Home - List All Discussions

Hundreds born within abortion limit survive

UK

by: Teresa18

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/27/nbaby127.xml

This, if passed, will hopefully save some lives. Although, the vast majority of abortions will still occur, every life saved is precious.

reply from: yoda

Just goes to show.... a baby that survives an abortion attempt is an "inconvenient truth".

reply from: sander

You managed to combine my two great passions...stopping abortion and Al Gore and his minions!
Hate seeing people duped and lives lost.

reply from: 4given

909 British Babies Born and Survive Under 24-Week Legal Age Limit for Abortion
But lowering legal age limit could be disastrous
By Hilary White
LONDON, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The so-called "viability limit" of 24 weeks for legal abortion in Britain has come under question since Department of Health data have shown that hundreds of children survive being born below this limit. In 2005 alone, 909 children were born in Britain between 22 and 24 weeks gestation. Of those, 250 survived for at least a year, the Telegraph reports.
Meanwhile, Britain's foremost pro-life group, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) maintains that politically, efforts to lower the age limit for abortion would backfire, leaving virtually no restrictions on early term abortions, which comprise the great majority of "terminations" in Britain. Of the 201,173 abortions in England and Wales in 2006, only 1,262 were at 22 weeks or more.
Data for births in England and Wales obtained by David Amess, a pro-life Conservative MP, showed that eight of the 152 children born after 22 weeks' gestation lived for a year or more. At 23 weeks, 44 of 283 children survived. At 24 weeks, almost half - 198 of 474 - of babies survived.
Nadine Dorries, a Tory backbench MP has asked for a lowering of the legal age limit for abortion and has the backing of Conservative party leader David Cameron. But SPUC and members of the Parliamentary pro-life group have said that before any such legislation were passed, amendments would be introduced that would include the removal of the current requirement for two doctors to sign for approval, and that would allow for nurses to abort children and for the extending of the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.
In addition, SPUC has pointed out that most MPs would only support a lowering of the age limit if abortion were continued to be allowed up to birth for disabled children. Pro-abortion sentiment is much stronger in Parliament than is the pro-life view and such amendments would be all but certain to pass. Attempts to lower the age limit, no matter how well intended, would likely act as a "Trojan Horse" to bring in a totally unrestricted situation with abortion in Britain says SPUC.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Lawmaker Recommends Halving Legally Allowed Gestational Age for Committing "Social" Abortions
SPUC warns move is a "Trojan horse" agenda meant to allow "total deregulation of abortion."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jul/04070507.html

reply from: Teresa18

Bump. What do you have to say about this, Girl Nation gals? I know you read this board.

reply from: Faramir

Most of them are extremely hard-core abortion rights, in that they would say that the pregnant woman has total owership of the fetus and can do whatever she pleases with it throughout the entire term, even if she wanted to mutilate it. They of course would say that would never happen, but still, the mother should have the right, since she "owns the fetus," and would oppose laws against fetal mutilation, and would oppose laws forbidding killing the fetus, even if birth is imminent. Again, they would say that nobody would do that, but they would still oppose a law against something that nobody would do.
If the baby were to accidentally live in an attempt to kill it via abortion, they would admit that "that's the breaks" and would let it live, of course, but would not hold the woman responsible for whatever damage she did to it, since it happened while it was still "part of her body."
I will never understand the thinking that "the fetus is a part of her body just like a fingernail."

reply from: sander

Most of them are extremely hard-core abortion rights, in that they would say that the pregnant woman has total owership of the fetus and can do whatever she pleases with it throughout the entire term, even if she wanted to mutilate it. They of course would say that would never happen, but still, the mother should have the right, since she "owns the fetus," and would oppose laws against fetal mutilation, and would oppose laws forbidding killing the fetus, even if birth is imminent. Again, they would say that nobody would do that, but they would still oppose a law against something that nobody would do.
If the baby were to accidentally live in an attempt to kill it via abortion, they would admit that "that's the breaks" and would let it live, of course, but would not hold the woman responsible for whatever damage she did to it, since it happened while it was still "part of her body."
I will never understand the thinking that "the fetus is a part of her body just like a fingernail."
Just when you think you've heard it all.
I'll never understand that kind of thinking either. If they think the baby is part of her body, exactly how do they explain having four legs, four arms, etc. for the time they are pregnant?

reply from: yoda

Hey did you see the other day where some of the talking head were saying that Big Al might be called upon to resolve the mess the dimocrats have made? They say he might be asked to either make an endorsement of one of the two, or offer himself as a "tiebreaker" candidate. Can't you just see the dimocrat convention turning to Al as their "messiah", with all the confetti and party favors in the air?

reply from: yoda

Ownership of one human being by another (slavery) is as old as history. The proabort mob has just put a different face on it now, a tiny little face.

reply from: yoda

They don't think it. They just use it as a "mantra/slogan" to repeat mindlessly as a substitute for actual debate.

reply from: sander

Hey did you see the other day where some of the talking head were saying that Big Al might be called upon to resolve the mess the dimocrats have made? They say he might be asked to either make an endorsement of one of the two, or offer himself as a "tiebreaker" candidate. Can't you just see the dimocrat convention turning to Al as their "messiah", with all the confetti and party favors in the air?
Yes, I saw it...what a mess, and isn't it just a little bit of fun watching them eat their own for a change? You mean there will be two "messiahs", they all but fall at Obama's feet...hey, maybe they can duke it out to see who's the best messiah!
And I'd sure like to know where my "global warming" is, we had two inches of snow today!!

reply from: sander

They don't think it. They just use it as a "mantra/slogan" to repeat mindlessly as a substitute for actual debate.
True and sickening at the same time.

reply from: Teresa18

Most of them are extremely hard-core abortion rights, in that they would say that the pregnant woman has total owership of the fetus and can do whatever she pleases with it throughout the entire term, even if she wanted to mutilate it. They of course would say that would never happen, but still, the mother should have the right, since she "owns the fetus," and would oppose laws against fetal mutilation, and would oppose laws forbidding killing the fetus, even if birth is imminent. Again, they would say that nobody would do that, but they would still oppose a law against something that nobody would do.
If the baby were to accidentally live in an attempt to kill it via abortion, they would admit that "that's the breaks" and would let it live, of course, but would not hold the woman responsible for whatever damage she did to it, since it happened while it was still "part of her body."
I will never understand the thinking that "the fetus is a part of her body just like a fingernail."
I know they are hard core. They are among the most hard core faction. I was shocked when I started reading their posts on PCT. I've never seen abortion supported with such fervor. I have been reading Girl Nation, so I know they are mocking us from over there.

reply from: sander

Good!!
I would worry if we weren't un-nerving them.

reply from: Smurfy

Sweet. Induce me at 22 weeks. If it survives, then it can be adopted out.

reply from: joe

What did you just smoke?
You make as much sense as a moron.

reply from: Smurfy

If it can survive at 22 weeks, then get it out. I'd much rather a 5-6 month pregnancy to a 9 month one.
Understand? It's a very simple concept. I'm sure you can grasp it.

reply from: 4given

Obviously you don't deserve the opportunity to parent. Keep your foolishness to yourself or the like-minded. We are talking about human life. You are disgusting enough to consider LIFE a joke. You are to be pitied.

reply from: Smurfy

You'd rather I abort it then?

reply from: 4given

Get over your petty need to consume a hypothetical. I am not willing to guide your little ego into a what if scenario. Stop wasting our time troll. What do you know about abortion? Are you a "she said.. he said.." proabort? What do you personally understand about abortion? Have you had an abortion?

reply from: Teresa18

I don't think you understand. Some children who are born prematurely at 22 weeks survive. There are those abortion supporters who believe abortions should not be done after viability unless the mother's health/life is at stake. If those supporters know that viability occurs sooner than the law allows abortion for, than they may wish to push back the abortion laws to 20 weeks. A child is supposed to develop in the womb for 9 months in a healthy situation. It wouldn't be advisable to induce the child early because the chances for survival would be slimmer.

reply from: Smurfy

If it's viable, then get it out.

reply from: Teresa18

You ignored my post. You just reposted what you said before.
I said:
Some children who are born prematurely at 22 weeks survive. There are those abortion supporters who believe abortions should not be done after viability unless the mother's health/life is at stake. If those supporters know that viability occurs sooner than the law allows abortion for, than they may wish to push back the abortion laws to 20 weeks. A child is supposed to develop in the womb for 9 months in a healthy situation. It wouldn't be advisable to induce the child early because the chances for survival would be slimmer.

reply from: Smurfy

If it is viable at that point, then it can be delivered.
It's either viable or it's not, correct?

reply from: Teresa18

Some children are viable, but chances of survival increase with each week. This is when children start surviving. You wouldn't want to induce early because you want to maximize the health of the baby, and I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be healthy to induce the woman for no reason at that stage.

reply from: Smurfy

So 24 weeks gives an almost 50% chance? Make it 24 then.
Or would you prefer that it is aborted?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You are a vile no good for nothing low-lifer. Your posts reveals a wicked, totally depraved mind. You are evil.

reply from: sander

You are a vile no good for nothing low-lifer. Your posts reveals a wicked, totally depraved mind. You are evil.
Now tell us how you really feel, Godslaw.
But, I think you were too nice.
That's about as close to a reprobate mind as one can get.

reply from: Skippy

They would prefer that any woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy just shut up and do as she is told. After all, at its heart, the anti-choice movement really isn't about saving poor widdle fetuses. It's about controlling women.

reply from: GratiaPlena

You people complain about us pro-lifers making radical statements about the pro-abortion movement, and then you turn around and say the same things about us.
Hypocrites.

reply from: Skippy

Oh, please. You've got nutters on this forum who want to execute women for having an abortion. Nobody, not even the most backwards anti-woman theocracies on earth, executes women for aborting.
So who's the radical?

reply from: yoda

It's all about supply and demand, skippy-poo. If humans were scarce, say as the result of a natural disaster or global warming, whatever, then the attitude towards abortion might be quite different. As it is, with plenty of humans on every continent, the general population treats human life quite cheaply, as shown by the number of female babies thrown into rivers in Asia. Stick around, after the next great worldwide disaster, attitudes may change.

reply from: Smurfy

You are a vile no good for nothing low-lifer. Your posts reveals a wicked, totally depraved mind. You are evil.
Would you prefer that it was aborted, rather than given a chance at life?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You are a vile no good for nothing low-lifer. Your posts reveals a wicked, totally depraved mind. You are evil.
Would you prefer that it was aborted, rather than given a chance at life?
Do you not understand that you are talking about a living human being? Another person who should be treated with dignity and respect. One whom you should serve and consider better than yourself. What's with your flippant attitude: throw the child in the pool, if it swims, fine, if not, there is a trash can in the back.

reply from: Smurfy

Would you prefer that it was aborted, rather than giving it a chance at life?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

They would prefer that any woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy just shut up and do as she is told. After all, at its heart, the anti-choice movement really isn't about saving poor widdle fetuses. It's about controlling women.
You are an anarchist. Ultimately, all people's behavior has to be subject to governmental control. Thugs can not beat up little old ladies in dark alleys. Rapists, theives and crooks can not be left uncontrolled. Yes, everyone has to be controlled to a degree. The government should prevent the killing of helpless weak individuals by the strong. Ultimately, the Bible is about Government requiring people to love and serve others. Those who do not serve their brothers and sisters have no future. Service can begin with your own child. It is an appointed responsibility. You are your brother's keeper; keep him or her safe, fed, sheltered and warm.

reply from: futureshock

Why are you getting so mad at the suggestion that the fetus be delivered at 22 weeks? Isn't that the whole point of what you are trying to say, that abortion laws should be pushed back to 20 weeks because a fetus is viable after that?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The earlier the delivery, the greater the risk of death to the child. Carrying to term is preferred.

reply from: sander

What a load of bull.
It's what you need to believe, even skippys have to sleep.
At it's "heart" it's about protecting the most defensless of human beings and wanting all people to take personal responsibility, that would include the father too.
You don't like to see puppies kicked do you, Skippy? Don't you think they should be afforded a little protection from people who are hell bent on their destruction?
With your twisted thinking there shouldn't be any laws. After all, laws are only there to "control" people's behavior.
Will you proaborts never tire of exposing yourselves as hypocrites?

reply from: Faramir

They would prefer that any woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy just shut up and do as she is told. After all, at its heart, the anti-choice movement really isn't about saving poor widdle fetuses. It's about controlling women.
I've heard this one a million times as well as that prolifers want to "punish" women for having sex.
Both are bogus and are red herrings.
It IS about saving the "widdle fetuses."
You don't do yourself any favors by refusing to accept that we believe as we do in good faith, or especially by making fun of fetal life.

reply from: Smurfy

I can't say I've ever heard of anyone with such a hatred of puppies.
Nor of babies.
I know you think that pro-choice people want every baby killed, but that's simply not true. In all my time on this earth, I've only ever heard of one person who thought every woman should abort and that no-one should have children. She'd also been raped several times and had an irrational hatred of men, so obviously this contributed to her very extreme view.
I challenge you to find someone who thinks all babies should be aborted.
I hope you rise to this challenge and realise that pro-choice people are not actually baying at the moon for baby blood. They're not pro-choice because they enjoy killing. They're not pro-choice because they have some intrinsic hatred of babies.
Remember that pro-choice supports all choices.
Pro-choicers have children, just like pro-lifers. More than half of the pro-choicers I know have children, some more than one.

reply from: yoda

Of course not. It's only the radical proabort activists who post in support of abortion online that feel that way, right?
Um, there's a rabidly prochoice guy who goes by "Ed Glaze" and posts on Delphi who supports that proposition. He's an anti-population nut, and also wants half the born population killed off, btw. Good enough?
Yeah, kinda like the KKK supports all choices for white supremacists, and hanging blacks is just one of the things they support.

reply from: Skippy

I've heard this one a million times as well as that prolifers want to "punish" women for having sex.
Both are bogus and are red herrings.
It IS about saving the "widdle fetuses."
You don't do yourself any favors by refusing to accept that we believe as we do in good faith, or especially by making fun of fetal life.
In the absence of control over her reproductive decisions and her very body, a woman is a second-class citizen based on nothing but biology. Anyone who supports taking that control away from the woman and giving it to someone else is, like it or not, all about controlling women.
Whatever the purpose behind your desire to control them happens to be is irrelevant. The Taliban and the christians want to control women for religious reasons. There's a strong anti-woman faction in blue collar America, where men perceive women in traditionally male jobs as "taking what belongs to them," so they view pregnancy as a way of keeping women out of the workforce. Heck, I know a guy who left behind Libertarianism and became "pro-woman control" when his girlfriend had an abortion.
The reasons vary, but the premise is the same: Forcing women to do what you want them to.

reply from: faithman

I've heard this one a million times as well as that prolifers want to "punish" women for having sex.
Both are bogus and are red herrings.
It IS about saving the "widdle fetuses."
You don't do yourself any favors by refusing to accept that we believe as we do in good faith, or especially by making fun of fetal life.
In the absence of control over her reproductive decisions and her very body, a woman is a second-class citizen based on nothing but biology. Anyone who supports taking that control away from the woman and giving it to someone else is, like it or not, all about controlling women.
Whatever the purpose behind your desire to control them happens to be is irrelevant. The Taliban and the christians want to control women for religious reasons. There's a strong anti-woman faction in blue collar America, where men perceive women in traditionally male jobs as "taking what belongs to them," so they view pregnancy as a way of keeping women out of the workforce. Heck, I know a guy who left behind Libertarianism and became "pro-woman control" when his girlfriend had an abortion.
The reasons vary, but the premise is the same: Forcing women to do what you want them to.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO taking control over a womb child's body, and depriving them of life is just fine? SOOOO you make the womb child second class to avoid that precieved notion for women? And just when did you grow a womb? The borties tell us all the time men ain't gotta say over this issue because we ain't biologically plumbed right. But I guess if you use your rectum for a vagina, that gives you a special pass, huh? But then the conflict of interest kicks in with genetic predisposition, and womb gay genocide. Gosh!!!!! ole spinny sure has alot to sort out there. Stay true to orientation, or sell out to gay genocide to keep the baby killers happy? What is a bung buster to do?!!!!!!!!!

reply from: Skippy

There you go, accusing me of being a man again.
Not the first time it's happened, but I think it's the first time anyone has thought I was a *gay* man.

reply from: faithman

You were kinda talking like one.... but mistake noted. You are not a gay pro-baby killer, you are a worthless scumbag maggot, pro-death scanc. Gotcha. won't make that mistake again.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Christianity says we must be bond-servants. Ultimately, things were made for God's purposes. Yes, serving those purposes is required.
When you say, "Skippy is God all the time", you mean that you ultimately make whatever decision you want. You support other's being their own god by directing their affairs in whatever manner they desire.
Yes, when I was young I said government should build our roads and then get out of the way and let me do whatever I want. That position was wrong. We must all be on the same team.
All of us are parts of one unit. Your decisions and actions do affect others. Therefore, the corporate body must be united in purpose and move in unity. Everyone must be subject to the law and government.

reply from: Smurfy

Certainly not. None of my pro-choice friends who post online feel this way. I certainly don't.
He's not pro-choice then, since he does not support all options - he only wants one. A choice is where you have more than one option and you choose one. He only advocates one thing. There is no choice.
As you said, he's anti population.
He's not pro-choice.
I don't see how this is relevant. Do they support the freedom and liberty of black people as well? Pro-choicers support: abortion, adoption, parenting. We don't condemn any of the options. The KKK do. You do.

reply from: yoda

Obviously, you don't even know what prochoice means:
pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

YOU don't speak for all prochoicers, and in fact YOU don't even know what the word means!
And, just like the KKK, you support ONE option that involves killing an innocent human being.

reply from: sander

Then you're living a pretty sheltered life. Do you never watch the news, animal planet, anything? And you might look into the fact there are laws on the books protecting puppies.
See above, just leave out animal planet but check with your local CPS. Also note there are laws on the books protecting born children, the unborn get no such protection.
I can't add much here to what Yoda has said, except it's a contrived notion that proaborts support all choices. Maybe in theory, but check with your local PP and other abortion clinics. How often do they refer women to pregnancy crisis clinics or offer to help with adoption? Why do they refuse to allow the woman to see the baby on the ultrasound when one is done?
The "choice" that is supported is ultimatley always to kill the child in the womb. So, I'm not moved by your plea for me to remember the proaborts line of defense.

reply from: Smurfy

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-choice

pro-choice (pr?-chois')
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term
- The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

reply from: Teresa18

I would support delivering the child at 24 weeks if there was a risk to the mother's life as opposed to abortion. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, I would not support that. I would support carrying to term.

reply from: Smurfy

I would support delivering the child at 24 weeks if there was a risk to the mother's life as opposed to abortion. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, I would not support that. I would support carrying to term.
You haven't answered the question. Would you prefer that it is induced at 24 weeks, or would you prefer that it is aborted?

reply from: Teresa18

I have answered the question. You don't like my answer of neither in a healthy pregnancy.

reply from: Smurfy

Because that wasn't an option in the question.
I'll either abort or get induced at 24 weeks. No other option. Which would you prefer?

reply from: Teresa18

I'm not going to play games with you regarding the life of a human being. I support neither option unless continuing the pregnancy would put your life at risk.

reply from: Smurfy

Righto, I'll abort then.

reply from: yoda

Wikipedia??? Give us a break, Smurfy!! ANYONE can edit the definitions in the wiki..... they mean NOTHING!!
"Freedictionary"? Is that yet another user-edited piece of crap? Well, at least it is a bit closer to a valid definition...... "prochoice" means supporting the legal right to kill your baby, in PLAIN and SIMPLE words......

reply from: yoda

Here's a little known fact, Smurfy...... YOU don't get to dictate the terms of our answers to your questions on this forum...

reply from: Skippy

I wouldn't waste much time arguing terminology with the radicals on here, Smurfy. They like to make up their own. For example, you won't find "proabort" in the dictionary.

reply from: faithman

How about scum bag maggot punk pro-death scanc? Of course a mirror will give you the definition of that, all you have to do is look in one.

reply from: faithman

I wouldn't waste much time arguing terminology with the radicals on here, Smurfy. They like to make up their own. For example, you won't find "proabort" in the dictionary.
How about scum bag maggot punk pro-death scanc? Of course a mirror will give you the definition of that, all you have to do is look in one.

reply from: Skippy

Well, I couldn't find "scanc" in the dictionary either, or "pro-death."
"Maggot" and "punk" are in there, but I'm not sure why you're calling people larvae or fungi.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it's there, in a slightly longer form:
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
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

Would you prefer the longer form?

reply from: yoda

You won't find "baby killer" as a single term, either, but you can look up both terms and then put them together.

reply from: faithman

Well, I couldn't find "scanc" in the dictionary either, or "pro-death."
"Maggot" and "punk" are in there, but I'm not sure why you're calling people larvae or fungi.
You are right. I shouldn't insult larvae or fungi that way.

reply from: yoda

Hey!
I LIKE larva and fungi!!

reply from: Smurfy

Then why is Wikipedia THE largest, most accurate and most popular source of research information on the internet? Clearly you haven't read the policies behind monitoring of content altered by the user-base.
I challenge you to go and alter that article.
All online dictionaries are free. Why would the name make it any less valid?
I noticed you neglected to challenge the last entry, however.
Which is very telling.

reply from: Smurfy

Actually, I do. Else I wouldn't have been able to post that, would I?

reply from: yoda

Hey..... it is NOT the "most accurate" ANYTHING!!
And I notice you DIDN'T CHALLENGE ANY of these.... VERY TELLING!!
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/....aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: yoda

Wrong....... If you got to dictate ANYTHING here, you would've forced sander to respond as you desperately wanted her to.....
You're just a tiny little cog on a very large wheel, Smurfy......

reply from: Smurfy

Sorry, you're incorrect.
I can dictate anything I like. Whether people choose to obey is up to them.

reply from: Smurfy

Hey..... it is NOT the "most accurate" ANYTHING!!
I see not edits to the Wikipedia article.
If it is so easy to edit/deface/manipulate, then why have you not done so?
Apparently the definitions on Wikipedia mean nothing.
Could you please provide proof of this?

reply from: 4given

Humorous. Tell me you are not disillusioned enough to believe that your ideas/projections are more than spatter- Perhaps I am wrong, but I suppose you feel your sense of being is of greater importance than those around you-especially those that exist within the safety of their mother's womb.. Right? Is that not what "choice" is about?

reply from: Smurfy

The word 'choice' is self explanatory.
Ask Yoda for a dictionary definition if it is not.

reply from: yoda

I just did. Check it out before someone edits my edits:
Overview
Pro-choice advocates emphasize their beliefs that having a child is a personal choice that affects a woman's body and personal health. They believe that both parents' and children's lives are better when the government allows women to have abortions, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to obtain illegal abortions, while simultaneously assuring that a larger percentage of children born are wanted by their parents.
More broadly, pro-choice advocates, frame their beliefs in terms of "individual liberty," "reproductive freedom," and "reproductive rights." The first of these terms was widely used to describe many of the political movements of the 19th and 20th centuries (such as in the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and in the spread of popular democracy), whereas the latter terms derive from changing perspectives on sexual freedom and bodily integrity.
Pro-choice individuals often do not consider themselves "pro-abortion" because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion as legally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion. Indeed, some who are pro-choice consider themselves opposed to some or all abortions on a moral basis, but believe that abortion bans imperil women's health. Others have a practical acceptance of abortion, arguing that abortions would happen in any case but that legal abortion under medically controlled conditions is preferable to illegal back-alley abortion without proper medical supervision.
Pro-choice supporters frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.[2]
Many pro-choice campaigners also argue that pro-life policies would deny women access to comprehensive sex education and contraception, thus increasing, not decreasing, demand for abortion.[3] Proponents of this argument point to cases of areas with limited sex education and contraceptive access that have high abortion rates, either legal, illegal or de facto exported (i.e., where a high proportion of abortions from a state occur outside that state in another country with a more liberal abortion regime). The Irish women who visit the United Kingdom for abortions are one example, as were the Belgian women who travelled to France (before Belgium legalized abortion). The statistics on the Irish abortion rate in the United Kingdom remain disputed. A lack of an independent methodology for verification of origins means that estimations as to whether the number of Irish people getting British abortions is higher (i.e., not all those getting abortions are declaring their nationality, with some passing themselves off as British) or lower (with some British women or British women of Irish descent claiming to have travelled from Ireland as a way to ensure that hospitals cannot seek medical information from their doctors, so preserving their complete anonymity). The rival campaigning groups on abortion each use selective interpretations and presumptions to bolster their analysis, in part because the lack of independent methodology makes each other's claims impossible to disprove. As with many issues involving political framing, these claims are controversial.
All the above comments reflect individual opinions of what they would like the term to mean, they do not reflect the actual usage of the term pro-choice in our society. Several dictionaries report this term is most commonly perceived as meaning that one is in favor of the legal status of elective abortion, period. And that is also the most common usage of the term "proabortion", so the two terms are identical in their general usage in our society. You will only find the above mentioned nuances discussed in debates between abortion supporters and opponents.

reply from: Teresa18

Bummer, Yoda. They already got to it. I remember one time a fellow Bengals fan edited Mike Brown's entry on Wikipedia. Mike Brown isn't that popular among Bengal's fans, and it was funny until Wikipedia's editors got to it.

reply from: Teresa18

I edited too. I wonder how long it will last.
Pro-choice, as defined by standard dictionaries means supporting legal access to abortion. One can also use the term pro-abortion, as their dictionary meaning is the same.
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
Some people who are pro-choice see abortion as a last resort and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.[1]
On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy, although some pro-lifers believe that abortion should be legal in the case where the woman's life is at serious risk.

reply from: Smurfy

*Chuckles*
Nothing there, Yoda. You bit has been removed.
As I said, their policy is incredibly strict and they watch closely for defacement and hijacking.
Thank you for proving your point to be invalid.

reply from: yoda

I have done so three times now, and each time someone has changed them back. So, it's just a matter of who is the most persistent in their edits.
Satisfied yet?

reply from: yoda

Surprise, surprise.... it has nothing to do with abortion:
Main Entry:
1choice Listen to the pronunciation of 1choice
Pronunciation:
\?cho?is\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English chois, from Anglo-French, from choisir to choose, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German kiosan to choose - more at choose
Date:
13th century
1: the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>2: power of choosing : option <you have no choice>3 a: the best part : cream b: a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>4: a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>5: care in selecting6: a grade of meat between prime and good
- of choice
: to be preferred
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=choice

reply from: yoda

No, you implied that I COULD NOT EDIT that definition, didn't you?
Check it out, as of this hour it looks like this:
Term controversy
[edit] Pro-choice
The Oxford English Dictionary lists the usage of "pro-choice" at least as early as 1975, around the time when the question of the legality of abortion became increasingly discussed after Roe v. Wade (the term "choice" is used to describe options towards abortion in the case as well).
The terms pro-choice and proabortion are defined in many dictionaries in precisely the same way:
pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

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

pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

Yodavater (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)yodavater

reply from: yoda

I think they have baby killers watching that particular entry 24-7, because it is such an important part of their propaganda. So it would take a similar effort of prolifers to keep it honest. I'm not sure it would be worth that.
But smurf still doesn't get it..... he thinks that wiki is a reliable source.... well, what else can you expect from a proabort?

reply from: Smurfy

The article remains the same, despite your edits.
I have yet to actually see any of your edits.
Fail.


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