The history of morality of abortion

[Excel]

I'm agreeing with you. It's not a social or legal issue, it's a religious and moral one. Most women live immoral lives which lead to them getting pregnant and finding it acceptable to kill babies. If we fix these women, maybe through some kind of a camp, we fix abortion. These women just are not thinking clearly but hey, that's to be expected, they're women amirite. lol.

[Landlord]

I guess, after checking the internet machine, I wasn't defining genocide correctly.

 

I'll change that to be mass murder.

[HeyBurke]

I would prefer to work on WHY are abortions even needed? Why does a woman believe she needs to end the life of a fetus that is partly her?

 

It's failure in morality. That's the problem with abortion. That's why women feel they are needed, because they want to murder a child.

 

Not because they weren't properly educated about sex, or because contraception wasn't available or successful or because they were raped.

 

Most women that get abortions are twenty-something coeds who purposely get pregnant at drunken, drug fueled blood orgies and then wait until they can feel the fetus kick before they get an abortion so they can be sure they're actually murdering a baby.

 

This is a moral issue. Something is wrong with the women, not with society and the options we've made available to them.

 

 

By the way, to Landlord, even if every woman in America got pregnant and aborted a fetus every year it still wouldn't be genocide. It would be sad but not genocide. That's just hysterical Christian hyperbole.

 

 

What???

 

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

[Excel]

I guess, after checking the internet machine, I wasn't defining genocide correctly.

 

I'll change that to be mass murder.

 

There you go.

 

[TGHusker]

What do you mean by that? Would you go so far as to require women seeking abortions to be "counseled" before obtaining the procedure? A counseling that, at least in Kansas, is legally required to include bits about all abortions terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and other controversial statements inserted by the religious right.

 

Who decides what a "good decision" is anyhow? You? Are you going to legally require that women listen to people like you and your idea of a good decision like they have to in Kansas? That's what your words seem to imply, or at least your fellow Christians who say things to that effect often end up advocating such laws.

 

 

That is the opposite of what I mean, actually. I prefer not to look at it from a legal perspective whatsoever. I can't say whether or not there should be laws surrounding the issue, that's for someone else to decide. What I mean has absolutely nothing to do with forcing or coercion or taking away a choice whatsoever, and is really centered around the idea that the solution to something like this not being found in the law, but being found in changing people's hearts.

 

 

I agree Landlord.

 

With me personally, I absolutely despise abortion as a political or legal issue. It is used as nothing more than a way for both political parties to solidify their base while other issues go undiscussed. AND, this is an issue that absolutely can not be dealt with in the legal or political atmosphere. Even if they completely outlawed all abortions (for which I don't support) abortions would still be performed.

 

I think where Landlord is going (correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth) is that I would prefer to work on WHY are abortions even needed? Why does a woman believe she needs to end the life of a fetus that is partly her? Fix those things and the abortion issue goes away. The problem with that is that neither side of the political abortion issue want it to go away. THAT is sickening if you think about it.

I also agree wt Landlord and the route he is taking in this discussion. Thanks for being reasonable -please forgive me for getting off track wt the tie in to Sanger - I give my self one of these: . Both parties have turned this into a very political issue with followers of each disappointed to a certain extent of the outcomes. Regardless of what becomes or remains as the 'legal' remedy, this will be always remain a divisive topic. The sincerely held beliefs on both sides each have merit - Pro-lifers want to preserve life regardless of stage and Pro-choicers want to preserve individual liberty. If we can definitively answer the 'when does life start' question, then we'd have grounds to settle the matter. Many if not most pro-lifers believe life starts at conception. Regardless of that legal question, those of us on the pro-life side have an obligation not only to the child in the womb (and after the birth if needed) but also to the mother carrying that child. The news media often points at pro-lifers as banner carrying zeolots who don't care about the women in a crisis pregnancy. However, that is far from the truth. Many pro-lifers are involved with or support organizations that assist women through their pregnancy and help with adoption services if needed, medical care, child care services, & emotional recovery for women who are trying to recover from an abortion, etc.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm agreeing with you. It's not a social or legal issue, it's a religious and moral one. Most women live immoral lives which lead to them getting pregnant and finding it acceptable to kill babies. If we fix these women, maybe through some kind of a camp, we fix abortion. These women just are not thinking clearly but hey, that's to be expected, they're women amirite. lol.

 

 

Ummm...no.

[TGHusker]

I guess, after checking the internet machine, I wasn't defining genocide correctly.

 

I'll change that to be mass murder.

 

There you go.

 

If one could add 'age' then it would apply - but that isn't in the definition. So 'tragic' will suffice.

[Landlord]

Also I agree with Bucky's points.

 

 

His actual ones, not the trolling stuff.

[Junior]

Following up on Hobby Lobby:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

 

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

 

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

[tschu]

Until men and women both have to face the same consequences, both financially, socially, and from a responsibility standpoint, for their sexual actions, and until birth control is required to be covered under all medical plans (or is provided by a single-payer system), I will be 100% pro-choice. And even if these conditions are met, I'd probably still be pro-choice.

 

If killing any cells that have the potential to become a human life is totally morally wrong, then lock us all up with piles of sticky kleenex as the condemning evidence.

[rawhide]

Another mental health issue people seem to not mention:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/20/disclosing-the-abortion-suicide-association/?page=all

[carlfense]

Following up on Hobby Lobby:

 

http://www.forbes.co...ious-objection/

 

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

 

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

And the hypocrisy went well beyond that . . .

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus—a process the Greens consider abortion. . . . Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

 

In a stunning parallel to much of the political opposition to the Affordable Care Act . . . they only started hating these drugs after being required to cover them. It only makes sense if you start with the principle that "Obamacare is bad" and then work backwards from that point.

[Landlord]

Another mental health issue people seem to not mention:

 

http://www.washingto...ation/?page=all

 

 

Thanks for sharing rawhide.

[carlfense]

Another mental health issue people seem to not mention:

 

http://www.washingto...ation/?page=all

Abortion does not raise the risk of a woman suffering mental health problems, a major review by experts concludes.

 

Data from 44 studies showed women with an unwanted pregnancy have a higher incidence of mental health problems in general.

 

This is not affected by whether or not they have an abortion or give birth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-16094906

 

. . . but I can understand why Americans United for Life would like to pick and choose statistics to paint a misleading picture.

 

 

Johns Hopkins study, if you prefer:

A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae.

http://www.contracep...e/S0010-7824(08)00369-7/abstract (Abstract only, find a friend/spouse with a PubMed account. )

[Junior]

Another mental health issue people seem to not mention:

 

http://www.washingto...ation/?page=all

Abortion does not raise the risk of a woman suffering mental health problems, a major review by experts concludes.

 

Data from 44 studies showed women with an unwanted pregnancy have a higher incidence of mental health problems in general.

 

This is not affected by whether or not they have an abortion or give birth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-16094906

 

. . . but I can understand why Americans United for Life would like to pick and choose statistics to paint a misleading picture.

 

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -- Mark Twain.