Political & Elections

busdriver11 · Guru

RE: 39 Percent of Pregnancies in NYC Result in Abortion

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

After we were married and had kids of our own, my husband (who was adopted) tried in vain to search for his birth parents or siblings.

He knew it would be devastating to his folks if they found out he was looking for the birth family.

There were times that he couldn't understand why he was given up for adoption and not raised by his birth parents, especially after becoming a dad. I told him - repeatedly - how it was a different time to be a young single girl, how they weren't ready to be parents, and how it's not good to over-analyze this situation. After having our kids, I reassured him that this was a gigantic gift that his birth mother gave him - life - and the opportunity to be raised in a nice family.

Still, it must have been a difficult choice. Even for those that didn't want to raise a child, going through 9 months of pregnancy is not a joyride. Honestly, I couldn't have made this choice after experiencing the highs and lows that being a pregnant woman. Giving birth and seeing this new life is pretty magical. Those hormones are pretty heady stuff.

I don't begrudge any woman that can't do it, but do honor their choices, especially if they can offer this supreme gift for a family that can't have children on their own.

I don't know if I could have gone through an abortion, myself. I chose not to. I could have, though, if I was in a different place in my life. I think I would have agonized over this for a long time. If I had given up a child to adoption, I also would have agonized for a long time.

busdriver11 · Guru

"but in the case of a lot of women who place their children for adoption, they don't feel guilty. It's not guilt at all. They miss their children"

I agree. That may be more of an accurate description. In my friends case, it seems to be remorse mixed with "what if"? I'd never considered missing her child as the emotion, but yeah, that fits.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

so..the guilt of not being able to see your kid who is alive and being raised by someone else is greater than the guilt of killing your baby before being born?

I won't speak for busdriver's friend, but in the case of a lot of women who place their children for adoption, they don't feel guilty. It's not guilt at all. They miss their children.

If I had been in a circumstance where I was considering giving up my baby for adoption, I couldn't do it. Not because I'd feel guilty-- I certainly think adoption is great-- but because I couldn't bear parting with my baby. I agree with busdriver; women who have the strength to place their children for adoption deserve to be honored for that choice.

busdriver11 · Guru

"so..the guilt of not being able to see your kid who is alive and being raised by someone else is greater than the guilt of killing your baby before being born?"

In this person's case, yes. It is not me, by the way, had I gotten pregnant I would have terminated it. The military doesn't take kindly to single, pregnant aviators, so I wouldn't have considered it.

But in my friends case (whom I am very close to), after the abortion was over, it was an uncomfortable but brief memory for her, a group of cells disappearing from her body--not a real baby. But the child, she carried for 9 months, agonizing about whether to keep it or not, having a life inside her, eating well for it--those hormones coursing throughout her body. And she held it, stayed with it in the hospital for a few days, visited the new parents she gave it away to. Wondering later on if the child would have a good life or if she could have found a way to keep it.

For people who are fine with abortion, have no moral or religious objection, I would guess that it's not a big deal. Crappy experience, it's over. I'm sure if you are strongly anti-abortion and then get one, you would agonize. But any woman who has had a baby understands you have a far stronger attachment as the pregnancy goes on, particularly after you give birth and hold it.

I have had 2 miscarriages. The first one I didn't even know about until I got an ultrasound with my older son, and they informed me there was the remnants of another fetus there, maybe a twin. I wasn't sad, it was just surprising. I had another miscarriage a few years later, two months along. During a simulator checkride. It was awful, devastating, I couldn't say a word for over a day. I cannot even imagine if I lost a baby after birth. And I cannot imagine giving away a baby, it would kill me. Even if it was the right thing to do. Women who have the strength to do that amaze me.

geeps20 · Senior Member

so..the guilt of not being able to see your kid who is alive and being raised by someone else is greater than the guilt of killing your baby before being born?

Woodwork · Senior Member

No Cardinal, everything is not a moral battle.

Sometimes, we are just happy to be here no matter how it came about. But of course, not all choices are equal either, that is why they are often difficult. If the mothers choice was whether or not to terminate what would be her child, I would think that is right up there with the most difficult choices one could make --I'd like to think so, though the statistics above may argue otherwise... a choice well above whether or not one chooses to have 3 or six children or 1 child, in the abstract...or even to be married, or make love to another human being, that you love.

As it is, we cannot ask someone that was never born if they would have liked to live. We can, however, ask someone that was adopted whether or not they are happy their mother, or perhaps father, chose to let them be adopted rather than aborted. In that cause I figured I would add my 2 cents.

It doesn't need to be offensive to say so.

-- Edited by Woodwork on Monday 14th of February 2011 05:44:26 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

How somebody feels after giving up a child for adoption or an abortion, varies from highly traumatic to barely giving it a second thought. Like any major decision in life, it can have completely different effects on people. I know one woman who did both. She has not expressed any regret or guilt about having the abortion, but comments upon the stupidity of getting pregnant. She has felt tremendous guilt over the years about the adoption, and every now and then googles her daughter (whom she has never been brave enough to contact), to find out what she has been doing. She has been embarrassed and guilt ridden all these years. I recently told her how proud I was of her for carrying the baby to term, and giving her up to a good couple, as she knew she couldn't take care of it very well. She was very relieved, and realizes that she did the right thing. I don't think I would have carried the baby to term.... I know I wouldn't.

The daughter seems to be doing great, and is very happy in her life.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Unless you've never used any form of birth control, and have tried to be pregnant continuously, I don't see what your point is, Woodwork. Wouldn't those children that we all decided not to have been happy to be alive, most of them? And yet most of us decided that eight or ten children were not for us. Choosing to bring another child into the world is not morally superior. It's just a choice.

I'm the third child in a family of six kids. If my parents had stopped at one or two children, I wouldn't be here. My three younger siblings, who are great people, wouldn't be here. So what? So my mother is morally superior, because she had the six of us?

I realize that you think that abortion is morally wrong. But your continual assertion of that fact is not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Hey, slow down there folks.

I'm the result of, as you-all are saying, "doing the right thing." Hate to be the fly in anyone's ointment...but here I am..
Good on me...I guess. And a shout out to everyone else who's mother was doing the right, if politically incorrect, thing. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most of us --the living-- are pretty happy things worked out like they did...and some of us, I figure, are now young or middle aged women themselves able to make choices of their own…let’s hope they make the tough call, as well. 'Happy to be alive,' I think most would say. Beats the alternative, I’ll tell you.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Donna-- Oh. That's what I was saying too.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

In your words, "suck it up" and do the right thing.

The right thing? How do YOU know what the right thing is? You think it's the right thing to bring an unwanted child into the world where they might be beaten, neglected, abused, etc? What about this little girl, who WAS born, adopted, and then neglected and killed by her adopted mother:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/24298185/detail.html

Did everyone do the "right" thing by bringing that girl into the world? I can tell you first hand that that Gracie lived a terrible life. If you can even call her existence "living".

So tell me- who are YOU to decide what is the "right" thing when you don't know the situation?

ETA: I know Gracie is an extreme situation. But you have no place to judge what is the "right" thing.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Friday 11th of February 2011 07:56:14 PM

DonnaL · Senior Member

No, I meant the idea that abortion always or most of the time causes lifelong or extended trauma. There is trauma from adoption, from the studies I've seen -- often more so than from abortion.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 11th of February 2011 07:27:33 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Donna, are you saying that women who place their children for adoption don't suffer lifelong trauma? If so, I'm glad to hear it. I would find it way too hard to give up a baby I had just given birth to, but I know that many women do exactly that. And good for them, if they thing that's the right thing to do.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Especially since the most recent studies show that the myth of lifelong emotional trauma is just that -- a myth. There's more emotional trauma suffered by women who actually give birth.

Geeps, for many cases, I have to ask: what baby? Not everyone accepts your radical viewpoint.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

geeps20 wrote:

^ bunch of crap.. the lifelong pain should be from killing your baby.

Should, according to you. But your argument doesn't make sense. If I'm a pro-choice pregnant woman making a decision about an abortion, I'm choosing between actual lifelong pain that I would experience if I placed my child for adoption, and theoretical pain that some people say I should feel ( which I don't believe I should feel, and which I won't in fact feel) if I chose to abort.

I'd have to be an idiot to choose the real pain in place of the imaginary pain. First, you have to convince me that abortion is morally wrong. Then, you can explain that if I abort I'll feel lifelong guilt. But you can't skip straight to step two without doing step one, unless you lie, claiming falsely that pro-choice women have lifelong guilt and emotional pain after choosing to abort.

I realize that plenty of pro-lifers like to talk in this way, inventing a syndrome of lifelong pain that doesn't actually exist. But they are lying liars who like to lie.

-- Edited by Cardinal Fang on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:24:58 PM

geeps20 · Senior Member

^ bunch of crap.. the lifelong pain should be from killing your baby. In your words, "suck it up" and do the right thing.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

The fact is, adoption is psychologically more painful and difficult than abortion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. And, for many women who place their children for adoption, the pain doesn't go away.

Obviously, if a woman believes abortion is wrong, then she shouldn't consider it, no matter how much she might suffer from giving birth to a child and giving it up. I have nothing but contempt for those women and girls (apparently there are many) who arrive at the abortion clinic announcing that abortion is murder but it's necessary in their special case. Suck it up, you cowards.

On the other hand, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who doesn't believe that abortion is wrong in all cases can legitimately weigh the consequences of abortion versus adoption. She can reasonably say, "I'm not putting myself through the lifelong pain of giving up a child. I choose abortion."

Bogney · Senior Member

My suspicion is that adoption is an option for some, but not all unwanted babies. If the mother is truly dysfunctional, and drinks and does drugs, the baby may not fair well even if adopted by loving parents. A mother who does not want her child may be less likely to take care of it while pregnant.

BigG · Guru

Isn't adoption an option?

The US imports babies for people to adopt.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I have known many women who have been through a crisis pregnancy, and some were equipped to take on the lifetime responsibility of raising a child. Some were not.

It's no secret that I have been one of those women who experienced a birth control failure at a young age and found myself anticipating a pregnancy that I wasn't thrilled about. I was too young and even though I knew it was the right guy, we weren't finished getting our educations and had zero money. It was a scary time. Fortunately, we had family support. We spent years trying to get caught up, financially and even ahead. We lacked maternity insurance which raised our costs of bringing the little heir to the Landshark throne into this world. Then he had a heart condition which caused the bills to mount. It was tough.

Fortunately, we were able to pull it together and make a pretty happy home, in good times and bad. I married my best friend and chose well.

This isn't the case for many young women in a similar predicament.

There are two young girls at my daughter's school who are pregnant and keeping their babies. One is in 10th grade and the other 11th. Neither will have the same opportunities to even out the playing field. Some would say it is their choice. It is. But I do feel for their babies, because times are going to be hard. I don't think either girl has a clue, and looking at both of them (and knowing both of their family histories), they are making a bad situation, worse. They didn't have stable family environments and are re-creating this in another generation.

I am not opposed to others terminating pregnancies, but it wasn't for me.

I do believe far too many women use this as birth control and have seen this with friends and acquaintances in my lifetime. 39% exceeds the typical failure rate of even the most failure-prone contraception.

I would rather a child not be brought into the world that will be neglected or abused, and the "Freakonomics" chapter was a compelling one with regards to the matter of crime-reduction.

Even with the best of charitable acts and government assistance, for some kids, it's not ever going to be enough.

It's hard to be a parent. I would never view a woman with anything less than compassion for her situation if she chose to abort a pregnancy. I would feel sad for her and the loss of potential life, but having walked in the shoes, I can understand her choice.

I believe that safe and legal is always preferable to unsafe and illegal when it comes to this procedure.

I do view the fetus as a baby. Many do not see it the same way as I do. That's fine. I have an extremely hard time with the idea of late term abortions. What this one doctor did - allegedly - borders on the horrific.

I would love to see more women giving their unwanted children a chance to be born and give another family a chance at happiness. I am married to a man who was adopted and loved by a mother who couldn't carry a child to term. He has a sister that came into their family in the same way as him.

BigG · Guru

IMO generalization should only be used in specific instances...

Woodwork · Senior Member

Well said.

I believe it was the book "Freakonomics" that claimed that Roe v Wade was the factual reason for the decline in the crime rate in major cities through the 90's; if true, that is both sobering and disturbing. I oppose abortion –full stop, but I do not feel comfortable enough with my feelings on the subject to say that abortion should be a crime or even illegal. Forcing anyone to go through a medical procedure or even the pain of childbirth, to me, feels like a lot to ask…even coercive and oppressive.

Bogney · Senior Member

Celtic Clan:

I do not know anything about Gosnic, so I can't argue or agree with you. As for speaking for all conservatives, no one can ever speak accurately for every member of a large group, so certainly any broad statement can be criticized for being overbroad. Of course, to make any kind of point with some degree of brevity, generalization is generally required.

Was my generalization unfair? Isn't it true that most conservatives oppose abortion (and therefore want all children to be born). Isn't it also true that most conservatives want to shrink government by cutting back on social programs which tend to shift money to poor persons and families (not want to pay government money to help poor children after they are born)?

I said nothing about private contribution to charities. Conservatives may be very good about that. The problem is that privately funded relief may be more erratic, less widespread, and limited to those of particular faiths than public funding. Moreover, public funding can spread the burden more widely.

Geeps: I agree that abortion is an appalliing form of birth control and it is inappropriate to use it that way. However, I also think that if a woman behaves irresponsibly in becoming pregnant, and does not believe she is well equipped emotionally, economically, or otherwise to raise a child, then abortion is probably better for her, society, and perhaps even for the fetus who has not achieved any significant level of consciousness. Two out of three isn't bad. People who cannot take care of children should not have them, and if they come to that conclusion while pregnant - better late than never and birth means never. No, I don't believe that parents can kills unwanted children after they are born because that is clearly too late. I see differences between fetuses and babies, but I realize that not all people acknowledge that difference.

geeps20 · Senior Member

for prohibiting women from exercising the choice not to be compelled to go through pregnancy.

compelled?..like they didn't have a choice?

how about they exercise their right to cross their legs.

If the 39% number is correct, then that is absolutely disgusting. Abortion as birth control is the norm for many of these lowlifes.

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Conservatives want every child to be born, and then no government resources to help those who are born disadvantaged.

Seriously Bogney? Seriously? You are now speaking for all conservatives? What a load of garbage. That is so far from the truth. Do you know how much money goes to entitlement programs? Do you have any idea how much free health care is given to poor families. You've not heard of CHIP, Medicaid? Last year the food stamp program hit the highest numbers ever. And the libs did this all by themselves? From my weekly personal experience at a faith based, non-profit, where we sort and distribute food, clothing, household goods, baby equipment, etc... to the less advantaged in our area. Mostly families with children. Guess what? We're all conservatives, mostly Evangelicals <not me> in fact. Not a lib in the bunch. You should not make such sweeping generalizations.

Gosnell is the face of evil and how anyone can think what he did to women and babies was ok, well, what little respect I had for some is completely gone.

Bogney · Senior Member

"You" did not mean you, specifically Samurai. I worded that post sloppily. It was not meant as an accusation. My apologies if it seemed like one.

I think many anti- abortion activists take the position that innocent life is sacred, but certainly not everyone does.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It's your argument that life is life is sacred at all costs.

Not mine. I haven't argued this point, nor would I.

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I am also pro-gun and pro-gay marriage, for what it's worth. I don't think it's anymore unusual to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-life and anti-death penalty. Or pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Still, I see something more heinous in terminating pregnancies than I do adults who commit unspeakable crimes.

I don't believe it's hard to reconcile various opinions, even if they seem diametrically opposed.

Clearly, we will not agree on this point, but I appreciate you articulating your thoughts about this matter.

DonnaL · Senior Member

And while we're at it, let's outlaw cigarettes, and prohibit trucks from traveling on interstate highways.

There are many, many things that inevitably result in thousands of deaths every year, which society deems more important than "innocent human life."

And I won't even get into the fact that it's perfectly OK for the government to kill fetuses whenever we accidentally bomb a group of civilians that happens to include pregnant women. Collateral damage.

If all of that's OK, there's no moral basis whatsoever for prohibiting women from exercising the choice not to be compelled to go through pregnancy. For whatever reason they deem sufficiently important. Even if you assume that an embryo or fetus is, in fact, a "person," even when it's nothing more than an undifferentiated clump of cells, based on nothing more than potentiality.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 9th of February 2011 09:01:33 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

Defending a person known to be guilty is simply putting the government through its paces. The government cannot use is vast power sloppily just because it appears clear that someone is guilty. It keeps the government honest in dealing with everyone.

One could argue that even one innocent and fully conscious adult put to death by the state is worse than thousands of unborn persons, none of whom has achieved any significant consceiousness, killed before birth by decisions of the adult woman who must bear the burden of that pregnancy. I do not equate the life of an innocent fetus with the life of an innocent adult, the former is far less significant in my view.

I don't see how you can really have it both ways. If innocent life is sacred and must be protected at all costs, then one cannot support the death penalty unless it is completely foolproof, which it is not and probably never will be. Similarly, no war other than pure self-defense can be countenenced because innocent death will follow. If innocent lives do not always deserve protection, then your position in abortion is just a personal preference, not a principled conviction. You have already conceded that all innocent live is not deserving of protection, and are just arguing that these lives happen to be more important than the mothers. That argument can be made, but it seems very relativistic to me.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

The law is applied in an uneven manner, because we are humans and humans aren't always rational. Lawyers may defend a guilty person and know of their guilt, and yet still defend them...because it is the right of the individual to have representation. Yet, how can a lawyer defend a person that they KNOW is guilty?

Does that mean we should not try to adhere to the law because the law is not applied fairly or unevenly, or that some guilty people will walk and some innocent people will not?

In one jurisdiction, a person on trial for a crime may get a different sentencing than another person committing the same crime.

They may get different time for the same crime.

It may be all about moral relativism, but in the real world, it's not all an even game.

The loss of one innocent life being put to death isn't equivalent to me hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. It's not inconceivable to have a different position on this.

Personally, I don't believe anyone should be condemned to death without proof that is absolute. When I say absolute, that's what I mean. Any shadow of a doubt, no death penalty.

That doesn't mean I can see the two things - the death penalty and abortion - on equal terms.

Bogney · Senior Member

There is a huge differnce between a fetus and an actual child rapist / murderer, not always a huge difference between a fetus and a convicted murdered / rapist. There have been and will probably continue to be erroneous convictions. Innocent people are put to death by the state through mistakes, prejudice, etc., which is the best argument against the death penalty. There are many criminals I would like to see die, but it is appalling if the apparatus can kill even one innocent adult. How does one take that risk and yet oppose abortion?

If innocent life is sacred, then one must be a pacifist. Innocent life clearly will be lost in any war no matter how smart are bombs are - it is inevitable that noncombatants and children of noncombatant adults will be killed in war.

People are allowed to be inconsistent. However, I think inconsistent positions tend to undermine the moral basis of their arguments.

-- Edited by Bogney on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 10:41:08 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

There is a huge difference between an innocent life and a convicted child rapist murderer on death row.

The loss of life in war is a completely different issue, for me.

I am pro-choice, but I don't believe that the argument should be that if you are pro-life you are inconsistent in your beliefs if you support death penalty or war deaths.

Like most who are pro-choice, I believe this legal procedure should be safe and rare.

Bogney · Senior Member

The whole abortion is immoral because it is the taking of an innocent life thing would be more convincing to me if its opponents were also against the death penalty and war, both of which have, and will take innocent lives. I still might not agree but I could respect the consistency of principle.

Not all human life is sacred, and it never has been. Otherwise, the societal attitude would probably not be once you are born, you are on your own and you have to pay for your parent's mistakes by living in a slum with crap schools and menial jobs while trying to avoid being pressed into a gang. Liberals want a choice as to whether the child is born, and then to use societal resources to help those children that are born. Conservatives want every child to be born, and then no government resources to help those who are born disadvantaged.

I don't like abortion and I prefer other alternatives, but I still support the woman's right to control her body over the rights of a fetus to be born. I also support the right of the elderly and sick to die comfortably with the help of physicians. Some worry about making sure every fetus is born but most neglect the right (or what should be the right) of the living to exercise some control over how they die. I guess I prefer notions of quality over quantity of life.

If this doctor was in fact killig babies, of course, that is an entirely different thing. I do think that women should have the choice of what to do about a pregnancy for at least a few months. If they abdicate that decision and do nothing, the rights of the fetus and even the father increase over time. Not sure exactly where to draw those lines.

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

For you Cardinal, since you seem to be very concerned with the 'good' doctor's financial well-being, because, yeah, he was in business soley to "help" women : http://tinyurl.com/4nuslux

BigG · Guru

Is a cell that has about 50% different genetic material than the organism of which it is a part different from all the other cells of that organism with regard to legal rights?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Santorum was indicating that it's a little historically short-sighted for Mr. Obama to dehumanize anyone in the sense of full human rights.

These babies were born alive. Were viable, and then were killed. What are your thoughts on THAT?

Don't conflate two things. The allegations say that Philadelphia doctor is a murderer. He murdered live-born babies.

Moreover, AFAIK it is illegal to perform a third-term abortion in Philadelphia, so even if he were performing those abortions without having women give birth to live babies, he would still have been violating the law. (My thoughts? I think abortions after fetal viability should be legal only when there is a serious risk to the mother's life or health. Rape and incest are horrible, but don't, in my opinion, justify the abortion of a viable fetus. Note that some severely compromised fetuses are not, in fact, viable even at 40 weeks of pregnancy, so pregnancies involving such defects could be aborted at any stage-- but I would hope that women making such choices would be able to make them earlier in the pregnancy rather than later.)

But Santorum was not talking about this appalling Philadelphia guy, and Obama does not defend the Philadelphia guy. And Obama is not dehumanizing anyone-- that is again a circular argument that assumes its consequent. If fetuses are people, then someone asserting that they aren't people would be dehumanizing them-- but if fetuses aren't people, then asserting they aren't people is just saying what is true.

BigG · Guru

What about all the cells that could be cloned and become individuals?

That is current technology and is not expensive.

Clones are probably being grown for spare parts right now.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I have a question while I am pro-choice I understand those that feel that human life begins at conception and therefore the government has an obligation to protect that life. My feeling is that generally the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn child up until viability. I can readily acknowledge that this gets shorter and shorter as we make medical progress. Now for those of you that feel that the unborn child has equal protection than the mother even before viability does that protection continue after birth. For example would a father or mother be required to donate a kidney or partial section of the liver in order to save the child's life?
Is my thought process on this equivalent should the government require a mother to carry a child to term against her will than why couldn't the government require a parent to donate the use of necessary body parts to continue life after birth?
Could you imagine someone even proposing that legislation?

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I lean to being pro-choice and I am no fan of Santorum but I think he brings up a compelling argument.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Apparently, although it's BAD for a black man to decide what makes something a person, it's just fine for a white man (Santorum) to decide.
That's not what he means, come on now. In light of how recently in our history a black man wasn't a person, Santorum was indicating that it's a little historically short-sighted for Mr. Obama to dehumanize anyone in the sense of full human rights.

These babies were born alive. Were viable, and then were killed. What are your thoughts on THAT?

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Your source for this? And what are you claiming here-- that the doctor cleared $1.8 million? That gross revenues were $1.8 million? Running a standalone surgical center on $1.8 million a year doesn't sound out of line to me, if that's what you're claiming.

Gosnell was the “go-to” guy for late-term abortions, and he often performed illegal abortion past 24-weeks of pregnancy. Authorities say he made as much as $1.8 million in one year.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/No-Bail-for-Abortion-Doc-Staff-of-Ghoulish-Clinic-114309829.html

Please don't tell me you're more concerned about his revenue than the damge he did to human beings? Filthy conditions, cats roaming the clinic, unsterilized instruments, etc......

Have you read the articles? In the event you want to read more about this atrocity against women and newborns, there are thousands of articles on the net.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Santorum is just grandstanding here.

Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man [he's referring to Obama here] to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'

Apparently, although it's BAD for a black man to decide what makes something a person, it's just fine for a white man (Santorum) to decide. The reality is, we must decide. Some decisions are easy: I am a person, my coffee cup isn't. Some are contentious: is a sperm a person? an egg? a fertilized egg that hasn't implanted yet? a pregnancy implanted three seconds ago?

As a perceptive commenter points out, Santorum's opponents don't agree that a fertilized egg is a person. Therefore, any remarks that Santorum makes about black people denying human rights to fertilized eggs is just not going to convince them that Santorum is right. He's preaching to the choir.

This reminds me of an extended argument that I once had with a Biblical inerrantist. She was claiming that I ought to believe that the Bible was written by God. I said, I don't believe the Bible is literally true, what can you say to convince me? She said, the Bible is written by God because it says it's written by God. I said, but wait, if I don't believe it's true, why would I believe what it says? And she couldn't get it. She couldn't understand that she was making a circular argument, that could apply just as well to any other book that claims it's true.

Santorum is arguing the same way. Yes, if people think that a fertilized egg is a human being, then they will certainly be appalled at the number of abortions taking place. But people who don't believe the way Santorum believes might not be appalled. They don't think abortion is murdering a person, and Santorum has done nothing to convince them.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Some here may appreciate an extension of this debate. My daughter has a blog about it at Ricochet. It's interesting and looks at this through a racial lens.

As an added bonus, some of you may recall the notorious "Stickershock" both from College Confidential and CD: she is posting in this Ricochet thread, as well.

Check it out:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Did-Santorum-Play-the-Race-Card-re-Abortion/(page)/1

If you want to comment, register and give another point of view.

-- Edited by Woodwork on Friday 21st of January 2011 08:25:45 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

the guy and his staff who killed women and newborns, made 1.8 million a year to perform these crimes.

Your source for this? And what are you claiming here-- that the doctor cleared $1.8 million? That gross revenues were $1.8 million? Running a standalone surgical center on $1.8 million a year doesn't sound out of line to me, if that's what you're claiming.

Abyss · Senior Member

I'm personally grateful abortion. Lets men be men with way fewer consequences.

Not sure it's quite what feminism was about though. Hah.

-- Edited by Abyss on Thursday 20th of January 2011 10:38:56 PM

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Good thing abortion is safe, legal and rare in the US. Except Philly isn't included.

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/grandJury_WomensMedical.html **Warning, very graphic**

http://tinyurl.com/4whzf46

Roman- don't be lazy. Use Google to find out abortion revenues. It's easily found on the web. PP has a lovely pie graph.

And P.S.- the guy and his staff who killed women and newborns, made 1.8 million a year to perform these crimes. Chump change, ya think? But wait, the pro-abortion industry says it's not about money. It's all about 'caring for women' and giving them choices, so very altruistic. Riiiight. Wonder how many more Ghastly Gosnell's there are out there.

BigG · Guru

OK. Bad choice of words.

I wonder what the European experience has been? Objective psychological data might be easier to collect there.

DonnaL · Senior Member

No pro-choice group would claim it's great. There's a huge middle ground between "great" on one end, and propaganda about near-universal prolonged trauma (and regret) on the other.

BigG · Guru

Do we ever see any studies by pro-abortion groups proving how great it is?

This is such an emotionally charged issue that objective science may be impossible.

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 10th of January 2011 06:49:32 PM