She said "men don't have any right to talk about abortion!"

[john_ennis]

Bella3502:

In order for any of the above to work, wouldn’t you have to bring back slavery? This premise will work if he owns her outright.

Here’s a bit of a tangent, but I was musing: can’t you just figure that there were probably lots of “pro-choicers” regarding the issue of abolishing slavery?
You know–“I’m personally against slavery, but…hey, who am I to impose my morality on anybody else?”

But, slaves are people too!

“Hey, that may be what you and I think, but that’s not the way others see it, and who are we…?”

But, it just seems so wrong…

“And if you’re against it don’t do it! Just don’t expect others to go by your morality. You’ve never been a slave owner, have you? You don’t know what they’d have to go through if they lost their slaves. So you really can’t speak for them, you know?”

Peace.
John

 

[estesbob]

john ennis:

Here’s a bit of a tangent, but I was musing: can’t you just figure that there were probably lots of “pro-choicers” regarding the issue of abolishing slavery?
You know–“I’m personally against slavery, but…hey, who am I to impose my morality on anybody else?”

John

In 1836 a congressman from South Carolina stated that if you didnt approve of slavery dont buy a slave! The more things change the more things stay the same.

They are lots of other similarities also. Another congressman put forth the proposition that only slave owners should be able to dicuss slavery since they were the only ones affected. And Henry Clay led a movement to ban discussion of slavery by the congress all together-saying it was Consitutionally protected and therefore no dicussion was warranted.

The book “Arguing About Slavery” is a good source.

 

[AmyS]

Bella3502:

If “most” people agree with you then where have they been for the last 30+ years? Why haven’t the laws been changed?

Making abortion illegal is not now and never will be the answer. That’s a fact you reject.

First thing, there where laws in place in states that made abortion illegal years ago… and, many of those states would still have it illegal now. It was a federal decison, what ever laws we pass wouldn’t matter.

I am going to play on this thought a bit. In a perfect world, abortion wouldn’t even be necessary, legal or not. People would see it as what it is… not as the pacified procedure some group, organizations, ect try to pass it off as. People would see it as the ending of a human life.

 

[mlchance]

AmyS:

In a perfect world, abortion wouldn’t even be necessary, legal or not.

Even in a fallen world, abortion is never necessary.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AmyS]

mlchance:

Even in a fallen world, abortion is never necessary.

– Mark L. Chance.

You know what I mean… In any world.

 

[mlchance]

AmyS:

You know what I mean… In any world.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bella3502]

mlchance:
Prior to Roe v. Wade, there were about 250 illegal abortions performed annually in the U.S. Post-Roe there are about 3000 abortions performed daily. So, then, exactly how has making abortion legal solved anything? And, since it is a “fact” that making abortion illegal isn’t “the answer,” why don’t you prove this “fact”?

– Mark L. Chance.

250?? annually… that’s awfully low. But I suppose it depends on what statistics one chooses to believe.

 

[AmyS]

Bella3502:

If “most” people agree with you then where have they been for the last 30+ years? Why haven’t the laws been changed?

One more thing with this comment. Do you realize at the time when abortion became legal the majority of Americans didn’t want it that way. The majority wanted it illegal.

 

[mlchance]

Bella3502:

250?? annually… that’s awfully low. But I suppose it depends on what statistics one chooses to believe.

Mea culpa. I misspoke. The 250 annual is the number of women dying from illegal abortions annually. The actual number of illegal abortions performed annually was about 100,000. I’ll stick with these numbers instead of my original error since I choose to believe the statistics that are true. Which ones do you choose to believe? The false ones manufactured by NARAL in the late 1960s-early 1970s?

Between During 1981 and 1984, there were 30 deaths related to legal abortion in New York City alone (which, of course, doesn’t include the abortion-related deaths of the unborn involved). These deaths accounted for 17% of abortion deaths nationwide during the same period. That’s 176 deaths in total, or a rate of 44 per year.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that abortion-related deaths are consistently underreported because medical personnel lie about causes of death in their reports. Thus, the annual death rate may very well be just as high if not higher than pre-Roe.

Consider the case a 16-year-old girl, who underwent an abortion without her parents knowledge or consent, died from severe internal hemorrhage and an air embolism, the result of her abortionist’s carelessness in causing a “laceration [that] extended into the vagina, cervix and the [uterus].” Although the medical examiner stated on the front page of the autopsy report that the injury occurred as a result of a “therapeutic misadventure,” and termed the death an “accident,” he did note, on the next-to-the-last line of the last page, that the injury occurred during an “evacuation procedure which resulted in perforation of the uterus.”

Back on the front page, however, the death was incorrectly coded under the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, the system used throughout the world to accurately record the cause of deaths. Instead of using the specific codes pertaining to abortion injuries 635.1: a legally induced abortion complicated by excessive hemorrhage, and 635.2: complicated by damage to pelvic organs, and 635.6: complicated by embolism, the medical examiner hid the truth of what really had occurred by utilizing codes N867 and E870.

And, of course, all this is irrelevant. Legal abortion could be completely safe for women, and it would still be grossly immoral. Abortion kills an unborn child. Killing unborn child ought to be illegal.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to prove that making abortion illegal isn’t the answer. After all, you did say that was a fact.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

mlchance:

Mea culpa. I misspoke. The 250 annual is the number of women dying from illegal abortions annually. The actual number of illegal abortions performed annually was about 100,000. I’ll stick with these numbers instead of my original error since I choose to believe the statistics that are true. Which ones do you choose to believe? The false ones manufactured by NARAL in the late 1960s-early 1970s?

.

I believe the year before Roe V Wade became law the Center for Disease Control estimated 400 deaths from abortion. I beleive 250 is the accepted average number of deaths in the years propr to Roe. Of course the real nymbers are 800 and 500 since a child died in each of these abortion deaths.

The biggest lie put forth by Planned parenthood and their partners in slaughter is that 10,000 women a year were dying from illegal abortions prior to Roe. The estimate was nonsnese. In the first place, contrary to the hysteria about coat hangers and back alley abortions well over 90% of abortions were perfromed by licensed physicians in a sterile clinical enviroment. Over 99% of deaths of women of child bearing age were readily identifiable as beng from something other than abortion. The pro-abortion adherents made the 10,000 number up and the MM ran with it.

 

[Bella3502]

mlchance:

Mea culpa. I misspoke. The 250 annual is the number of women dying from illegal abortions annually. The actual number of illegal abortions performed annually was about 100,000. I’ll stick with these numbers instead of my original error since I choose to believe the statistics that are true. Which ones do you choose to believe? The false ones manufactured by NARAL in the late 1960s-early 1970s?

Between During 1981 and 1984, there were 30 deaths related to legal abortion in New York City alone (which, of course, doesn’t include the abortion-related deaths of the unborn involved). These deaths accounted for 17% of abortion deaths nationwide during the same period. That’s 176 deaths in total, or a rate of 44 per year.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that abortion-related deaths are consistently underreported because medical personnel lie about causes of death in their reports. Thus, the annual death rate may very well be just as high if not higher than pre-Roe.

Consider the case a 16-year-old girl, who underwent an abortion without her parents knowledge or consent, died from severe internal hemorrhage and an air embolism, the result of her abortionist’s carelessness in causing a “laceration [that] extended into the vagina, cervix and the [uterus].” Although the medical examiner stated on the front page of the autopsy report that the injury occurred as a result of a “therapeutic misadventure,” and termed the death an “accident,” he did note, on the next-to-the-last line of the last page, that the injury occurred during an “evacuation procedure which resulted in perforation of the uterus.”

Back on the front page, however, the death was incorrectly coded under the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, the system used throughout the world to accurately record the cause of deaths. Instead of using the specific codes pertaining to abortion injuries 635.1: a legally induced abortion complicated by excessive hemorrhage, and 635.2: complicated by damage to pelvic organs, and 635.6: complicated by embolism, the medical examiner hid the truth of what really had occurred by utilizing codes N867 and E870.

And, of course, all this is irrelevant. Legal abortion could be completely safe for women, and it would still be grossly immoral. Abortion kills an unborn child. Killing unborn child ought to be illegal.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to prove that making abortion illegal isn’t the answer. After all, you did say that was a fact.

– Mark L. Chance.

Abortion remains legal in part due to the mind numbing rhetoric that is thrown around on both sides. It does little to reduce the number of abortions each year.

Making abortion illegal is not the answer. The past 30 years is proof enough. I don’t need to say anything else. Spouting statistics does not help women who have abortions or dump their babies alive in trash cans. We need to go deeper than the surface lip service and biased rhetoric and distroy the need for abortions. Men should be accountable for the babies they help make. As long as men can walk away, there will be abortion. We need to stop blaming the women and shaming them as well. Shame creates abortion. It’s a double edge sword.

 

[mlchance]

Bella3502:

Making abortion illegal is not the answer. The past 30 years is proof enough. I don’t need to say anything else.

The past 30 years after abortion becoming legal which saw the number of abortions performed annually increase by a factor of nearly 110 per year proves that making abortion illegal is not the answer? This proves your point?

:whacky:

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BlindSheep]

Bella3502:

Abortion remains legal in part due to the mind numbing rhetoric that is thrown around on both sides. It does little to reduce the number of abortions each year.

Making abortion illegal is not the answer. The past 30 years is proof enough. I don’t need to say anything else. Spouting statistics does not help women who have abortions or dump their babies alive in trash cans. We need to go deeper than the surface lip service and biased rhetoric and distroy the need for abortions. Men should be accountable for the babies they help make. As long as men can walk away, there will be abortion. We need to stop blaming the women and shaming them as well. Shame creates abortion. It’s a double edge sword.

This, of course, assumes that there is such a thing as a legitimate “need for abortions”.
Consider what happens when we apply this to other acts of violence. Perhaps, instead of having laws against rape and murder, we should eliminate the “need for murder” and the “need for rape”.
“Motive” I’ll give you, but not “need”. And when we’re dealing with motivation, law can provide the opposite motivation and swing the balance toward refraining from violence. It has worked in the past; it works for other laws; therefore, we have good reason to believe it will work again.
As far as your assertion that “shame creates abortion”, do you care to back it up with proof? Furthermore, if there is such an effect, one must also consider whether it is cancelled out by a “lack of shame” creating more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, more abortions…

 

[Mike_Dye]

JamesG:

Yes, I’m sure many of you have heard this one before.

I think it is a very sexist comment against men. To suggest that because a woman goes through the pain giving birth that her point of view is the only one that is relevant is just evil.

It troubles me, because as a man I have the capacity to love and I also have the capacity to reason.

When a woman says such a thing she is actually trying to end rational debate about the issue of abortion.

Does anyone have a good way of rebuking such a comment?

Which ones have worked well for you?

To apply the same logic to women… If men do not have the right to talk about abortion because the woman goes through the pain of giving birth. Women have no right to talk about child support because the man has to go through the pain of working. Both points of view are nonsense!

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Bella3502:

I am glad that the majority of society does not agree with your first step. It is not the answer.

You are wrong. The majority of society DOES want abortion criminalized again. We had it forced upon us by legislators with an agenda to reduce the population.

Bella, I don’t know how else to ask this, so I’m just going to ask it.

Are you certain that you are Catholic? I’ve noticed in many posts that you take the exact opposite position as that of the Church. I’m glad you read here, though, because you may hear something that changes you.

“If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.”

 

[5-Decades-a-Day]

Bella3502:

I don’t need to say anything else.

This is not a new development.

 

[Bella3502]

Detroit Sue:

You are wrong. The majority of society DOES want abortion criminalized again. Wishful thinking, I must say. We had it forced upon us by legislators with an agenda to reduce the population. This is one of the strangest statements I have heard in a long time.

Bella, I don’t know how else to ask this, so I’m just going to ask it.

Are you certain that you are Catholic? I don’t have to agree with you inorder to be Catholic. I’ve noticed in many posts that you take the exact opposite position as that of the Church. So do a lot of Catholics. Right now I’m too tired to bring up birth control.

I’m glad you read here, though, because you may hear something that changes you. Right back at ya!!

“If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.”

 

[mlchance]

Bella3502:

I don’t have to agree with you inorder to be Catholic.

Nope, but you do have to agree with the Church. Therefore, we’ll be expecting to support the “illegalization” of abortion.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Anglican77]

Lillith:

to the Men:

It will take a man to overthrow ROE V. WADE.

One day…when the right Supreme Justices are on the high court (soon)…some man somewhere, will have to Sue the selfish woman who deprived him of his Fatherhood.

A women sued for the right to abort…a man will have to sue for the right to life!

I am waiting for that day! I wonder how the morning headline would read…

Man Seeks Murder Charge on Woman Who Murdered His Unborn Child

STAND UP MEN! You know us women would melt if we saw a man truly fighting for the life of his unborn child.

 

[Flopfoot]

To the OP -

I once transcribed the notes from the HLI diary 2004 (with permission) (now FLI - Family Life International). Slogan #25 and response is probably what you’re looking for. Sorry about the format.

geocities.com/sydprolife/HLI_Dec.txt

To mlchance - You are exactly right as usual (-: