Ripple effect of Abortion on society

[beckycmarie]

Where does this “firm supporter” equate “choice” with abortion? Is it not possible to choose to have the baby?

capt

The issue here is that the pro-abortion lobby has made the murder of babies sound appealing, like a basic American freedom by calling themselves “pro-choice” instead of “pro-abortion.”

Spirit Daily’s Michael Brown recently commented on the importance of naming evil for what is is, rather than using convenient doublespeak such as “choice” instead of “abortion.”

Look at the abortion crisis. They try to cover up what it really involves. They won’t name it. That would expose the evil. Instead of a human, they call what they want to destroy “tissue.” It is the product of insemination. When a woman wants a child, it’s a “baby.” When she doesn’t, it’s a “fetus.” Deception is the devil’s energy.

Those who are in favor of terminating the unborn made decisive headway when they changed the debate from “abortion” to “choice.” They made evil sound good. Choice implies freedom. It sounds American. It implies a “liberty.” Unfortunately, it is the right to commit what is extremely wrong.

Source:
SpiritDaily

Brown’s words echo those of Pope John Paul II:

Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard, the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: **“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” **(Is 5:20).

-Evangelium Vitae “The Gospel of Life”, n. 58

 

[JimG]

Both abortion and contraception are leading to a demographic winter, the ripple effect of which is human extinction.

 

[buffalo]

Pro-choice - the right a woman wants to choose to murder her unborn human baby who is denied any choice and is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Calliso]

Both abortion and contraception are leading to a demographic winter, the ripple effect of which is human extinction.

You know while I understand some of the ripple effects of abortion and contraception though I am still prochoice in both cases I would say that saying they will cause our extinction is a bit much. It takes a lot more then that to wipe out a population of several billion.

 

[JimG]

You know while I understand some of the ripple effects of abortion and contraception though I am still prochoice in both cases I would say that saying they will cause our extinction is a bit much. It takes a lot more then that to wipe out a population of several billion.

Well, watch the trailer, and get more information. Most of Europe is in the throes of population decline or a decline in fertility levels. Once fertility falls below replacement levels, it is not so easy to reverse. Russia is giving bonuses for families to have more children, without much success.

 

[st_lucy]

Well, watch the trailer, and get more information. Most of Europe is in the throes of population decline or a decline in fertility levels. Once fertility falls below replacement levels, it is not so easy to reverse. Russia is giving bonuses for families to have more children, without much success.

this is also true of Germany. Women are given bonus for children they have. It is amazing how much of a population decline Europe is in.

 

[JimG]

Here’s another quote with a link:

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.”

Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes.
mercatornet.com/articles/demographic_winter/

 

[captbackfire]

I think you mean “I am pro-choice to kill unborn children”.

You deliberately selectively read my post(s) and decline to understand. With this polarization as it is, there will never be a solution to the “problem” of abortion on demand in this country.

What does the word “choice” mean to you, vera dicere? “Choice” as it is, freely spoken, without the connection to the procedure of abortion?

capt

 

[06convert]

Choice is a freedom - a liberty. Freedom to use our free will to make our own decisions.

Every person is guaranteed the fundamental freedoms to achieve the goals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Among them being, freedom of speech, press, religion, petition and assembly.

Laws are setforth so that my freedom can’t interfere with your freedom. I can’t step on the freedom of anyone else, I’m limited by law to keep me from doing that.

Now, I have the freedom to break that law, nothing is preventing me from doing that, although the consequences are intended to defer those actions.

In that spirit. Killing someone is interfering with their right to life, therefore is illegal.

In order to kill and not suffer the consequences of the law, we are given license. “A license to kill” if you will.

Women, have been given a “license” to choose abortion, (to kill without consequence) not a freedom.

The ability to choose abortion at will without consequence of law is a mockery of freedom that the foundation of this country rest upon. An interference of a childs right to live. The ability of a woman to take a life growing inside them and have it torn from their body for their own personal gain. The safest place in the world for a child should be his/her mothers womb.

It’s illegal to destroy bald eagle eggs. How terribly distorted are we as a human race?

 

[Calliso]

Well, watch the trailer, and get more information. Most of Europe is in the throes of population decline or a decline in fertility levels. Once fertility falls below replacement levels, it is not so easy to reverse. Russia is giving bonuses for families to have more children, without much success.

Ok I watched that and read the link in the next post. And yes I do think it makes good points Europe is in trouble. I guess what I was saying before is it;s one thing to say such and such country or countries may collaspe due to demographic winter. It;s another to say the entire human population will go extinct. But yeah hopefully Europe can reverse their situation.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

About 8 months ago I caught the tail end of a monologue on EWTN Radio. I do not know the name of the female host of the program but she was speaking on a report which outlined what society has lost do to abortion. For example, (I’m making up the numbers here because I do not remember what they were…

Since abortion has become legal and with the abortion rate being 1.3 million abortions annually since that time, we have:
9000 less doctors to treat us when we become ill
3000 less priests within the Church
etc…
etc…
etc…

The host of the show was reading this information from a source that is unknown to me (because I didn’t catch the first part of the monologue). I was HOPING that perhaps someone here might know where I can find these numbers. I have scoured the internet and the only things I have found are the effects of Abortion on the mother, father, economy, etc. etc. Nothing however, that depicts the human resources lost due to abortion specifically. When over a million babies are killed a year, there has got to be a breakdown somewhere of what those millions upon millions of actual people would have contributed to society had they been allowed to be born based on the same number of babies who were in fact born. Anybody?

There is an hour-long program on the website thecostofabortion.com/ and near the end I believe the host says how many doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, etc. are not currently in the workforce because they were aborted 18+ years ago. I’m sure the statistics are listed somewhere on that website but I’m having trouble finding it. I hope this helps you.

 

[fix]

You obviously do not think that “killing our children is a choice,” so I would think it would be prudent for you not to align yourself personally with those who advocate abortion rights. I believe that deciding what to do when facing an unexpected or unplanned pregnancy should be the decision of the woman, the man involved (if he is, indeed, still involved), and the God whom these individuals worship. If they do not worship, then the choice should be made between the two of them and any other individuals they choose to consult. They may choose* not* to pursue abortion.

I’m always amazed that so many people equate “choice” with “murder”. If someone in a restaurant asks you, “would you prefer butter or sour cream?”, the fact that you choose butter does not make you a murderer. Infusing the word “choice” with the singular connotation of “murder” is a rhetorical hijack and obscures the efforts some people put forth to try to make changes in society with regard to the abortion issue. This is only one of many explanations for the polarization on the subject and why little progress has been made by pro-life advocates in the last 35 years.

Yes, some women choose abortion, but not all do. I simply feel that they should have the opportunity to consider all their options, abortion included, and then take action which is most appropriate for them, their God, their families.

You keep throwing “murder” out there and you will be galvanizing your opponents, not shaming or threatening them, and certainly not weakening them.

capt

Should there be other legal choices like the choice to rob banks?

 

[captbackfire]

There is an hour-long program on the website thecostofabortion.com/ and near the end I believe the host says how many doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, etc. are not currently in the workforce because they were aborted 18+ years ago. I’m sure the statistics are listed somewhere on that website but I’m having trouble finding it. I hope this helps you.

If they were aborted 18+ years ago, unless they would have been geniuses or child prodigies they would still not yet be in the workforce today. You have a little wiggle room for the “+”, but this sort of claim sounds like drama and rhetoric to me.

capt

 

[mark_a]

About 8 months ago I caught the tail end of a monologue on EWTN Radio. I do not know the name of the female host of the program but she was speaking on a report which outlined what society has lost do to abortion. For example, (I’m making up the numbers here because I do not remember what they were…

Since abortion has become legal and with the abortion rate being 1.3 million abortions annually since that time, we have:
9000 less doctors to treat us when we become ill
3000 less priests within the Church
etc…
etc…
etc…

The host of the show was reading this information from a source that is unknown to me (because I didn’t catch the first part of the monologue). I was HOPING that perhaps someone here might know where I can find these numbers. I have scoured the internet and the only things I have found are the effects of Abortion on the mother, father, economy, etc. etc. Nothing however, that depicts the human resources lost due to abortion specifically. When over a million babies are killed a year, there has got to be a breakdown somewhere of what those millions upon millions of actual people would have contributed to society had they been allowed to be born based on the same number of babies who were in fact born. Anybody?

The odd thing is though, abortion is a ripple effect of the contraception mentality.

 

[flatlanderjenn]

If they were aborted 18+ years ago, unless they would have been geniuses or child prodigies they would still not yet be in the workforce today. You have a little wiggle room for the “+”, but this sort of claim sounds like drama and rhetoric to me.

capt

Does 18-36 years ago sound better? They would be 18-36 years old. If you want to allow 9 months in the womb, then maybe 17 - 35 years old. Am I figuring this out wrong?

I was born 29 years ago. I’m in the workforce. My husband was born 33 years ago. He’s in the workforce. We’ve both been working since we were 16 years old, as most people. But we wouldn’t have been in the workforce at age 16 if we were killed by abortion, thus 2 less people attributing to the ecomony (buying cars/using credit cards/taking out loans/buying houses/paying for college, etc).

After a 4 year college degree, people are able to enter the professional workforce at 22 years old. Of course Masters degrees take longer, but many are employed while in college.

I don’t understand your statement. Please explain.

 

[Tietjen]

There is an hour-long program on the website thecostofabortion.com/ and near the end I believe the host says how many doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, etc. are not currently in the workforce because they were aborted 18+ years ago. I’m sure the statistics are listed somewhere on that website but I’m having trouble finding it. I hope this helps you.

Thank you flatlander. I’ll go and check it out now.

 

[captbackfire]

A prominent pro-abortion feminist has admitted just that:

Prominent Feminist Admits “Abortion is Murder” but "I Am a Firm Supporter"

Prominent Feminist Admits “Abortion is Murder” but “I Am a Firm Supporter” Prominent Feminist does not concede that CHOICE is murder.

capt

 

[st_lucy]

Prominent Feminist Admits “Abortion is Murder” but “I Am a Firm Supporter” Prominent Feminist does not concede that CHOICE is murder.

capt

I am sure that the child whose mother is making the choice of abortion would must certainly call it murder.

There are two people involved not one. Only one of them is being forced to die. Which means the choice is murder.

 

[captbackfire]

I am sure that the child whose mother is making the choice of abortion would must certainly call it murder.

There are two people involved not one. Only one of them is being forced to die. Which means the choice is murder.

A “child whose mother is making the choice of abortion” would not be a child at all. It would be a fetus, incapable of forming a thought, much less verbalizing the belief that his mother is guilty of murder.

You just don’t get it. To have permission to weigh options, consult with loved ones, pray, meet with one’s spiritual adviser (priest, reverend, rabbi), and come to a decision with regard to one’s pregnancy is the essence of choice. You always, always jump from unwanted conception to vacuum aspirator, as if that were somehow the definition of “choice”. Somewhere in that grey area *many women choose not to have an abortion. * They don’t make the appointment, they don’t walk up the stairs to the clinic, they *don’*t sit forever in the waiting room, they don’t sign legal documents, they don’t get counseled, they don’t have an IV placement, they don’t lie down on the table, they don’t strap on a nitrous mask, they don’t put on headphones and listen to nature sounds. They decide not to because they have a choice. And in between every step named above, there have been women all over this country who have stepped away from the procedure for one reason or another.

Choice is *not *aspiration. Choice is not the pill method. Choice is the opportunity to contemplate the past, the present and the future, and to decide for oneself the best action to take, and to do so without censure from other human beings who have absolutely no authority to judge.

I’m not saying, “Don’t be angry.” Be angry. But I am saying, with all due respect mind you, that God can handle the judgment of those involved in abortion. He is the only capable being who can.

capt

 

[vera_dicere]

A “child whose mother is making the choice of abortion” would not be a child at all. It would be a fetus, incapable of forming a thought, much less verbalizing the belief that his mother is guilty of murder.

Actually a foetus is a child as a child is defined by anyone under the of 12, including those during gestation. Its not a baby, though, as “baby” is a stage of development, like toddler and adolescent. So the human uterine entity is a child but not a baby.

As for the ability to form thought, well, how many 2 month old born babies can form thought? There are even some adults who are incapable. By the logic of allowing death because of lack of thought ability, we should be slaughtering a lot more then human uterine entities.

Choice is *not *aspiration. Choice is not the pill method. Choice is the opportunity to contemplate the past, the present and the future, and to decide for oneself the best action to take, and to do so without censure from other human beings who have absolutely no authority to judge.

Absolutely. Choice is the action of “choosing”, of weighing options and deciding for oneself what they want to “choose”. Just like someone weighs up the options of slitting the throat of their neighbour who poured weedkiller on their boundry which seeped under the fence and killed your award winning rosegarden.

Whatever burns the wick of other PLers, mine is that the woman and affliates choose an action which kills a child.

Of course the terminology “Pro-Choice” hasn’t come to meant “choosing something” but choosing abortion. When you say you’re “Pro-Choice” everyone and their smelly dog knows you are saying “I support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion”. Whether you want to mince words and rant and rail about the action of choice or what you have chosen doesn’t matter. Pro-Choice means the support of choosing abortion.