Abortion has been made illegal! What happens now?

[adamsapple]

The numbers are irrelevant. They don’t mean anything. A back alley abortion amounts to nothing more than an unsafe abortion. Like any other medical procedure, when done by an incompetent individual, the risk of failure of outcome is extemely high.

To say that back alley abortions were inconsequential is to deny that unsafe medical procedures were never practiced. This is totally ridiculous.

According to recent statistics, there are over 100 million induced abortions every year around the world. That says that 100 million women decided that they wanted to terminate their pregnancy.
100 million is a very big number. If abortion were illegal, a good portion of them would still seek out an abortion. That means that a large proportion would be dependent on incompetent medical personnel to perform the procedure.

Of course back alley abortions are a fact. They are a fact of life in many countries today where governments do not provide appropropriate health care.

Abortion is currently a woman’s choice. Safe health care, even for abortion, should be without question.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

The numbers are irrelevant. They don’t mean anything. A back alley abortion amounts to nothing more than an unsafe abortion. Like any other medical procedure, when done by an incompetent individual, the risk of failure of outcome is extemely high.

To say that back alley abortions were inconsequential is to deny that unsafe medical procedures were never practiced. This is totally ridiculous.

According to recent statistics, there are over 100 million induced abortions every year around the world. That says that 100 million women decided that they wanted to terminate their pregnancy.
100 million is a very big number. If abortion were illegal, a good portion of them would still seek out an abortion. That means that a large proportion would be dependent on incompetent medical personnel to perform the procedure.

Of course back alley are a fact. They are a fact of life in many countries today where governments do not provide appropropriate health care.

Abortion is currently a woman’s choice. Safe health care, even for abortion, should be without question.

It’s really a question of perspective, friend. You deny that a child is a human being. So as far as you’re concerned, keeping the mother safe is a high priority.

Try to look at it from a different perspective. From our view, you’re basically saying that a mother should safely be able to kill her child. Let’s say there’s a mother who is dead set on killing her infant newborn. She’s going to do it anyways, does that mean we should set up a clinic for her to do it without getting bloodstains on the bathtub?

 

[adamsapple]

It’s really a question of perspective, friend. You deny that a child is a human being. So as far as you’re concerned, keeping the mother safe is a high priority.

Try to look at it from a different perspective. From our view, you’re basically saying that a mother should safely be able to kill her child. Let’s say there’s a mother who is dead set on killing her infant newborn. She’s going to do it anyways, does that mean we should set up a clinic for her to do it without getting bloodstains on the bathtub?

I do not deny that the child is a human being. In fact, if you read through this entire thread, I have stated repeatedly that abortion is a human, yes HUMAN, rights issue.

The fact that there is no recognition of the fetus as “human”, deserving of human rights, puts the woman first and the fetus last.

Your bathtub analogy is out of proportion and ridiculous. If the fetus is not recognized as a human entity, which it is not, then the weight of care and concern must be given to the woman who made the choice to abort. After all, she is recognized as “human”,deserving of human rights. The fetus is not.

 

[kage_ar]

I do not deny that the child is a human being. In fact, if you read through this entire thread, I have stated repeatedly that abortion is a human, yes HUMAN, rights issue.

The fact that there is no recognition of the fetus as “human”, deserving of human rights, puts the woman first and the fetus last.

Your bathtub analogy is out of proportion and ridiculous. If the fetus is not recognized as a human entity, which it is not, then the weight of care and concern must be given to the woman who made the choice to abort. After all, she is recognized as “human”,deserving of human rights. The fetus is not.

Pray tell, what IS a fetus that is created by a male human and a female human??

Is it a bovine?

Is it an elm tree?

Maybe a chunk of coal?

Tell me, what is it?

 

[adamsapple]

Pray tell, what IS a fetus that is created by a male human and a female human??

Is it a bovine?

Is it an elm tree?

Maybe a chunk of coal?

Tell me, what is it?

I never said the fetus wasn’t human. The law says that it’s not human (or human enough) deserving of human rights protection.

You might want to read through the thread before making specious comments. Thanks.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Marietta - Love is not a feeling. This is a gap in your education. I can’t help your ignorance, I can only point it out.

You’re also freely mixing up and confusing a variety of emotions. That makes you a poor debator.

You’re also creating a fantastic strawman about banishing emotions in life. This makes you dishonest.

In point of fact, you absolutely depend upon the principles I’m recommending in society in your everyday life. You expect to be treated equally to everyone else by a cop or a judge, whether they feel any certain way about you or not. If some person in authority over you made decisions affecting your life based upon their feelings, rather than the objective standard of the law, you’d sue them and go to war against them.

And yet, on abortion, you want the issue to turn on your feelings because it is convenient for you.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I do not deny that the child is a human being. In fact, if you read through this entire thread, I have stated repeatedly that abortion is a human, yes HUMAN, rights issue.

The fact that there is no recognition of the fetus as “human”, deserving of human rights, puts the woman first and the fetus last.

Your bathtub analogy is out of proportion and ridiculous. If the fetus is not recognized as a human entity, which it is not, then the weight of care and concern must be given to the woman who made the choice to abort. After all, she is recognized as “human”,deserving of human rights. The fetus is not.

This thread is 15 pages, so naturally I didn’t read through the “entire thread”

And that’s the whole perspective issue isn’t it? To most pro-lifers, my analogy is NOT out of proportion and NOT ridiculous. Because we see that fetus as equally deserving of human rights as you or me. Because we see it that way, the bathtub analogy fits, and as such you should not be so appalled that we’re not willing to let the possibility of “backdoor abortions” stop us from advocating legislation against abortion.

In effect, a “back door abortion” is the same thing as a “back alley infanticide.” Just because they happen doesn’t mean we should make a infanticide legitimate for the sake of the mother who’s doing the killing.

Peace

edit- Watch the charity Howard… just because feelings aren’t the best way of making a decision doesn’t mean you can’t be considerate of other people’s.

 

[Howard_Roark]

edit- Watch the charity Howard… just because feelings aren’t the best way of making a decision doesn’t mean you can’t be considerate of other people’s.

Maybe the rest of you are just soft.

 

[adamsapple]

This thread is 15 pages, so naturally I didn’t read through the “entire thread”

And that’s the whole perspective issue isn’t it? To most pro-lifers, my analogy is NOT out of proportion and NOT ridiculous. Because we see that fetus as equally deserving of human rights as you or me. Because we see it that way, the bathtub analogy fits, and as such you should not be so appalled that we’re not willing to let the possibility of “backdoor abortions” stop us from advocating legislation against abortion.

In effect, a “back door abortion” is the same thing as a “back alley infanticide.” Just because they happen doesn’t mean we should make a infanticide legitimate for the sake of the mother who’s doing the killing.

Peace

When you convince 100 million women that abortion is inherently wrong, then you may have a point. Infanticide is nothing new to this planet. But as long as it’s an acceptable practice for millions, care must be taken for the woman who has made this decision. I go back to my point many posts ago, that changing the hearts and minds of women is much more important than working with politicians.

edit- Watch the charity Howard… just because feelings aren’t the best way of making a decision doesn’t mean you can’t be considerate of other people’s.

 

[adamsapple]

This thread is 15 pages, so naturally I didn’t read through the “entire thread”

And that’s the whole perspective issue isn’t it? To most pro-lifers, my analogy is NOT out of proportion and NOT ridiculous. Because we see that fetus as equally deserving of human rights as you or me. Because we see it that way, the bathtub analogy fits, and as such you should not be so appalled that we’re not willing to let the possibility of “backdoor abortions” stop us from advocating legislation against abortion.

In effect, a “back door abortion” is the same thing as a “back alley infanticide.” Just because they happen doesn’t mean we should make a infanticide legitimate for the sake of the mother who’s doing the killing.

Peace

edit- Watch the charity Howard… just because feelings aren’t the best way of making a decision doesn’t mean you can’t be considerate of other people’s.

Sorry, I misposted.

When you convince 100 million women that abortion is inherently wrong, then you may have a point. Infanticide is nothing new to this planet. But as long as it’s an acceptable practice for millions, care must be taken for the woman who has made this decision. I go back to my point many posts ago, that changing the hearts and minds of women is much more important than working with politicians.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Sorry, I misposted.

When you convince 100 million women that abortion is inherently wrong, then you may have a point. Infanticide is nothing new to this planet. But as long as it’s an acceptable practice for millions, care must be taken for the woman who has made this decision. I go back to my point many posts ago, that changing the hearts and minds of women is much more important than working with politicians.

There are so many arguments against that kind of thinking, it’s ridiculous.

I will sum then up in this statement: whether or not abortion is murder is independent whether people do it.

I’m willing to bet that 3% of Americans are racist. That doesn’t seem unreasonable, 3 out of 100. Does that mean that racist laws should be ok?

Peace

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

edit- Watch the charity Howard… just because feelings aren’t the best way of making a decision doesn’t mean you can’t be considerate of other people’s.

Maybe the rest of you are just soft.

Is there anything untrue in the statement I made? It wouldn’t be hard to say what you said in a way that would be less condescending and demeaning. And heck, your point probably would have been better received. You make good points, but people are unwilling to listen to them when they’re put on the defensive by your tone.

 

[adamsapple]

There are so many arguments against that kind of thinking, it’s ridiculous.

I will sum then up in this statement: whether or not abortion is murder is independent whether people do it.

I’m willing to bet that 3% of Americans are racist. That doesn’t seem unreasonable, 3 out of 100. Does that mean that racist laws should be ok?

Peace

No, because the majority has made their choice with regard to racial laws. That’s why I say again, that changing the hearts and minds of women, i.e. the majority who have abortions, is much more meaningful than changing a law that is unenforceable.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, because the majority has made their choice with regard to racial laws. That’s why I saw again, that changing the hearts and minds of women, i.e. the majority who have abortions, is much more meaningful than changing a law that is unenforceable.

More meaningful, that is certainly true, and I don’t think anyone disagrees… But I would argue that when the law says that abortion is legal that’s a de facto concession that abortion is ok. In a perfect world, the state, parents, and the church would all be teaching in unison that protection of life is a sacred duty, but this is NOT a perfect world, and as such laws must be in place to protect the lives of the innocent unborn. If there was a genocide occurring in America of a given minority group and the “majority” of Americans were going along with it, would it be right to wait until the “hearts and minds” of people are with your cause before you try to prevent it?

 

[RHC]

I would also add that living one’s life out of control is not the will of God. Discipline and self restraint is very much a part of God’s plan, however.
We practiced NFP so that we could provide our children with what we value most which is a Catholic education. We live within our means and make appropriate sacrifices to insure that we can pay for those educations. If disaster happens, then we deal with that disaster when it happens.
But I don’t think God would agree with your free-wheeling attitude towards responsibility and discipline.

So…given that your OP was about abortion…do you value a “Catholic education” above life??? That’s what a reader might infer from your original post and your statements that you “make appropriate sacrifices to insure [you] can pay for those educations.”

I fail to understand how your continued arguments for a Catholic education in any way justifies abortion, which was the original discussion in this forum.

If you’re arguing for responsible parenting…well, it hardly seems like responsible parenting to murder a child in the womb just because you cannot afford to give him/her a Catholic education. Nor is it responsible parenting to use abortion as birth control.

Maybe I’m just not getting your argument’s logic. Could you explain how your great love of a Catholic education in any way relates to the OP?

Maybe it’s just me, but I figured that someone with such a devotion to a Catholic education would see the obvious flaws in the original post’s scenarios. Others have aptly answered how these “problems” would not be problems, so I will not beat the proverbial dead horse.

Two wrongs do not make a right - why kill the innocent party?

 

[Howard_Roark]

*Is there anything untrue in the statement I made? It wouldn’t be hard to say what you said in a way that would be less condescending and demeaning. And heck, your point probably would have been better received. You make good points, but people are unwilling to listen to them when they’re put on the defensive by your tone. *

Shocking, as in “to shock into wakefulness”, not demeaning. I say what I mean in exactly the way I mean to say it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[adamsapple]

More meaningful, that is certainly true, and I don’t think anyone disagrees… But I would argue that when the law says that abortion is legal that’s a de facto concession that abortion is ok. In a perfect world, the state, parents, and the church would all be teaching in unison that protection of life is a sacred duty, but this is NOT a perfect world, and as such laws must be in place to protect the lives of the innocent unborn. If there was a genocide occurring in America of a given minority group and the “majority” of Americans were going along with it, would it be right to wait until the “hearts and minds” of people are with your cause before you try to prevent it?

Once again, the fetus is not recognized as deserving of human rights as we know it. Remember when blacks were considered 3/5ths human? It’s exactly the same problem. If the fetus is not acknowledged as a complete human being, the law will never protect it.
And once again I say, that abortion is a human rights issue. If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, no one would accept it. Why? Because the majority do not accept that the fetus is 100% percent human, deserving of all human rights.
Now how do you change that? I don’t know, but I firmly believe that changing the law will not solve the problem. Nor will it save lives.

 

[adamsapple]

So…given that your OP was about abortion…do you value a “Catholic education” above life??? That’s what a reader might infer from your original post and your statements that you “make appropriate sacrifices to insure [you] can pay for those educations.”

I fail to understand how your continued arguments for a Catholic education in any way justifies abortion, which was the original discussion in this forum.

If you’re arguing for responsible parenting…well, it hardly seems like responsible parenting to murder a child in the womb just because you cannot afford to give him/her a Catholic education. Nor is it responsible parenting to use abortion as birth control.

Maybe I’m just not getting your argument’s logic. Could you explain how your great love of a Catholic education in any way relates to the OP?

Maybe it’s just me, but I figured that someone with such a devotion to a Catholic education would see the obvious flaws in the original post’s scenarios. Others have aptly answered how these “problems” would not be problems, so I will not beat the proverbial dead horse.

Two wrongs do not make a right - why kill the innocent party?

Congratulations. You are the 13th poster who said I endorse abortion. Once again, please read the thread and understand the content. Thank you.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

*Is there anything untrue in the statement I made? It wouldn’t be hard to say what you said in a way that would be less condescending and demeaning. And heck, your point probably would have been better received. You make good points, but people are unwilling to listen to them when they’re put on the defensive by your tone. *

Shocking, as in “to shock into wakefulness”, not demeaning. I say what I mean in exactly the way I mean to say it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was telling marietta about what my Gy Sgt talked to me about once: “the time and the place.”

“Shocking into wakefulness” is a great tool for a DI to use in boot camp, but NOT an effective way to talk to a post-abortive mother about abortion.

There’s a time and a place for your style of “saying” things. There’s also a time and a place for a more gentle approach. Consider the context of your conversation next time, and you may be pleased with the results

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Closed pending Moderator Review.

---