Should a woman have to see a sonogram before receiving an abortion?

[McBell]

"And God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct"


I see I shall not throw pearls before swine anymore....

Via Con dias

What does this mean exactly?
That you are tucking in your tail and running?

 

[yossarian22]

"And God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct"
I see I shall not throw pearls before swine anymore....
Via Con dias

A great comic by the way.
I have a base mind because I choose to have it. Not because of some ****** in the sky

 

[athanasius]

A great comic by the way.

Thank you, they mocked and spit on and persecuted even killed my Lord God for teaching truth too, I know I am in good footsteps;.

 

[yossarian22]

What does this mean exactly?
That you are tucking in your tail and running?

Its an old saying. Cast not your pearls before swine.
Do not waste thoughtful comments on people unable to understand them is how he is using it.

 

[yossarian22]

Thank you, they mocked and spit on and persecuted even killed my Lord God for teaching truth too, I know I am in good footsteps;.

I mocked and spit on many people.
Maybe one of them was god in disguise. whoops

 

[Quiddity]

See what you can find, because that is the assumption underlying your argument.

While you're at it, check out what other things, beside the "legality" issue, could be done to reduce and eliminate abortions. Any ideas?

How about this:

<snip>

Willard Cates of the Federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated there were 130,000 illegal abortions in 1972, 63,000 in 1973 (year of Roe v. Wade) and 17,000 in 1974.(2) These numbers are based on a mortality ratio of 30 deaths per 100,000 illegal (most deaths from non-physician, although physicians performed many illegal) abortions. Planned Parenthood tabulated 745,440 legal abortions in 1973, but claimed there was actually a need for 1,258,000 to 1,745,000 abortions in 1973 and 1974.

Thus, according to Planned Parenthood's figures, 512,000 to 1,023,000 women were in "need" of an abortion in 1974 because of an "unwanted" or mistimed pregnancy but only 17,000 actually had an illegal abortion because a legal one was not available for whatever reason (lack of money, proximity of an abortionist, etc.)(3)

But when these authoritative CDC and PP estimates are matched they show a precipitous drop in the numbers of women who will likely have an abortion when it is illegal. If 17,000 illegal abortions occur for every 1,023,000 unwanted pregnancies, then 1.6% of women with an unwanted pregnancy will get an illegal abortion; or, if there were 63,000 illegal abortions occurring among 512,000 women with unwanted pregnancies, then at most 13.1% of such women will obtain illegal abortions.

<snip>

Physicians For Life - Abstinence, Abortion, Birth Control - If Abortion Is Made Illegal, Will U.S. Women Return to the Back Alley?

 

[Quiddity]

*MOD ADVISORY*
PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL.​

 

[doppelganger]

How about this:

<snip>

Willard Cates of the Federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated there were 130,000 illegal abortions in 1972, 63,000 in 1973 (year of Roe v. Wade) and 17,000 in 1974.(2) These numbers are based on a mortality ratio of 30 deaths per 100,000 illegal (most deaths from non-physician, although physicians performed many illegal) abortions. Planned Parenthood tabulated 745,440 legal abortions in 1973, but claimed there was actually a need for 1,258,000 to 1,745,000 abortions in 1973 and 1974.

There was certainly an increase, but not as pronounced as this excerpt suggests. Another paper, co-authored by Cates suggests a gradual doubling in total numbers of abortions after Roe v. Wade as abortions transitioned from illegal to legal. Actual rates adjusting for population would be something less than a doubling. And currently there are 1.2 million per year legally, compared to 800,000 per year in 1967 in a smaller population less accustomed to abortion.

The public health impact of legal abortion: 30 years later - Comment Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Find Articles

In 1967, researchers confirmed this estimate by extrapolating data from a randomized-response survey conducted in North Carolina: They concluded that a total of 800,000 induced (mostly illegal) abortions were performed nationally each year. (2) . . . In deciding Roe v. Wade in January 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state abortion laws were unconstitutional, thereby legalizing induced abortion throughout the country. As a result, the number of legal abortions increased to almost 1.6 million in 1980 (Figure 1, page 26) and continued at this level until the 1990s.

But that doesn't necessarily tell us much about what effect, if any, making it illegal today would have. World abortion data shows that the rates aren't any lower in countries where it is illegal vs. those where it is legal. For example, the rates of abortion per capita in South America are substantially higher than in North America, even though it is predominantly illegal in the former and legal in the latter. It's around 39 per 1000 live births in S.A. compared to about 22 per 1000 live births in North America.

The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide

"[FONT=Helvetica,]Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted."[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica,][/FONT]

 

[Quiddity]

There was certainly an increase, but not as pronounced as this excerpt suggests. Another paper, co-authored by Cates suggests a gradual doubling in total numbers of abortions after Roe v. Wade as abortions transitioned from illegal to legal. Actual rates adjusting for population would be something less than a doubling. And currently there are 1.2 million per year legally, compared to 800,000 per year in 1967 in a smaller population less accustomed to abortion.

The public health impact of legal abortion: 30 years later - Comment Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Find Articles

But that doesn't necessarily tell us much about what effect, if any, making it illegal today would have. World abortion data shows that the rates aren't any lower in countries where it is illegal vs. those where it is legal. For example, the rates of abortion per capita in South America are substantially higher than in North America, even though it is predominantly illegal in the former and legal in the latter. It's around 39 per 1000 live births in S.A. compared to about 22 per 1000 live births in North America.

The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide

That's true...see what else we can find. It's hard to find an exact equivalent without taking into account cultural evolution, moral norms, etc.

 

[Buttons*]

I think it's emotional sabotage.

I'm inclined to agree with Danisty.

 

[McBell]

Victor,
My question would be how do they know how many abortions were done illegally before Roe vs. Wade?
Then I have to ask, did the number actually go up in reality?
I mean how do you know how many there were when it was illegal is any more or less than how many there were after abortion was legal?
Seems to me that all one can do is guess.

Furthermore, if abortions are once again made illegal, how can one possibly get an accurate number of how many abortions are being done?
Truth is, one can't.

 

[spirittalker101]

Oh I'm sorry but It should not be up to you to take the innocent life of your child and grotesquely murder it for convenience sake. That innocent child does not have a "Choice" to be murdered or not. He just is. Can't you see how sick that is? So what if a person is raped, does that still give her the right to grotesquely murder her innocent child. That child didn't rape her. That child did nothing. Do you see how selfish that response is? I do know women who were raped and kept their babies or gave them up for adoption. Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Lets use your own logic. So if someones does something horrible to me, and for some reason you remind me of that when I see you, does that give me a right to murder you? Because that is what you are saying essentially. There is no logic to that thought. its sense less grotesque murder of the innocents and at 4000 babies a day , its the new holocausts as John Paul II compared it to.

I love that you bring the holocausts up. Guess what no dice. Men Have NO PLACE in this argument.

I want to see you carry a child after having some man rape and torture your body. Wake up every day with the reminder of that event. Granted some women do keep them but that tends to be more because they denied the rape for a length of time and it was too late to abort. It doesn't make it right to say well this one can handle the reminder so everyone has to. No it isn't selfish to remove a parasite from the host. When you look at it in that light it is just fine. There is no way that I could carry a fetus until it is born knowing every day that it is the spawn of the evil @$$ that riped my body apart. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror because that is all that I would see is him attacking me.

Also some of these women who don't get abortions because the men in their lives won't allow it or the church frown upon it end up beating the child to death or leaving the newborn in the trash because they don't want it. But I guess death that way is better in you eyes.

Me love to plant their seeds where ever they can especially if they don't have to deal with it after the fact.

 

[spirittalker101]

One, it is not a child until after birth. Until birth it is a fetus.
Two, it is not murder because abortion is legal.
Three, your incorrect usage of the terminology is nothing other than an appeal to emotion tactic. Just like the idea of having a mother see a sonogram before aborting is nothing more than an appeal to emotion tactic.
Four, your analogy fails because you are comparing a legal action (abortion) to an illegal action (murder).

Thanks You made some great points!!

 

[doppelganger]

Here's the REAL question:

Should an advocate for legally prohibiting abortion have to carry a child to term and raise it to adulthood as a poverty-stricken single mother before he can insist a woman should have to see a sonogram before having an abortion?

 

[spirittalker101]

So the medical community defines for us what a human being is? That is kinda scary. I would much rather place my trust Christ church which to Catholics has the revealed teachings of God himself. Many Doctors in the medical field also say that the fetus is a baby and this is murder. But Mestemia believe what you will. My prayers are with you.

Via Con Dias,
Athanasius

I would rather have the medical community define life and what is human than people that rush to see christs face on a piece of toast.

 

[spirittalker101]

Here's the REAL question:

Should an advocate for legally prohibiting abortion have to carry a child to term and raise it to adulthood as a poverty-stricken single mother before he can insist a woman should have to see a sonogram before having an abortion?

That would be fair....

Or adopt 50 unwanted kids that are in the US adoption agency!!

 

[doppelganger]

Or adopt 50 unwanted kids that are in the US adoption agency!!

That wouldn't convey the same perspective as being one of the people whose lives the self-righteously want to control.

 

[spirittalker101]

That wouldn't convey the same perspective as being one of the people whose lives the self-righteously want to control.

Yeah but it would help those kids that are trapped with people that don't want them.

 

[Ðanisty]

Here's the REAL question:

Should an advocate for legally prohibiting abortion have to carry a child to term and raise it to adulthood as a poverty-stricken single mother before he can insist a woman should have to see a sonogram before having an abortion?

That would help, but it's only one scenario. Perhaps the advocate should become pregnant due to incest or rape as well. Also, they need to be someone who never wanted children in the first place. While we're at it, let's say the kid has a serious medical condition.

 

[Scott1]

Men Have NO PLACE in this argument.

That's just foolish... when only female children are allowed to be murdered in the womb, only THEN would I agree with you.

I want to see you carry a child after having some man rape and torture your body. Wake up every day with the reminder of that event.

Killing the child does not take away the horror of the rape.... while I pray I could take away the pain, killing the child does only one thing: kills a child.

Just FYI, sometimes those children of a rape are not aborted....

Sometimes they grow up....

Sometimes, for instance, they marry a poor sap like me.... and give me two wonderful children of our own.

Sometimes.

Peace be with you,
S