basic control over your body does not apply there.
That's the CLUMSIEST DODGE I've ever seen on this forum!
Her question really floored you, didn't it?
His final stance is: It's OKAY to kill someone if they're "attached" to you, even if they're doing no harm to you.

reply from: AshMarie88

Because it takes a life of a baby/fetus.
But you have no problem whatsoever with that, so again, WHY do you want to see the rates go down?

reply from: yoda

So it's okay to protect the baby unless Mom feels she wants to be slim again?
My, what a fine upstanding moral principle! You must be proud! Why, I'll bet you really get sentimental on Mother's Day, don't you?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Don't try that crap.
It's equal on both sides. And if you need any proof, look no further than what I've been called on this board.
You should feel proud, PROUD of what you believe in. Take all those nasty names thrown at you with PRIDE and hold your head HIGH, like me, but in the opposite direction.
Sehst? Not hard.

reply from: equinox

Sigma,
When the presence of or continued growth of the fetus impacts the woman's life, then she may rightfully do what is necessary to save her life.
"Safe" and legal abortion procedures themselves have adversely affected women's bodies. Documented complications include perforated uterus, incompetent cervix, infections, sterility, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, hemorrhage, incomplete abortions, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in subsequent pregnancies and even death. In published case histories, these mothers will tell you that when they went into the abortion facility their body was intact and healthy. When they came out, their bodies and/or spirits were broken. It was not the fetus's body that did this but the abortionist. A woman's body is designed for childbearing not elective abortion.

reply from: Sigma

What is amusing is that many pro-life people on this forum would disagree with you that a woman may save her own life at the expense of the life of the fetus.
The presence and continued growth of the fetus does impact her life, usually greatly, even if it does not usually threaten it. It, without a doubt, interferes with or causes harm to the woman's bodily integrity. She can correct that situation.
And yet early abortions continue to be safer than childbirth.

reply from: AshMarie88

And yet early abortions continue to be safer than childbirth.
I would like proof. And not from a pro-abortion website.

reply from: AshMarie88

I am 100% pro-life, not 87.9% pro-life. I'm against all abortions in all circumstances. That's how it should be. I don't think killing a child is acceptable in any way.
Surely you would agree that's how it should be... pro-choicers always complain how certain "pro-lifers" agree with abortion in many different situations, yet oppose it in other situations.

reply from: Sigma

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting; fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. (The risk of death associated with abortion is one-tenth that associated with childbirth.)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm
Death rate: 6 or 7 per million procedures on average (about 9 times safer than bearing the fetus to term)
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm
Legal abortion is a safe procedure. Infection rates are less than 1%, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 deaths occurs from first-trimester abortions. Abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.

reply from: AshMarie88

Guttmacher, pro-choice. Religioustolerance, more liberal and pro-choice. Not sure about emedicine.
Again, a woman doesn't carry a pregnancy to term.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

What a bunch of fricked up lies.
I don't know what they consider safe - seeing as a doctor who most likely couldn't become an actual doctor sticks a knife up a woman, and tears apart a living being inside her, when he can't see anything. Not to mention the emotional hurt a woman feels after killing her own child, compared to the great joy a woman feels when giving birth to a new baby, giving it a future, whether that baby was to be adopted or not.
What is the statisitcal rate of deaths or damage as a consequence of an abortion?
.007% of women die in childbirth.
If the statistical chance of dying or becoming sterile, depressed, getting breast cancer, getting an infection, ruining her cervix, or anything else due to an abortion is .0007%, then I'm not 15.
Women are BUIlT to carry and give birth to children, whereas they are NOT built to butcher their children and themselves!

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,
Hm. And yet MaleNurse, AK4LIFE, shiprah, NorthStar, Allizdog2000, and you yourself have used the statistics from Guttmacher. In any event, do you have any countering evidence from non-biased sources?
A woman doesn't carry her pregnancy to term?
tabithamarcotte
Do you have any facts to back this up?

reply from: AshMarie88

No, a woman carries a baby to term.
She's not pregnant with a pregnancy... she doesn't carry a pregnancy... She carries a baby/fetus.

reply from: Sigma

No, she is not pregnant with a pregnancy, but she still carries out a pregnancy.
She carries an instance of being pregnant to the end of the normal gestational period. You can maintain a pregnancy, carry a pregnancy, and terminate a pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

OH LOOK! Links to three probabykilling sites from the poster who always complains about us using references to antibabykilling sites!
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

reply from: yoda

And those actions will give life to a baby or kill a baby.
We don't have to ask which you prefer, we know.

reply from: equinox

Sigma,
You pointed out that complications from abortion are rare and that early abortion is still safer than childbirth. I've pasted some information below that counters your position. Two reasons why abortionists report a low number of complications is because 1) some of them are not apparent until sometime after the procedure and 2) the woman sees a different physician to treat the complication. Therefore, their data is misleading.
We know the abortion industry lied when it reported to Congress in the early 1970s that 5,000 women were dying from illegal abortions. The actual number just before 1973 was that 39 mothers died in 1972 and the number was falling from 136 in the mid-1960s. The recent death rate from legal abortion according to the Center for Disease Control is still about the same as it was back then. Why wouldn't they be lying about their complication rates - reporting abnormally low numbers so that people think its safe and get an abortion. A recent New Zealand study surprised the pro-choice researcher on the prevalence of mental illness following abortion. Did you trust the tobacco companies when they said that cigarettes do not cause cancer, emphysema, etc.?
With advances in medicine and the advent of antibiotics, maternal complications from childbirth have fallen dramatically.
I listen to the testimony of women who have been through the procedure. I have even see first hand knowledge - ambulances pulling up to an abortion facility, a friend who had an ectopic pregnancy following an abortion, etc. I do not believe these are isolated events.
Women cite experience to support abortion ban
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON

. . . Before approving the law, which bans abortion, except to save the life of the mother, a state task force on abortion took testimony and collected nearly 2,000 statements from women nationwide, 99 percent of whom said their abortions caused them pain, emotional damage and health problems and shouldn't be legal.
Many say their side of the story has been ignored in the broader abortion debate until recently.
"It's not a popular voice ... but it's one that needs to get out," said Karen Bodle, of Harrisburg, Pa., whose story was among those submitted to South Dakota. Mrs. Bodle had an abortion at age 18 and for years afterward, she said she "suffered from chronic depression, feelings of shame and worthlessness" as well as miscarriages and troubled pregnancies.
"I was in denial over the truth of abortion for over 20 years," said Mrs. Bodle, who feels she was "lied to and deceived" when she was told that the fetus wasn't a baby and that the abortion would allow her to fully live her life.
"I believe that information still is denied to women," she said. . .
The women who support banning abortion say they know not all women share their negative experiences. But Cynthia Collins, who had her first abortion as a 19-year-old and then took a "downward spiral," said the nation has "only heard one side" of the debate.
"We were sold a bill of goods that abortion is a good thing, and when we find out that it's not, we're told to be quiet," said the Louisiana resident, who also told her story to the task force. That mentality is finally starting to change, she said, and "as those voices are heard, then we're going to see the true picture."
From Planned Parenthood website:
What are the possible risks of abortion?
Medication Abortion - Possible risks include
incomplete abortion - your clinician will help you decide whether to wait two-to-six weeks and check again
take more misoprostol have a vacuum aspiration (meaning a second abortion)
allergic reaction
infection occurs in only one out of 300 first-trimester abortions
very heavy bleeding
undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications.
Vacuum Aspiration - Possible risks include
allergic reactions to the anesthetics
incomplete abortion - in fewer than one out of 100 D&C abortions
infection occurs in only one out of 300 first-trimester abortions
very heavy bleeding
a cut or torn cervix - in fewer than one out of 100 first trimester abortions
organ injury - in about five of 1,000 first trimester abortions. Surgery, or very rarely, hysterectomy, may be needed.
undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications.
Planned parenthood does not even report the rate of occurance for the other risks. Are they trying to hide it or don't they know? Considering the number of abortions done each year that is a lot of women who are injured. They only include the physical risks here not the psychological or emotional aftermath that may haunt the mother for the rest of her life. I have not even addressed those abortion mills that got shut down for being unsanitary, usually after years of violations.

reply from: Sigma

Could you cite your information, please?
What evidence do you have that those conditions were not accounted for in my data?
We know they could not know actual numbers because the CDC did not and could not track illegal abortions. Any number reported by the CDC before abortions could be tracked is not likely to be reliable; the number of deaths is likely higher. How much I have no idea. If the deaths due to legal abortion are around those numbers, it very likely has come down from whatever the death rate was.
Currently, from the 2005 WHO report "Make Every mother and Child Count", abortion complications account for 13% of all maternal deaths
Yes, and with current maternal death data early abortion still appears to be safer. I have been a part of discussions with post-abortive women as well. Complications do not appear to happen terribly often, given how many are done.

reply from: equinox

The first citation was from this article (sorry the full name of newspaper did not get pasted the first time around)
Women cite experience to support abortion ban
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Obviously, some complications (i.e. allerrgic reaction, heavy bleeding, infection) are going to present themselves right away or a few days after the abortion. Standard procedure is that the woman has a follow up appointment 2 - 4 weeks later. Unless she gets pregnant again that quickly, she won't know about an ectopic pregnancy or incompetent cervix until sometime later. If a woman is experiencing sterility, depression, etc., she is not seeing the abortionist for treatment. The abortionist isn't even her regular gynecologist. How many people would go back to Dr. So and So x months or years after the abortion to say "Hey, ever since I had that done I've had these problems."? Unless there is a malpractice suit in there, I doubt it. This comes from common sense and from listening to women's experiences.
The man who testified to a Congressional committee later admitted he lied about the 5,000 figure. If you want to know who exactly that was and when it happen, you have to give me some time to look it up.
According to WHO, what is the maternal death rate in childbirth in developed countries and for developing nations?
One thing I think we can agree on is that we need better data and studies. I would like to see aggregate data from the CDC for each type of complication not just fatalities. What abortionists have to report to the departments of health varies by state. Plus, they have an incentive to underreport complications or violations. Former clinic workers will tell you that. How many hotline calls are they making on sexual abuse? Not enough. You don't see US News & World Report ranking the best and worse abortion facilities, but perhaps someone should in the interest of consumer protection. Only the most aggregious cases make the news.

reply from: Shiprahagain

WHO is rabidly proabortion and lowering birth rates so that poor countries don't have populations large enough to threaten our need for resources. I wouldn't trust any statistics they have on pregnancy.

reply from: Sigma

Certainly the cause of such a condition would be sought and likely recorded.
I have no doubt he did. The number of illegal abortions cannot be known because the number of illegal abortions could not be tracked. The most reliable data I've seen on the subject looked at the birthrate between the time abortion was illegal and legal. There was little change, suggesting that the number of abortions did not change, or that there were a greater number of conceptions and subsequent abortions.
Search for the article and you should be able to find a section that breaks it down by any country you wish. For America I believe it is 17 per 100,000.

reply from: Sigma

I've no doubt. Pro-life people tend to distrust national or multinational organizations such as the NCI, ACOG, RCOG, ACS and of course WHO.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Have you read Lana Pritchard's WHO report on coersion? I suggest you do, and then see if I have a right to be suspicious.

reply from: yoda

Certainly the cause of such a condition would be sought and likely recorded..
Horse hockey piled higher and deeper. If the doctor is proabort, he'll ignore the "cause". If he's not and submits a "report", the CDC will call him a quack and ignore him.

reply from: yoda

Abortion is a highly polarizing subject. There are very, very few if any organizations in the world of medicine that are not biased in one way or the other, and more often towards probabykilling than not.

reply from: Sigma

You have a right to be suspicious if you wish to be.

reply from: yoda

Especially of anything posted here by you.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Sigma, just read the report. Until you do, you really can't comment.

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain, you have a right to be suspicious of any of the organizations I listed if you wish to be for any reason you wish.

reply from: Shiprahagain

And you have the right to blindly support them without study.

reply from: Sigma

If I did so, I would indeed have that right.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Pro-choice and pro-life are the generally accepted terms. If both participants were civil, those should be the terms used, imo.
There is no reason arguments should be limited to certain dimensions or terms. I am anti-choice when it comes to choices that are damaging to society and others. If I had my way I'd pull the steering wheel out of the hands of drunks and druggies. If they repeatedly endangered lives on the road I would take away their choices for good; they would be locked up permanently.
You say that if I were civil I would refer to Tiller the Killer as Tiller the Pro-Choice advocate. He opens up wonderful opportunities (choice) to 3rd trimester mothers and fathers seeking to end the life of a viable pre-born child. A world of lawless killers consumed with desires to fulfill their lusts will not get the respectful accepting responses from others they believe they are entitled to.
It is important to look at how Jesus addressed those going along with today's society. He said they were in slavery to sin and their days were numbered. To their faces he said, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning...." John 8:44 Jesus said sinners were like worthless weeds and dead branches which are gathered up and thrown into the fire. That is the fate of those who do not bring forth good fruit. If someone is a no good for nothing low-life, someone better tell them to their face.

reply from: Sigma

Condemning others would not qualify as a civil discussion. An intelligent debate would, or at least should, qualify as a civil discussion.

reply from: yoda

For some of us, there are higher priorities than civility. When one is presented with the spectacle of abject perversion in the absence of decency and morality, then moral duty lies with the expression of horror and repulsion to that specatcle.
That is what this debate has come to, unfortunately. You have abandoned all pretense of honest debate and stooped to the lowest kinds of deceit. You have demonstrated a lust for the innocent blood of unborn babies that knows no equal, IMO.
There are no civil words that can convey my horror and repulsion at what you are attempting to do on this forum. People of decency everywhere will reject you and your message of approval for the slaughter of unborn babies.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

For some of us, there are higher priorities than civility. When one is presented with the spectacle of abject perversion in the absence of decency and morality, then moral duty lies with the expression of horror and repulsion to that specatcle.
That is what this debate has come to, unfortunately. You have abandoned all pretense of honest debate and stooped to the lowest kinds of deceit. You have demonstrated a lust for the innocent blood of unborn babies that knows no equal, IMO.
There are no civil words that can convey my horror and repulsion at what you are attempting to do on this forum. People of decency everywhere will reject you and your message of approval for the slaughter of unborn babies.
My sentiments exactly. How can one begin a dignified discussion about techniques and procedures for killing living human beings. I guess the Nazis did it.

reply from: Sigma

This board is for that purpose. If you cannot have a civil discussion, an intellectual debate is not the place for you.

reply from: nsanford

Yodavater reminds me of someone. Does anybody who William Lloyd Garrison is? He was a abolitionist who had his own newspaper. In it, he insulted the south for no good reason while he bashed slavery.
Of course, he made things worse by insulting. The South refused to debate the slavery issue and became protective. And the country continued on the way to civil.
If you weren't so insulting, you might be able to convince more people.

reply from: yoda

There are a couple things about my debating that you don't seem to understand, nsanford.
One is that probabykilling advocates are not my target audience, I'm not trying to convert any of you. If you have a change of heart on your own, that's well and good, but my target audience is the uncommitted "neutral" readers of this forum, not you and your allies here. You're welcome to remain closed minded to everything I say.
The other is that you and I have vey different concepts of what constitutes an insult. You consider it insulting to tell the plain, simple, unvarnished truth about the fact that thousands of innocent babies are being slaughtered every day in this country, for reasons of convenience. When I call it "babykilling", you claim that's an insult even though you offer no reason to think that the term is not accurate. That leaves me with no other conclusion than that you consider accuracy (TRUTH) to be "insulting".
So if the truth is insulting to you, then count me as infinitely insulting on this subject, and count on me to keep it up as long as I'm able. The babies are infinitely more important to me than your feelings being hurt by the truth.
Take that any way you wish.

reply from: yoda

I don't see your name in any place of authority on this website, therefore your bluster is wasted.
In other words, put that where the sun don't shine.

reply from: yoda

You make a very good point, actually. If we are able to remain calm and unemotional about this subject, then we need not be here opposing it. Anyone who is unmoved by the thought of the slaughter of 4,000 innocent babies a day is not one "of us". They are one "of them".
The "abortion war" is all about emotions and values. It's not a university debating society or a high tea social.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

You make a very good point, actually. If we are able to remain calm and unemotional about this subject, then we need not be here opposing it. Anyone who is unmoved by the thought of the slaughter of 4,000 innocent babies a day is not one "of us". They are one "of them".
The "abortion war" is all about emotions and values. It's not a university debating society or a high tea social.
At first, Sigma's comment that we are here to debate about techniques and procedures for killing living human beings was shocking. I had forgotten there are Peter Singer "intellectuals" who like to debate the advantages of culling out the undesirables so that the happiness of the more desirable may be increased. The net increase in happiness is what makes something ethical in Mr. Singer's view. I believe he's the Princeton human ethicist.

reply from: equinox

Sigma,
Your statement about being unable to track illegal abortions is probably right. We could use statistical sampling, but that is another matter. However, I was speaking of maternal deaths caused by abortion. These are another matter because such a death would be found, reported to the authorities, investigated, autopsied, and recorded on a death certificate which goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Therefore, I'll stand by my original assertion maternal death due to abortion declined from 136 in the mid-1960's to 39 in 1972 according to the CDC.

reply from: Sigma

Shocking? This board is for the purpose of debating abortion.

reply from: Sigma

And how many would have hidden that they had an abortion? I am not as convinced as you that the cause of death would have been positively linked to an abortion.

reply from: Tam

There are a couple things about my debating that you don't seem to understand, nsanford.
One is that probabykilling advocates are not my target audience, I'm not trying to convert any of you. If you have a change of heart on your own, that's well and good, but my target audience is the uncommitted "neutral" readers of this forum, not you and your allies here. You're welcome to remain closed minded to everything I say.
The other is that you and I have vey different concepts of what constitutes an insult. You consider it insulting to tell the plain, simple, unvarnished truth about the fact that thousands of innocent babies are being slaughtered every day in this country, for reasons of convenience. When I call it "babykilling", you claim that's an insult even though you offer no reason to think that the term is not accurate. That leaves me with no other conclusion than that you consider accuracy (TRUTH) to be "insulting".
So if the truth is insulting to you, then count me as infinitely insulting on this subject, and count on me to keep it up as long as I'm able. The babies are infinitely more important to me than your feelings being hurt by the truth.
Take that any way you wish.
Right on, yoda.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics