Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[Mule]

Remember, I'll square it with God. That's how we roll!

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by frogger

I feel like killing a thread. Is there any "sin" in that?

And you don't even need a coat-hanger.

[JavaBrewer]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I am making a common sense assumption here that the overwhelming majority of abortions are given to scared young women who had birth control fail on them, did not use it properly, were outright lied to by their partner just so they could get laid that night, or otherwise got a "surprise", not ones that deliberately said "aww, screw it. I don't need no pill. If I get knocked up I'll just go see the doctor again".

+1 Also from my personal observations the couple girls I know that got abortions were heavily conflicted years after the fact. Definitely not the "oh heck...lets swing by starbucks on the way home from the doc" mentality.

Here's another thought regarding adoption. As wonderful and noble adoption is I wonder how many of these girls could actually go through with it - handing their baby to waiting adoptive parents. I'd guess that once the baby arrives many girls will second guess their commitment to give up the child and many of those that DO give the baby up may forever carry incredible guilt/concern. I mean how many Mom's are comfortable with abandoning their kids...so to speak.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is no *easy* out to an unplanned/wanted pregnancy. I would never want the Government to make the decision for me.

I have two beautiful kids of my own and a wonderful wife and we would never consider getting an abortion. We have talked about adoption but are still just talking at this point.

[skipdup]

Reasons Women Give for Seeking Abortion:

Inadequate finances
22%

"Not ready for the responsibility"
22%

"Life would be changed too much"
17%

Relationship problems/unmarried
13%

Too young and immature to have a child
11%

Already have enough children
8%

Health (mother)
3%

Fetal abnormalities
3%

Rape or incest
1%

[skipdup]

some more data...

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Mule

Remember, I'll square it with God. That's how we roll!

I'm in; thanks Frog, Mule.



Best,

Kurt

[skipdup]

So, 93% (is that considered a vast majority) of abortions are due to reason other than health (mom or baby), rape/incest.

[kstar]

Some interesting points from the PDF that Steve posted:

1) 97% of abortions occur outside of the USA;
2) 9 out of 10 abortions performed in the first tri-mester;
3) Of the 46M annual, global abortions, 20M (44%) occur in countries where abortion is illegal;
4) Mother's health, rape and incest abortions relatively rare.

(see PDF for references at bottom of page)

[YTNUKLR]

Whether unfortunately or fortunately, the more disciplined, the more aware, the more sophisticated, perhaps even more intelligent, people can and do make decisions for those that are less so.

The literate govern the illiterate, hire them, decide what they do, when they shall wake in the morning and when they can rest. The disciplined become CEOs in business, generals in the army, captains of ships, presidents and leaders of other men.

Just as grown women can/do decide whether or not to keep an unborn baby. I'm not saying it is right to kill the unborn, but think of the other examples where people change the fates of others, and do not limit yourself to this one paradigm.

What if we said that CEOs could not govern the fates of their workers, just as we say a woman may not govern the fate of her unborn child? For the sake of argument, assume the worker is not 'free' to do as he pleases because he must feed his own family, and has no other option--he is more or less forced to work for the CEO, rightly or wrongly. Assume the woman, likewise, is also not free to look at other options, but has but one life to live for herself. She should do what is right for her, and everyone else should STFU.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I'm in; thanks Frog, Mule.



Best,

Kurt

Remember folks get your "zygote credits" today before the price increases! Don't be caught short on judgement day. Send all payments to MULE c/o PPOT. 100% GUARANTEED!

[skipdup]

Scott- A bosses "control" over an employee is in no way related to "kill[ing] the unborn". There's a bit of a gap between the two... Geesh.

[sjf911]

More interesting abortion statistics from the world's most populace nation. 14,000,000 in one year alone. Looks like their population control efforts were quite successful.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

On the other page, you said I sounded egotistical and self-serving? Are you ****ting me? Exactly who the hell do you think you are presuming to be able to grant someone "permission" for a procedure done on their own body? Who died and left you in charge of everyone's health care? Are you really Hillary?

See the problem/hypocracy here? I certainly do.

It looks like I forgot "dense". How many times do I have to repeat that I could care less how a woman (or anyone else for that matter) treats their own body? How many times do I have to repeat that it's not about the woman's life? How many times do I have to say her decision is ending the life of another human? That's the crux of the matter. No one has the authority to grant her permission to end another's life. Not even her.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

. . . snip . . . How many times do I have to say her decision is ending the life of another human? That's the crux of the matter. No one has the authority to grant her permission to end another's life. Not even her.

Some weight and/or consideration should be given to the Mother being the "host" of the new life, IMHO.

edit: I don't think a Mom should be allowed to kill her children, but I do make a distinction as to when a mass of cells becomes a person.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

[sjf911]

An exerpt from the National Security Study Memorandum 200

Abortion is vital to the solution: - Index
"While the agencies participating in this study have no specific recommendations to propose on abortion, the following issues are believed important and should be considered in the context of a global population strategy...Certain facts about abortion need to be appreciated:
" -- No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion". [Page 182]

" -- Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today." [Page 183]

" -- It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques..." [Page 185]


http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#i5.4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=6742046&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

[trekkor]

I see people ignoring their conscience.

*Everyone* knows it's wrong. They ignore that, so they can do it.

murder
stealing
raping
driving drunk
arson
etc.

People do these things. They justify it...Then they act.
May or may not feel bad about it, either.

*everyone knows* the "cells" will become a baby.
No accountabilty. It all comes down to that.
"No one can tell me what to do".


KT

[sjf911]

The causes and implications of population growth in America were cogently presented in the definitive report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (The Rockefeller Commission) in 1972. Had the 70 recommendations of the Commission's report, Population and the American Future, been implemented, a comprehensive U.S. population policy would have resulted. America and the world would be a very different place today. Adoption of this policy would have provided leadership vital to coping with the world overpopulation problem.
According to John D. Rockefeller 3rd, the U.S. Catholic Bishops threatened President Nixon politically, and bowing to their pressure he disavowed this report. None of the 70 recommendations was ever implemented. The U.S. continues to have no population policy.

http://www.population-security.org/intro.htm

And the costs are not only financial. The social, health, and psychological costs must be enormous. Despite the incidence of unwanted fertility—an incidence which in terms of ordinary public health criteria would qualify as of epidemic proportion—there is little hard evidence on which to assess its impact. There was one study in Sweden2 in which a sample of children born to women whose applications for abortion were denied, was compared over a 20-year period with a control group of other children born at the same time in the same hospital. They turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance.

The psychological burdens carried by children who are literally rejected by their parents and given over to institutional care cannot be measured easily. But they must be considerable, and we do know that the costs to society of providing for the care of abandoned infants are significant.

Most of the costs of unwanted fertility are not visible in the dramatic instances of abandonment or child abuse, but rather in the more prosaic problems of everyday family life. Family budgets can be seriously strained by the unexpected and unwanted birth of a child. And those who can least afford such additional burdens most often experience them. The incidence of unwanted births is twice as great among couples whose annual incomes fall below $4,000 as it is among those with incomes of $10,000 and higher. Since most unwanted births experienced by married couples occur late in the childbearing years, the woman who had been waiting for her youngest child to be in school before returning to work can find her plans abruptly frustrated.

There are also health costs involved. As President Nixon observed:



involuntary childbearing often results in poor physical and emotional health for all members of the family. It is one of the factors which contributes to our distressingly high infant mortality, the unacceptable level of malnutrition.. 3


http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/011_human_reproduction.htm

So, who will pay?

[jluetjen]

You must have missed my link on the other global warming thread. But according to the UN's most recent report, somehow, without implementing those recommendations, the world has still managed to turn out a lot better then it was in 1970!

Go figure!

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

You must have missed my link on the other global warming thread. But according to the UN's most recent report, somehow, without implementing those recommendations, the world has still managed to turn out a lot better then it was in 1970!

Go figure!

The point is that abortion/infanticide is about population control and balancing resource availability, whether at the individual/family level, tribe, island, nation, or global. It has been practiced throughout history and prehistory.
It can be a selfish act at the individual level, but may be beneficial to group survival. Most of the opposition to abortion is religious, based on the flawed logic of an invisible buddy in the sky (and the "divine" nature of man) without consideration for the ecological consequences of unfettered reproduction and world population growth with the subsequent threat to species survival.
And this doesn't even address the human suffering in between.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have no doubt you got lost.


You may as well ask me who I'm rooting for in the Superbowl, and try to infer some position on abortion from that.

I've made my position on abortion abundantly clear. I'm against it. It ends a human life.

As a result, I am undecided and am actually quite torn concerning very early term abortions. If aborting in the first week is o.k., why then, surely the first month is really not all that different. If we allow abortions in that first month, the the baby has no better chance of survival (not that that has anything to do with it) in the second month... and so it goes. I see it as a slippery slope I would prefer to avoid.

One final point of clarification. I know you didn't specifically ask me about this, but I do suspect that you are lost on this one as well. While I consider myself deeply religious, I subscribe to no real "religion" as you would understand it.

Ending another human's life under those circumstances is wrong, even in the absence of any religion whatsoever. Just as wrong as if I chose to end your, or anyone else's life. It's just plain wrong.

I wasn't lost at all. I was just separating the wheat from the chaff. Your irritation is evident because I wouldn't let you off the hook.

As far as the other scenarios, I am only interested in where your sanctity for life ends. I've got a better insight now but, I'd still love to know how you feel on the issues you didn't address or why they seem irrelevant to this discussion. I do think they help paint a clearer picture of "you" as a whole.

The reason I ask direct questions is to avoid making an inference or rash judgment. I would rather have a person clearly state their beliefs in their own words. I don't do AH-HA. I just dig learning how other people tick. We are all very complex creatures. You actually gave me some meat to chew on this time and I appreciate that.

However, you are completely wrong on your final point of clarification. If I had any curiosity in your belief system or how it relates I would have asked specifically. You should know that about me by now. Belief systems are very personal. I don't presume to dictate or have intimate knowledge of what another person needs to be comfortable in their lives.