Abortion

[xhunter]

 

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

they might use parts of the baby though its not in the products you eat or drink. most of that stuff gets cloned so that they save money to so it is only one or two aborted ones. plus its not like anyone is going to do anything other than throw the fetus away, i highly doubt that someone would go all threw the process of abortion just to have a high funeral for it. i don't even think that the bodies leave the hospital with the mother after abortion, or i hope.

 

believe me if it was put in the products themselves they would have all their stock removed by health people and more than likely their business licensed taken. cannibalism is looked down on in a lot of the parts of the world for personal reason and not to much on health reasons. in the past blood of the dead or living was used for its help benefits to supporting your health and surgical reasons. but ya i'm shore your source miss read or something the cells are for testing the flavors not making the flavors.

[Brite]

well, if you choose to have an abortion, you'll just have to stick random objects into your uterus, maybe getting infected or puncturing the lining or permanently damaging your reproductive organs

 

Abortions today aren't even like that anymore. They're actually 10x safer than birth itself. If it's outlawed, we WILL have to go back to objects going up our uterus in back ally's or secret ones in general.

 

The baby is alive, it is a person. Just because it's not out of the mother's womb doesn't make it a dead thing. If it was dead, you wouldn't have to kill it.

 

Alive, not a life. Alive can be many things, like cells, tumors, parasites, masses. Which is one of the many things it can become

Edited April 5, 2012 by GhostChilli

[Rosedamai]

http://m.jezebel.com/5351936/crisis-pregna...ificial-orphans

 

A reminder as to why adoption isn't the solution to an unplanned baby.

[skinst]

....Oh, and in case you haven't vomited yet, under the Bush administration, CPCs received over $60 million in federal funding. Have a pleasant day.

 

*Absolutely disgusted*

[Kelkelen]

@GhostChilli -- I think you misunderstood me; you quoted me out of context, and what you said is pretty much the exact same thing I did:

 

Right.  It's this knowledge that makes me refuse to support any outright ban on abortion.  There will *always* be people attempting to abort no matter what.  I can't in good conscience accept the idea of legally "punishing" them and their infants both by essentially saying, "well, if you choose to have an abortion, you'll just have to stick random objects into your uterus, maybe getting infected or puncturing the lining or permanently damaging your reproductive organs, or else you'll just have to kill your baby once it's born."  I don't see how anyone *can* support that idea.  It's unrealistic to assume that if abortion is outlawed, no one will have one any more.

[Vhale]

How could pro-lifers and Christians, no less, choose to do that to a mother? HOW? That's disgusting and inhumane. If it were any place that were attacked, it should these places. I say that out of pure anger, because that is the single most... Just... UGH. People are the world's problem, not abortion.

I'm starting to believe that a big reason women's issues have been under attack, is not because these religious men really care one way or the other. But, the best way to hide their guilt and complicity is try to point the other way as hard as possible. Basically, it's a smoke screen to keep people from looking at what's really been going on. I think it's something that the gay movement has woken up and realized they have to contend with, when time after time some prominent anti-gay official gets forcibly outed as being in the closet. It becomes obvious their motivation is not for the common good, but guilt. As if they can win forgiveness for their *condition* if they purge it from the earth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

 

Sad thing is, now some members of the church are using this as an excuse to double down on their rhetoric that the only reason all this abuse happened was that the church got liberal. When in doubt, blame someone else.

 

In The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church, George Weigel claims that it was the infidelity to orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, the "culture of dissent" of priests, women religious, bishops, theologians, catechists, Church bureaucrats, and activists who "believed that what the Church proposed as true was actually false" was mainly responsible for this problem.[169] Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired Archbishop of Washington, blamed the declining morals of the late 20th century as a cause of the high number of sexually abusive priests.[170] former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum said the same thing:     

 

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.[171] 

 

Santorum also agreed with Rush Limbaugh summary that it was "no surprise that the center of the Catholic Church abuse took place in very liberal, or perhaps the nation's most liberal area, Boston." Santorum reiterated his broader theme of a cultural connection, saying that it is "no surprise that the culture affects people's behavior. [...] the liberal culture — the idea that [...] sexual inhibitions should be put aside and people should be able to do whatever they want to do, has an impact on people and how they behave."

 

Of course, if that was true then very strict religious areas would not have this problem. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/

 

I remember being struck by this interview, that the pakistani actress decried that the cleric was going after her for showing some skin while ignoring boys being molested in the mosque.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAO8oc93UVQ

 

So I have to ask. What are these anti-abortion amendments really about? Is it really about SAVING THE UNBORN! Or some kind of absolution for some of the people pushing them. What other way can you think of where you get to save kids, yet keep yourself totally apart from them. It's the perfect cause if you think of it that way.

[philpot123]

I'm starting to believe that a big reason women's issues have been under attack, is not because these religious men really care one way or the other. But, the best way to hide their guilt and complicity is try to point the other way as hard as possible.

 

If you're going to make a blanket "all of them are x" statement, you better be prepared to back it up real fast. Not only that, but I and many others I know aren't like that in the least. I have a genuine moral conviction about abortion, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "attacking women." I generally only lurk here now because I've said my piece several times and I won't accomplish anything else by airing my views, but then I see something like that, something that makes me pretty damn angry. If I were to come in here saying you just don't care about babies, you support infanticide, you're an immoral heartless depraved monster, you only support abortion because you want to have sex with impunity, or any other completely offensive, untrue statement, you'd get a little upset and defensive I'm sure. Expect the same when you act similarly.

 

As for the rest of what you said, I completely agree. It's an unacceptable level of hypocrisy in the catholic church. But the fact that they are anti-abortion along with committing those atrocities has no effect on whether or not abortion is wrong. So that needs to be argued separately. The problems within the catholic church certainly need to be addressed. But don't assume that all those who are against abortion are simply trying to cover their own asses by pointing fingers, because that's simply not the case.

[xhunter]

it bothers me that its all about 'save the unborn' and not help those that are already in need. my personal thought its that they waste there resources on fighting abortion then they can be helping those that are already born.

 

maybe if there would be more adoptions, funding for adoption system, and things like that reducing the system problem then some mothers 'might' consider adoption. people want to focus on what might be and not pay attentions to what is and what is happening, you can't help what might be if you can't help what is. they need to slow down and keep both feet on the ground till they get a reliable solution to help those that are in need, if they really want to help and not fear some god sending them to hell for not. voting against or for abortion rights should not be a drive bye type thing, the only thing that causes is more problems and more violence. people should not want to do charitable things if their just kissing their gods . there is no honor and i find it hard to consider any of their acts pure unless they truly want to help those in need.

 

this is why i can't stand businesses like Crisis Pregnancy Centers. you should not take a child and make it a orphan if the mother wants a go at raising it. making it a orphan when you should be concerned about those that are already orphans that need a wanting family. lie and misinformation is less honorable than the bull under someones shoes. i do wish those mothers that signed papers read them threw and thought very hard about what they were doing, its not right they have to suffer and the child too because it never knew its real mother/father if there are second thoughts. places like that are mainly doing that because their selfish desires or just for the money.

[Kelkelen]

this is why i can't stand businesses like Crisis Pregnancy Centers. you should not take a child and make it a orphan if the mother wants a go at raising it. making it a orphan when you should be concerned about those that are already orphans that need a wanting family. lie and misinformation is less honorable than the bull under someones shoes.

 

If you're going to make a blanket "all of them are x" statement, you better be prepared to back it up real fast.

 

Not all Crisis Pregnancy Centers are the same. I am in NO way attempting to excuse the ones that mislead, lie, and bully women. But I have also found ones that state immediately up-front that they represent a certain religious view, that they don't give referrals for abortions, that they are counseling centers and not medical clinics, as well as ones that offer many resources in regards not only to adoption but also to pregnancy, single parenting, financial counseling, and so on. There are ones which go so far as to offer maternity clothing, infant supplies, and even housing.

 

Again, I am NOT supporting the pushy, guilt-tripping, lying CPCs. However, websites such as Jezebel have a certain bias in their articles, and it's good to look into all the facts. I feel perfectly comfortable supporting some pregnancy centers and not others, based on the individual behavior and honesty of each.

[KageSora]

Can anybody point me to sources that provide FACTS supporting the pro-life idea?

 

Not religious-based or things based only on morals. I'm looking for absolute facts, facts that are NOT out-dated or incredibly biased, or outright incorrect (arguing based on misinformation is something that people on BOTH sides of the issue suffer from). Also, facts that have reliable sources--and that can be backed up by multiple sources showing the same thing. (One study proving your argument doesn't make me believe you if there are 10 other studies that prove it wrong)

 

 

Also, looking for information on the abortion-breast cancer debate. I keep finding contradicting stuff, like links to studies that say it's not there, and other links claiming it is there but I see both sides arguing that the other used flawed study methods and such to discredit them...

[Fuzzbucket]

Also, looking for information on the abortion-breast cancer debate. I keep finding contradicting stuff, like links to studies that say it's not there, and other links claiming it is there but I see both sides arguing that the other used flawed study methods and such to discredit them...

This wiki bit isn't at all bad - dispassionate.

 

A good piece, again saying there is NO link.

"In fact, aborted pregnancies had some preventive effect in our study."

 

It has been known for some time that pregnancy had a preventive effect against breast cancer, although it is not yet clear why this is the case.

 

And this is from an independent library of articles and research used by health professionals, as opposed to people with an agenda. Summary:

 

Breast cancer risk did not appear to be associated with an increasing number of spontaneous or induced abortions. Results from two studies of spontaneous abortion were statistically significant but in opposite directions. Four studies found that the association between breast cancer risk and induced abortion was statistically significant. It was suggested that breast cancer risk was not associated with the other measures of exposure to abortion, and unlikely to differ by age or a family history of breast cancer.

 

Or to put it another way - no link.

[Kelkelen]

Can anybody point me to sources that provide FACTS supporting the pro-life idea?

 

Not religious-based or things based only on morals. I'm looking for absolute facts, facts that are NOT out-dated or incredibly biased, or outright incorrect (arguing based on misinformation is something that people on BOTH sides of the issue suffer from). Also, facts that have reliable sources--and that can be backed up by multiple sources showing the same thing. (One study proving your argument doesn't make me believe you if there are 10 other studies that prove it wrong)

 

 

Also, looking for information on the abortion-breast cancer debate. I keep finding contradicting stuff, like links to studies that say it's not there, and other links claiming it is there but I see both sides arguing that the other used flawed study methods and such to discredit them...

That kind of depends on what facts you're looking for.

 

Are you looking for facts on stages of fetal development? Facts that define when a human life begins (those will *always* be subjective to some degree)? Facts about women's physical, emotional, or mental health before and after choosing or not choosing abortion? Facts about what some of the common misinformation given by both sides is? Facts about what kind of parenting or adoption alternatives are available? Facts about women's health in countries where abortion is forbidden, mandated, or optional?

[Vhale]

If you're going to make a blanket "all of them are x" statement, you better be prepared to back it up real fast.

I didn't make a blanket statement or say all. In fact, I said "some" more than once. Some =/= all. But, I'll try to be more clear.

 

It doesn't take everyone doing something for the same purpose to push the agenda for the wrong reason. One person, highly placed, can be deadset on pushing the agenda due to problems with their own feelings on it. People call posting on a board and doing nothing Slacktivism. I'd call this Guiltivism. People trying to redeem themselves by controlling what others do.

 

It's a bit of old-fashioned, Do as I say, not as I do. IE, There are more than a few stories from people that run these clinics of protestors on the sidelines bringing their kids in, getting a procedure then returning to the pickets. How do you explain that? Or 98% of Catholics using birth control, yet being against it.

 

It's an easy thing to point out in the gay world because it's pretty obvious when some anti-gay crusader/priest gets caught with their pants down. There's even a website that counts down the days to when the next previously *straight* person gets outted. Seriously. And well, some of the people that helped write anti-gay legislation came out of the closet later.One example. And when I see things like actual legislation requiring things like women carrying dead/deformed fetuses to term, I suspect there has been crossover from one issue to the other. Prove you are a good straight conservative man/woman, fight abortion! But erm, baby is dea... Patriot! Fight! Conservative! No abortion! *cough* Bristol Pal... Abstinence only!!

 

Guilt comes in more than one form though. I've seen the terrible pain that people go through with either abortion or adoption. I had two friends specifically in high school that got pregnant. One gave the baby up for adoption, one opted for abortion. They both tried to kill themselves. I don't know if they succeeded. My aunt was also forced to give up a child by her parents. She hated her father. She had to care for him in his old age and I hated her, watching her be cruel to my beloved Pepa, not knowing why. I never understood why she seemed so hot and cold to us either. She always seemed to resent myself and my siblings. It wasn't until after her father died that I found out, because she went looking for her daughter. She found her. Her daughter wants nothing to do with her.

 

I understand, sometimes when people are hurting, all they are thinking of is finding some way to fix the pain. What better way to fix it then try to keep others from making the same mistake? I think their heart is in the right place not wanting others to suffer, but people that do that tend to focus on the issue only from their perspective. And that doesn't work with this issue.

 

So yes, comparing what gay rights have gone through and the above, I do think there is an issue with some people trying to redeem themselves off this issue or trying to hide their natures. I am not so naive as to claim it's the only reason people are. But I think it's there, and a hard reason to fight. In scriptural terms I think this verse applies: Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

 

At any rate, I hope that's more clear.

 

Personally, I'd like all the money and crap spent on the whole abortion mess to be spent instead on things like the Empathy Belly. It's a faux belly that simulates aver 20 of the *fun* symptoms of pregnancy. On women OR men. It's a little less glamourous than your average hollywood sex scene, to put it mildly.

Planned Parenthood Empathy Belly Page Warning page has anatomical models and diagrams if you scroll.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Vhale

[skinst]

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

 

I'm speechless. Completely and utterly speechless. I just can't even comprehend how this bill is even allowed to exist.

[AngelKitty]

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

 

I'm speechless. Completely and utterly speechless. I just can't even comprehend how this bill is even allowed to exist.

Oh what nonsense.

 

Just...nonsense.

 

NONSENSE.

 

And this infuriates me:

 

Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.

 

OH REEEAAALLY. What about all the born, sentient children neglected, killed and abused in foster care and even by their own unwilling parents? What about all the born, sentient children in poverty-stricken families who are starving? What about the born, sentient children? WHAT ABOUT THEM?! Would YOU and your ilk adopt the baybeeeeez you worked so hard to save? Would YOU and your ilk pay for their feeding, and healthcare, and clothing, and school supplies, and everything else they need?

 

The answer is no. This is the difference between what I've come to call "anti-choice" and "pro-child." Someone who's REALLY pro-child would care about the kids once they're born, donate to charities to care for poor kids, become a much-needed kind and loving foster family, or adopt an unwanted child themselves. Someone who is pro-child would realize it's stupid to try to play psychic to predict when a woman is going to have sex to try to protect a fetus that DOESN'T EXIST YET. But you don't, and won't. Because you're anti-choice. And the goal of you and your ilk is to control and punish those uppity no-good sex-having hair-cutting kitchen-leaving non-submissive satan devil evil women.

 

GHRGRGPRGHRPG.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I need another drink.

Edited April 6, 2012 by AngelKitty

[loudwhitenoise]

Polticians these days *facepalm 2x combo*

I'm reminded of the last panel in this comic http://www.gynostar.com/archives/1624

 

if only common sense wasn't so un-common.

[elderberrysyrup]

Holy damn man. A fetus is now considered a child 2 weeks before it's even conceived? That doesn't even make any logical sense.

[~Kat~]

If you are gonna have sex, BE RESPONSIBLE for God Sake.

 

There are instances I do agree with abortion though. Rape, health of the baby or mother.

[Rosedamai]

If you are gonna have sex, BE RESPONSIBLE for God Sake.

 

There are instances I do agree with abortion though. Rape, health of the baby or mother.

There are times when contraception fails, and I think not having a baby that you cannot support is more responsible than giving it up for adoption.

[Fuzzbucket]

There are times when contraception fails, and I think not having a baby that you cannot support is more responsible than giving it up for adoption.

RIGHT ON !

 

Anyway - surely under this legislation your next period would be against the law, as you were pregnant as soon as the last one ended, so....

 

(OH man; I have now been pregnant for +/- 20 years. Hm....)

[elderberrysyrup]

RIGHT ON !

 

Anyway - surely under this legislation your next period would be against the law, as you were pregnant as soon as the last one ended, so....

 

(OH man; I have now been pregnant for +/- 20 years. Hm....)

It seems only if you get pregnant, then your pregnancy started as soon as your last period ended. But if you're not pregnant, then you're fine.

[Kestra15]

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

 

I'm speechless. Completely and utterly speechless. I just can't even comprehend how this bill is even allowed to exist.

America...how you make me laugh.

[Fuzzbucket]

America...how you make me laugh.

Give it time and the UK may join in...

[Kelkelen]

It seems only if you get pregnant, then your pregnancy started as soon as your last period ended. But if you're not pregnant, then you're fine.

Gestational age is *always* calculated from the date of the last period. It's medical tradition. We should get our facts straight. This bill isn't proposing to change the way gestational age has always been calculated. Here's one of the comments on that article:

I can believe how missinformation is spread here. I am pro-choice, an atheist and a medical doctor.

 

The last mentruation period is the landmark to calculate the gestational age: period. I understand that fertilization occurs two week after, however it is an ancient tradition that comes back before knowledge about human reproduction.  There is no human with "less than 2 weeks of gestational age", that is ridiculous!

 

I usually in favor of RT, because they disclose the news that bought media hides, but I cannot allow the spread of missinformation. The bill is of course awful, but stating that it penalizes abortion less than 2 weeks is nonsense!

 

As you see in the table from wikipedia, you'll see how the fist 2 weeks of gestation are included, but they do not represent anything:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...t_table.svg.png 

[Brite]

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

 

I'm speechless. Completely and utterly speechless. I just can't even comprehend how this bill is even allowed to exist.

 

There are no "ands" "ifs" or "buts"

 

If that bill passes, I'm moving my ass to Canada.