Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[royal_archer]

I mean teaching abstinence in schools, to our children.

Children raised in an environment where chastity is valued are less likely to get pregnant than those raised in an environment where promiscuity is taught. Do you have any studies where teaching children to be promiscuous reduces pregnancy?

I don’t think you’re being fair when you say if a person can’t support a child and has sex anyway it is irresponsible. A lot of people (mostly who are not Catholic) have been told by Planned Parenthood, etc. that birth control is almost completely fail proof. Since they believe that sex can be used for pleasure apart from reproduction, they have it, using birth control. Women who are not in a position to welcome a child (economic circumstances, etc.) see this as as having responsible sex, because they are not risking becoming pregnant because they’re on birth control (they believe).
Though this is wrong and unnatural, many people do not see it as such, mostly because of the untruths that the media and reproductive rights groups spread around. So even though these women are deceived into thinking something isn’t wrong, they are trying their best to be responsible (most of them.)

Listening to planned parrent hood is failure of judgement in itself. Now given that there are people who have been mislead, do we pretend reality is what they believe or do we help them to learn the truth?

 

[Swan]

Has any pro-choice advocate watched the film silent scream?

It is easily accessile on the internet and is free.

This video explains and shows through ultra sound a fully formed first triamester baby in the womb.

This video then tells of the development of the first triamester baby Approx. 12 weeks.

This video will explain how the abortionist will gain entry into the cervix.

This video will then show an abortion taking place on this 12 week baby from the abortionist view and his gaining access to the cervix along with the tools used and compleing the abortion and then the actual babies view of being destroyed.

This video of this actual abortion surpasses any horror movie one has ever seen. How one can possibly be pro-choice after this video?

I just cannot imagine that mankind coud be so cruel and un-moving.

I just cannot imagine a medical doctor promising to do not harm could complete such a procedure.

If you are pro-choicer in any fashion than I implore you to watch this film and make a sound, educated, and humane decision on weither this is what you want to be aligned with.

“Silent Scream” has been debunked several times, beginning soon after its release. The film is delibarately misleading. Here is a linke to a Time magazine story from that period:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964142-1,00.html An excerpt:

Yet among many doctors–especially Nathanson’s fellow obstetricians–the film has provoked an outcry. “The problem is that it is factually misleading and unfair,” says Dr. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York City’s Mount Sinai Medical Center. Special effects may further the deception, according to Dr. John Hobbins of Yale School of Medicine. Early shots of the fetus seem to be run at a slow speed, but when the abortion instruments are introduced, the film is speeded up, creating the illusion that the fetus is thrashing about in alarm. Actually, says Hobbins, “the fetus appears to be acting in a perfectly normal fashion. It’s just technical flimflam.” Also misleading is the size of the ultrasound image and the doll- like model used in some scenes to represent the fetus. It gives the impression that the twelve-week-old fetus is as big as a full-term baby, when in fact it is less than 2 in. long.agazine/article/0,9171,964142-2,00.html

Other facts pointed out in the story include:

• experts in fetal development argue that at twelve weeks a fetus cannot move “purposefully,” as the film indicates,
• because the cerebral cortex, which coordinates perception and thought, is not yet developed, it also cannot feel danger and, since it can’t move purposfully, wasn’t “moving away from the surgical instruments” as suggested in the film,
• neurobiologist suggest that the “scream” was simply a stimulus response or even a yawn as the fetus’ mouth is open much of the time at this stage of development
• indeed, the gaping mouth in the blurry film may not have been a mouth at all, but the space between the fetal chin and chest.

IMO, this is just sloppy work and incredibly discrediting. It does more harm than good to the pro-life cause, again IMO.

 

[MarysGirls]

“Silent Scream” has been debunked several times, beginning soon after its release. The film is delibarately misleading. Here is a linke to a Time magazine story from that period:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964142-1,00.html An excerpt:

Yet among many doctors–especially Nathanson’s fellow obstetricians–the film has provoked an outcry. “The problem is that it is factually misleading and unfair,” says Dr. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York City’s Mount Sinai Medical Center. Special effects may further the deception, according to Dr. John Hobbins of Yale School of Medicine. Early shots of the fetus seem to be run at a slow speed, but when the abortion instruments are introduced, the film is speeded up, creating the illusion that the fetus is thrashing about in alarm. Actually, says Hobbins, “the fetus appears to be acting in a perfectly normal fashion. It’s just technical flimflam.” Also misleading is the size of the ultrasound image and the doll- like model used in some scenes to represent the fetus. It gives the impression that the twelve-week-old fetus is as big as a full-term baby, when in fact it is less than 2 in. long.agazine/article/0,9171,964142-2,00.html

Other facts pointed out in the story include:

• experts in fetal development argue that at twelve weeks a fetus cannot move “purposefully,” as the film indicates,
• because the cerebral cortex, which coordinates perception and thought, is not yet developed, it also cannot feel danger and, since it can’t move purposfully, wasn’t “moving away from the surgical instruments” as suggested in the film,
• neurobiologist suggest that the “scream” was simply a stimulus response or even a yawn as the fetus’ mouth is open much of the time at this stage of development
• indeed, the gaping mouth in the blurry film may not have been a mouth at all, but the space between the fetal chin and chest.

IMO, this is just sloppy work and incredibly discrediting. It does more harm than good to the pro-life cause, again IMO.

I have never seen the “Silent Scream” and I only know what I’ve heard, so please don’t take this the wrong way.
I heard that the “Silent Scream” was actually discovered by an abortionist who, after seeing it, became pro-life and began getting it to the public. If this is true, then the “debunking” is false because, why would the abortionist become pro-life after seeing something that he knew was fake?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws – NARAL – later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York’s City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world. In the late 1970’s he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate, authoring *Abortion America *and producing the powerfully revealing video, “The Silent Scream.” Dr. Nathanson is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at New York Medical College and a visiting scholar at Vanderbilt University.

It appears that one can access the film via The Silent SCREAM but I didn’t have tine to check it out.

 

[ceciliatherese]

Children raised in an environment where chastity is valued are less likely to get pregnant than those raised in an environment where promiscuity is taught. Do you have any studies where teaching children to be promiscuous reduces pregnancy?

I mean actual statistics. And here are some sex ed statistics: openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

Listening to planned parrent hood is failure of judgement in itself. Now given that there are people who have been mislead, do we pretend reality is what they believe or do we help them to learn the truth?

If I had not been taught exactly what was wrong with planned parenthood, I’d have listened to it too, as it seems, on the outside, to be more much more compassionate to pregnant women than many of the pro-life people I see here and elsewhere on the internet. Yes, if people have been mislead we teach them the truth. But teaching them the truth isn’t going to come from making rash judgmental declarations that everybody having sex while using birth control and condoms are irresponsible.

 

[elts1956]

Being that I desire to stop abortions, I also feel that abortions are the final result of abuses and addictions. Keeping this in mind, we must treat the toxin that creates these situations if we are to have any hope of ending abortions. Death comes from disease. We must treat the disease. Intolerance and mudslinging against women who are in the last stages of the disease of abortion is taking a backwards approach. We must reach the girls and women who are in the grips of addiction and abuses of both mind and body.
Yes, there are abortions for the simple reason of not complicating an otherwise good life, but the vast majority of abortions are performed on very sick people who have been molested and who have succumbed to both addiction and violence. They do not have the benifit of a safe home, a warm bed, a congregation of fellowship and comraderie which we enjoy. Armchair warriors everywhere, no true compassion, only a one-sided cause which does not accomodate the true state of affairs. Are we ignoring the mothers here? Are we the ones who are justifying rape and incest by targeting only the women? Do the men involed have any sin here, or just the victoms of lust and treachery?
Are we going to enter into the prisons where (some of) the rapists and child molesters reside and accuse them of creating children who are unwanted and without any means of support? Are we aware that unwanted children become future rapists and addicted criminals? NO, not all of them but a good amount do not escape their envirnment. If we are going to be advocates for these children than we must also advocate for the women who are suffering at the hands of men who are completely removed from this battle. Lets include them in our strategy, before the battle can be won we must eliminate the cause and create a place where rapists, child molesters, abusive men and dealers of addiction tremble with fear, not their victoms.

We must fight the evil of abortion on all fronts. Your post, however, leaves me thinking you believe this is not being done. Or perhaps, like myself, sometimes the problems we face with the culture of death in which we live overwhelms you?

The greater majority of the posts on CAF on any of the threads regarding abortion give the woman having the abortion empathy and support. I, myself, have seen only one such post which attacked the mother and it angered me. Unfortunately, I didn’t realize quickly enough how to report this person to the administrator before the thread was closed.

We can always do more, but until our government fully supports the Pro Life culture, I am afraid we have an uphill battle.

 

[elts1956]

Being that I desire to stop abortions, I also feel that abortions are the final result of abuses and addictions. Keeping this in mind, we must treat the toxin that creates these situations if we are to have any hope of ending abortions. Death comes from disease. We must treat the disease. Intolerance and mudslinging against women who are in the last stages of the disease of abortion is taking a backwards approach. We must reach the girls and women who are in the grips of addiction and abuses of both mind and body.
Yes, there are abortions for the simple reason of not complicating an otherwise good life, but the vast majority of abortions are performed on very sick people who have been molested and who have succumbed to both addiction and violence. They do not have the benifit of a safe home, a warm bed, a congregation of fellowship and comraderie which we enjoy. Armchair warriors everywhere, no true compassion, only a one-sided cause which does not accomodate the true state of affairs. Are we ignoring the mothers here? Are we the ones who are justifying rape and incest by targeting only the women? Do the men involed have any sin here, or just the victoms of lust and treachery?
Are we going to enter into the prisons where (some of) the rapists and child molesters reside and accuse them of creating children who are unwanted and without any means of support? Are we aware that unwanted children become future rapists and addicted criminals? NO, not all of them but a good amount do not escape their envirnment. If we are going to be advocates for these children than we must also advocate for the women who are suffering at the hands of men who are completely removed from this battle. Lets include them in our strategy, before the battle can be won we must eliminate the cause and create a place where rapists, child molesters, abusive men and dealers of addiction tremble with fear, not their victoms.

I have never seen the “Silent Scream” and I only know what I’ve heard, so please don’t take this the wrong way.
I heard that the “Silent Scream” was actually discovered by an abortionist who, after seeing it, became pro-life and began getting it to the public. If this is true, then the “debunking” is false because, why would the abortionist become pro-life after seeing something that he knew was fake?

I have also heard that the Dr. performing the abortion became strongly pro life after viewing the sonogram.

 

[elts1956]

“Silent Scream” has been debunked several times, beginning soon after its release. The film is delibarately misleading. Here is a linke to a Time magazine story from that period:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964142-1,00.html An excerpt:

Yet among many doctors–especially Nathanson’s fellow obstetricians–the film has provoked an outcry. “The problem is that it is factually misleading and unfair,” says Dr. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York City’s Mount Sinai Medical Center. Special effects may further the deception, according to Dr. John Hobbins of Yale School of Medicine. Early shots of the fetus seem to be run at a slow speed, but when the abortion instruments are introduced, the film is speeded up, creating the illusion that the fetus is thrashing about in alarm. Actually, says Hobbins, “the fetus appears to be acting in a perfectly normal fashion. It’s just technical flimflam.” Also misleading is the size of the ultrasound image and the doll- like model used in some scenes to represent the fetus. It gives the impression that the twelve-week-old fetus is as big as a full-term baby, when in fact it is less than 2 in. long.agazine/article/0,9171,964142-2,00.html

Other facts pointed out in the story include:

• experts in fetal development argue that at twelve weeks a fetus cannot move “purposefully,” as the film indicates,
• because the cerebral cortex, which coordinates perception and thought, is not yet developed, it also cannot feel danger and, since it can’t move purposfully, wasn’t “moving away from the surgical instruments” as suggested in the film,
• neurobiologist suggest that the “scream” was simply a stimulus response or even a yawn as the fetus’ mouth is open much of the time at this stage of development
• indeed, the gaping mouth in the blurry film may not have been a mouth at all, but the space between the fetal chin and chest.

IMO, this is just sloppy work and incredibly discrediting. It does more harm than good to the pro-life cause, again IMO.

My one question would be, “Why do you believe anything Time magazine writes”? They are exceedingly liberal in their uptake on articles printed.

 

[royal_archer]

I mean actual statistics. And here are some sex ed statistics: openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/.

That is a politicaly motivated web site.
They are only talking about abstinance only. I conjecture that these clases did not talk about the failure rates and other associated problems with the artificial BC.
They are talking about an education program given to students in an environment which promotes promiscuity.

Having someone come in and give a lecture about waiting for marriage is not the same as building chastity back into a society. We need to have a 360 environment that reinforces the behavior we want to see.

Teaching abstinance is a critical part of the equation but can not be relied on as a stan alone.

IIf I had not been taught exactly what was wrong with planned parenthood, I’d have listened to it too, as it seems, on the outside, to be more much more compassionate to pregnant women than many of the pro-life people I see here and elsewhere on the internet. Yes, if people have been mislead we teach them the truth. But teaching them the truth isn’t going to come from making rash judgmental declarations that everybody having sex while using birth control and condoms are irresponsible.

It is right to make judgement on bad decisions. This is not making judgement on individuals. More people die every year from sexual activity outside of marriage than those killed parrachuting or by sharks. But do we consider people to be judgemental when we speak of the dangers associated with those other recreational activities?

 

[ceciliatherese]

That is a politicaly motivated web site.
They are only talking about abstinance only. I conjecture that these clases did not talk about the failure rates and other associated problems with the artificial BC.
They are talking about an education program given to students in an environment which promotes promiscuity.

Having someone come in and give a lecture about waiting for marriage is not the same as building chastity back into a society. We need to have a 360 environment that reinforces the behavior we want to see.

Teaching abstinance is a critical part of the equation but can not be relied on as a stan alone.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a politically motivated site, it still shows the statistics of abstinence-only education.

Yes, having someone give a lecture on marriage is not the same as building chastity into society. But that’s going to take a long, long time. And in the meantime, this is how we’re teaching our kids. And it’s not working.

It is right to make judgement on bad decisions. This is not making judgement on individuals. More people die every year from sexual activity outside of marriage than those killed parrachuting or by sharks. But do we consider people to be judgemental when we speak of the dangers associated with those other recreational activities?

Are you talking about AIDS?

 

[royal_archer]

It doesn’t matter if it’s a politically motivated site, it still shows the statistics of abstinence-only education.

Yes, having someone give a lecture on marriage is not the same as building chastity into society. But that’s going to take a long, long time. And in the meantime, this is how we’re teaching our kids. And it’s not working.

So, do you think that teaching promiscuity will reduce the number of single people engaging in sex?

Are you talking about AIDS?

Aids, other STDs, abortions, contraceptive induced deaths, etc.

 

[ceciliatherese]

So, do you think that teaching promiscuity will reduce the number of single people engaging in sex?

sex-ed seems to be working much better than abstinence-only. I also think it would be very important for parents to talk to their kids about sex and the importance of it. I think that would go a long way.

Aids, other STDs, abortions, contraceptive induced deaths, etc.

There is a very large amount of people working to prevent and educate people about AIDS right now, along with STDs. And though it’s true that women have died from various contraceptives, I don’t think it’s accurate to say more are killed by it each year than those killed by parachutes or by sharks. Also, abortion isn’t only caused by sex outside of marriage. A lot of mothers who have abortions are already married, though it would certainly help a great deal if the amount of teen pregnancies went down.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes, there are abortions for the simple reason of not complicating an otherwise good life, but the vast majority of abortions are performed on very sick people who have been molested and who have succumbed to both addiction and violence. They do not have the benifit of a safe home, a warm bed, a congregation of fellowship and comraderie which we enjoy. Armchair warriors everywhere, no true compassion, only a one-sided cause which does not accomodate the true state of affairs. Are we ignoring the mothers here? Are we the ones who are justifying rape and incest by targeting only the women? Do the men involed have any sin here, or just the victoms of lust and treachery?
.

You might be intersted in Planned Parenthood/Guttmacher’s own survey and see why women who go to Planned Parnethood have abortions. The stats are the opposite of what you have been led to believe!

12% stated the reason was a problem with their health (this includes that they do not like morning sickness), 1% were victims of rape.

Let’s begin by stopping the 99% that are not because of rape, agreed?

guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

*“Reasons in 2004. *Among the structured survey respondents,
the two most common reasons were “having a baby
would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby
now” (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2).”

 

[royal_archer]

sex-ed seems to be working much better than abstinence-only. I also think it would be very important for parents to talk to their kids about sex and the importance of it. I think that would go a long way…

Seems to be? By the way there are no true abstinance only programs out there when kids are being bombarded with commercials pushing contraceptives and a culture that promotes promescuity.

Children having sex is wrong. Telling kids it is ok to have sex as long as they take a pill or wear a device is no better than telling kids it is wrong to do drugs and then spending lots of time telling them how to do drugs “safer”.

We should be making abstinance outside of marriage a basis of all classes dealing with resproduction.

There is a very large amount of people working to prevent and educate people about AIDS right now, along with STDs. And though it’s true that women have died from various contraceptives, I don’t think it’s accurate to say more are killed by it each year than those killed by parachutes or by sharks. Also, abortion isn’t only caused by sex outside of marriage. A lot of mothers who have abortions are already married, though it would certainly help a great deal if the amount of teen pregnancies went down.

There are also the women being killed in abortions, not to mention the millions of children. Bottom line is that sex is being used as a recreational activity. This activity has real risk of resulting in pregnancy or death. Those who take risks and are not willing to live with the results of those risks are engaging in irresponsible activity. It is right to point out when people act in an irresponsible manner.

Abortion within marriage is essentially the same as abortion outside of marriage. If a married couple is not able to take care of another child they should abstain or be willing to do right by the child.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I’m fairly certain that nobody is denying that the fetus is living, only that it’s not equivalent to a human life.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m fairly certain that nobody is denying that the fetus is living, only that it’s not equivalent to a human life.

So what species do you propose it is?

 

[Shredderbeam]

So what species do you propose it is?

It’s biologically human, but I meant that it wasn’t morally equivalent to a human life.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s biologically human, but I meant that it wasn’t morally equivalent to a human life.

Why not?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Why not?

I don’t think it has the qualities that are normally associated with a full-grown human adult - it cannot fully feel pain, it does not have a conscious presence, it cannot express hopes, wishes, and dreams, and so on.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t think it has the qualities that are normally associated with a full-grown human adult - it cannot fully feel pain, it does not have a conscious presence, it cannot express hopes, wishes, and dreams, and so on.

No Conscious presensce? So is it OK in your mind to kill someone who is stoned on drugs, passed out, or in a comma, As far as hopes wishes, and dreams Do you feel it is OK to kill the down trodden who live from welfare check to welfare check? Do you feel it is OK to kill anone under the age of 21 as they are not a full grown adult?

By the way, babies do have a concious presence and can feel pain.