Comments on: Kevin Drum Praises False Dichotomies Regarding Abortion

By: paul from fl

paul from fl — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:40:09 +0000

A little off the thread, though I think a valid question;
Would redistributing reproductive rights equally amongst men and woman change ausblogs percentages? Maybe if we held women to the same standards of responsiblity that we hold men, this wouldn’t happen so often?
And finally, instead of wringing our hands over the frivolous abortions, we should spend more time and money making contraception readily available, norplant, The pill, iud, hormone rings are just a few of the options available today. How many contraceptive Office visits could the pro-life camp have provided if they used the resources of one law suit, demonstration or one ad campaign?

By: ausblog

ausblog — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:24:00 +0000

Australia (with a population of 20 million) terminated over 100 thousand young people last year. I’ve done the figures and Australia do more per head.

Abortion has got to be by far the Mother of all holicosts, the most extensive crime against humanity the world has ever seen.

Though it pains me to say it, there may always be a need for the 2% medical reasons and such, but that’s all.

So how do we get the other 98% to be responsible……………….

How do we get them to be honest with themselves, about when life begins.

Everyone knows it starts at conception, egg+sperm = human being

Sadly many frefer the odd termination over using birth control, they have all kinds of reasons, each of them selfish.

Then there’s the christian impossition,(all a bit talibanish), and their men in high places.(church and state should never entwine) their stance against b/c has only added to the numbers.

Sanity must provale, abortions should remain available and safe to the 2% and the rest need to have a good look at themselves and get their act together.

Have you seen ( HOT OFF THE SHOW! Throw-away babies )

It’s a blog by Sharon Hughes?

By: ausblog

ausblog — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:23:08 +0000

Something for Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers to concider…..

World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.

3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.

50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

And 2% had medical reasons.

That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

I am a 98% pro-lifer, 2% Pro-choicer, who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term you can consider yourself lucky.
Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you.

Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?

At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.

I am convinced that in the not too distant future, people will look back at many of the practices of today with disbelief and horror.

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:44:42 +0000

Play at their own game like T-Shirts showing little teary eyed penguins,pandas,seals and such wearing T-Shirts reading SAVE THE BABY HUMANS

By: April

April — Tue, 30 May 2006 22:40:17 +0000

punishing women who have sex? exuse me but no. i am pro life and that thought never even occured to me. and though perhaps protection would have been a good idea trying to stop murder has nothing to do with punishing women, becouse we are not forcing them to keep the child and we dont care how old she is or how many times shes had sex. we care about the life of an induvidual no matter how small or dependabel. perhaps you should reconsider your prejudices about us pro lifers.

By: Charles D. Quarles

Charles D. Quarles — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:12:25 +0000

Here are some facts to consider.

1. All human beings begin as a single cell (zygote = fertilized egg).
2. In all abortions a human being dies.
3. All ‘therapeutic’ abortions involve the intentional death of a human being.
4. The pro-abortion supporters use euphemisms like clump of cells or fetus to avoid the fact that a human being dies at the hand of another human being.
5. Not all homicides are murder.
6. The Constitution left to the States, via the 9th and 10th amendments as well as the text of the original document, to make the decisions about homicide, justifiable homicide, and murder.

By: hardcore videos

hardcore videos — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:55:24 +0000

Hey great blog. If you want some free traffic to your blog or tgp then submit your galleries to me.

By: Yi-Ling

Yi-Ling — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:36:39 +0000

Right to abortion in Roe v Wade 1973, changed greatly by Planned Parenthood V Casey 1992, where the standard for laws to be passed /passed by the states to restrict abortion was lowered from the highest standard of strict scrutiny to a lower standard of ‘not place undue burden on the woman’s right to abortion’. Arising from the measure of ‘undue burden’ states’ imposition of 24 hours waiting period before proceeding with abortion was allowed. 24 hours waiting period was not undue burden on pregnant woman’s exercise of her right. States’ imposition that abortion be performed by licensed physician was also not considered undue burden on woman in her exercise of her right to abortion. However states imposition of partial birth abortion was considered an undue burden on pregnant woman’s right to abortion. [ I do not know much of this particular form of abortion and so skip it. Its pictures and description makes me squirm and I rather stay away for comfort ]

After viability, which is about 22 weeks [ over the years it has shifted from 30 weeks to 25 weeks to 22 weeks and still shifting … because of technology] the fetus can have independent survival outside womb with aid of technology, state can prohibit abortion unless abortion is to safeguard woman’s life or health. [ which means before viability, pregnant woman has the constitutional right to abortion]

With the trend of lowering the level of court’s scrutiny of the laws passed by the states to limit abortion, it is easier for such laws to pass constitutional muster, after 1990 than in 1973-1990 period. Which means, courts are allowing states to make their own laws that suits their citizens and the views of the citizen. Federal court will still scrutinize these state laws, but not on strict scrutiny, but on the ‘not place undue burden’ test in Planned Parenthood v Casey case.

So Doc,
back to my question of you, do you agree with abortion for rape and incest, drawing some distinction, maybe 8 situations-
1. rape by stranger, victim kidnapped and rapist totally unknown to victim
2. rape by date [date rape] consent to date and kissing and fondling but no consent to sexual intercourse by penetration
3. rape [ statutory ] , victim is minor under age of 12 ,
4. rape ] statutory ] victim is 15 ½ and physically very mature
5. incest between father daughter aged below 18
6. incest between father unmarried daughter above 18 at initiative of father
7. incest between father unmarried daughter above 18 at initiative of daughter
8. incest between father and married daughter above 18 at initiative and by seduction of daughter [ mother reports crime ] …

I am not sure, how ‘health’ of pregnant woman after viability is measured. Anyone?

By: Yi-Ling

Yi-Ling — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:06:44 +0000

Similarly, it doesn’t matter how pregnancy and giving birth will change a woman’s life. She always has a moral responsibility to give the child life. And if she got pregnant through her own action, then she should also have a legal responsibilty to give the child life. If she was not responsible in any way for the pregnancy, then I think it is arguable what her legal responsibility should be.

Doc,
I think it all boils down to our private inner perception of the meaning of life and purpose of our existence. While I personally, if raped, and if pregnant because of the rape, would carry the fetus to term, but that is because of my spiritual outlook of life, where I would be reluctant to have an abortion, and where, I would take it that the fetus had chosen to be my child, this life time , because of some past life debt the child owes me or I owe the child. I am fortunate my husband would leave that decision to me, in those circumstances. But everyone is different, and people have different religious outlook and some have more material outlook [ not equated with unprincipled, for it could be good ethics and principles based on here and now, without reference to after life]. The here and now could consider factors here and there as I have enumerated above posts, six each.

I think the question I should pose to you, so I can understand the dimension of your thought, is that, are you agreeable to abortion for rape and incest, knowing that you are not agreeable for abortion except for mother’s health being in danger.

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:42:04 +0000

Yi-Ling, I’m not going to be persuaded by any argument that focuses on any problems that the mother faces (short of her own life being in danger). No lesser burden can possibly justify the killing of an innocent child (or letting an innocent child die by refusing to carry it to term).

The question is just whether or not the mother has an enforceable responsibility to carry the child. She always has a moral responsibility to carry the child just as anyone has a moral responsibility to save the life of an innocent if they can.

Consider an innocent stabbing victim who is bleeding to death; the only way to save him is to drive him to the hospital in my car. I’ve got a pretty nice interior, and I don’t really want to get blood all over. Also, there is a slight but real danger to me from helping him get in the car; I may get a blood-borne disease. So the question is, do I have an obligation to take him to the hospital?

There are two distinct cases: I stabbed him myself, either deliberately or carelessly, or I just found him there. If I stabbed him myself, then I have a legal obligation to take him to the hospital (perhaps there isn’t any law that says I have such an obligation, but if he dies, I can be charged with killing him). If I just happened upon him, then I may not have a legal obligation to save his life (it varies from place to place) but I still have a moral obligation.

In this case, it really doesn’t matter how much trouble the guy is going to cause me; my legal and moral obligations remain the same. If I’m on my way to my wedding and I know that failing to show up will cause my bride to abandon me and my parents to cut me out of their billion-dollar will then my obligations remain the same. It doesn’t matter how it will change my life. (to make the moral part of the analogy more apt, assume the stabbing victim is my own child. What moral responsibilities do I have then?)

Similarly, it doesn’t matter how pregnancy and giving birth will change a woman’s life. She always has a moral responsibility to give the child life. And if she got pregnant through her own action, then she should also have a legal responsibilty to give the child life. If she was not responsible in any way for the pregnancy, then I think it is arguable what her legal responsibility should be.