THE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION By Chuck Baldwin

[bobbyw24]

THE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION


By Chuck Baldwin
January 22, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Today marks the 37th anniversary of the infamous US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide. The aftermath of this tragic ruling is the deaths of over 40 million (a very conservative number) innocent unborn babies. It is no hyperbole to say abortion is America's holocaust. Think of it, every American citizen today, 37 years old or younger, has never known a country that respected and protected innocent human life in the womb. Put it another way: when Hitler's Third Reich was at its zenith, the abortion rate was 40%. In 2003 (the last year that I checked), the abortion rate of the county in which I live was 39%. And I live in the heart of the so-called "Bible Belt." In fact, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be in America is not in an automobile without wearing a seat belt, or in a commercial airliner with a potential terrorist on board. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be is in the womb of one's mother.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin563.htm

[fj45lvr]

Nice to see Chuck, Ron and Rand and other people that care about Liberty, uphold it for all of us.

If you can read this you were not aborted.

[FrankRep]

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[MelissaWV]

Stfu

Very constructive post.

[bobbyw24]

Very constructive post.

I know--posts like that make me wanna leave this place forever

[romacox]

Dr Neilus, a N euro Surgeon, reported that only after 14 weeks a fetus has a full human brain scan.

[YumYum]

I know--posts like that make me wanna leave this place forever

Don't you dare! I love reading your posts in the morning with a hot cup of Java.:) You save me alot of time not having to go to a bunch of different wep pages to get the latest. I'm sure most of the members on this forum would agree. This forum has helped me to change my views on abortion with regards to human rights, maybe romeno will come around.

[bobbyw24]

Don't you dare! I love reading your posts in the morning with a hot cup of Java.:) You save me alot of time not having to go to a bunch of different wep pages to get the latest. I'm sure most of the members on this forum would agree. This forum has helped me to change my views on abortion with regards to human rights, maybe romeno will come around.

I won't leave--although I almost made it my New Year's resolution to quit RPF. Some of the posts are inane and others make Ron Paul supporters look like Troglodytes.

But I like it here too much to leave

[Krugerrand]

I know--posts like that make me wanna leave this place forever

You can't leave, Bobby! You're my number one source feed for good information.

[olehounddog]

Stfu

Well. that changed my way of thinking on murd.....uuuhhh...... I mean abortion.

[romeno182]

Very constructive post.

ok then answer this questions: you think by making abortion illegal they will no longer exist? are you for birth control since it kills billions if not trillions of potential babies? so the second before conception its just cells, and a second later its a baby? who gives you the right to decide for the women if she wants to have the baby or not? why the hipocrisy of preaching abstinence instead of a decent sexual education witch is demonstrated to be the most effective against
abortion? why are soo many pro-lifers also pro-war? why are so many pro-lifers also anti-gay, werent homosexuals once unborn babies? look it at it this way: a percentage of the aborted babies were homosexuals, maybe thats making abortion easier to accept for you? is abortion good: NO! has it always existed: YES! will it always exist: YES! does life begin at conception? NO, since its already alive before conception!! the cells are alive but the baby has a long way to go before we can call it even remotely a human beeing!! what happened before abortion became legal: women had very unsafe abortions and alot died. so waths the conclusion: there are far worse things happening in our world, and the best method to prevent as much abortions as possible is to promote liberty, prosperity, wisdom, knowledge, etc

[nate895]

ok then answer this questions: you think by making abortion illegal they will no longer exist? are you for birth control since it kills billions if not trillions of potential babies? so the second before conception its just cells, and a second later its a baby? who gives you the right to decide for the women if she wants to have the baby or not? why the hipocrisy of preaching abstinence instead of a decent sexual education witch is demonstrated to be the most effective against
abortion? why are soo many pro-lifers also pro-war? why are so many pro-lifers also anti-gay, werent homosexuals once unborn babies? look it at it this way: a percentage of the aborted babies were homosexuals, maybe thats making abortion easier to accept for you? is abortion good: NO! has it always existed: YES! will it always exist: YES! does life begin at conception? NO, since its already alive before conception!! the cells are alive but the baby has a long way to go before we can call it even remotely a human beeing!! what happened before abortion became legal: women had very unsafe abortions and alot died. so waths the conclusion: there are far worse things happening in our world, and the best method to prevent as much abortions as possible is to promote liberty, prosperity, wisdom, knowledge, etc

Your entire argument is either (1) a naturalistic fallacy (where you argue from results the justness of an action) or (2) secular humanistic non-sense. Just because something might have "bad" results doesn't make it wrong, in fact because it has "bad" consequences it may be the right thing to do. It is a good thing to punish criminals, which has "bad" consequences for criminals. Also, if we made murder legal, it would probably make murder "safe, legal, and rare," why would you bludgeon someone to death, or slowly slip arsenic into their meal when you could just shoot someone in the open? That would really be nicer for both the murdered and murderer, so why not legalize murder by that logic?

Also, why do you think hypocrisy is a bad thing?

Edit: Oops I confused the naturalistic fallacy with the "is-ought" problem.

[MelissaWV]

Regardless of my feelings or views on abortion, your original post was not constructive. bobby posted an article. He is putting out information, and he is not the author of that material. "stfu" neither expressed your opinion, nor offered anything useful on the subject at hand. It was merely a rude, snide, brief response that did nothing but reveal how petty people on internet forums can be behind the cloak of anonymity.

* * *

To address the end of your post about promoting liberty, my personal view on this has been argued ad nauseum on the board for years. If we're going to honor liberty, then the choice should be returned to the smallest unit possible. In a society with no overarching or community laws, that would be the individual (the indivudal can do what they want), but that extends to a great many other behaviors, too. It's highly unlikely society will get back to that individuality anytime soon, and even anarchists will generally allow for the fact that like-minded (like-valued) individuals will congregate and enforce their similar values, etc..

There will be groups that think life begins at conception. So long as no one is FORCED to live there and abide by those rules, then that's perfectly fine for them to believe. They can even have community/city/state ordinances that prohibit the building of abortion clinics within x feet/yards/miles of a school, or similar laws. Other areas might find that life begins when sensation can be observed in the majority of fetuses. Others might say, arbitrarily, it's at this week or that week, or some might say it's only when the cord is cut. There are problems with all of the arguments. That's why it's in the best interests of liberty to remove the broadest impositions of those definitions and arguments.

* * *

Or I could have just said "stfu."


ok then answer this questions: you think by making abortion illegal they will no longer exist? are you for birth control since it kills billions if not trillions of potential babies? so the second before conception its just cells, and a second later its a baby? who gives you the right to decide for the women if she wants to have the baby or not? why the hipocrisy of preaching abstinence instead of a decent sexual education witch is demonstrated to be the most effective against
abortion? why are soo many pro-lifers also pro-war? why are so many pro-lifers also anti-gay, werent homosexuals once unborn babies? look it at it this way: a percentage of the aborted babies were homosexuals, maybe thats making abortion easier to accept for you? is abortion good: NO! has it always existed: YES! will it always exist: YES! does life begin at conception? NO, since its already alive before conception!! the cells are alive but the baby has a long way to go before we can call it even remotely a human beeing!! what happened before abortion became legal: women had very unsafe abortions and alot died. so waths the conclusion: there are far worse things happening in our world, and the best method to prevent as much abortions as possible is to promote liberty, prosperity, wisdom, knowledge, etc

[romeno182]

so my question for you: by making it illegal,since prohibition wont make abortions cease, you will have many self inflicted abortions or abortions done by non professionals causing alot of deaths of the women (and probably by your logic they deserve to die). when they are not dead already since its illegal you have to add the massive emotional trauma she receives from her community, probably her family.. then she would end up in jail where she will die either´physicly or emotionally.. or otherwise you have to lock her up and force her to give birth, dont you? now choose witch one is the lesser of the two evils

[MelissaWV]

so my question for you: by making it illegal,since prohibition wont make abortions chease, you will have many self inflicted abortions or abortions done by non professionals causing alot of deaths of the women (and probably by your logic they deserve to die). when they are not dead already since its illegal you have to add the massive emotional trauma she receives from her community, probably her family.. then she would end up in jail where she will die either´physicly or emotionally.. or otherwise you have to lock her up and force her to give birth, dont you? now choose witch one is the lesser of the two evils

Okay now I just have to ask...

...who are you talking to?

Me? Another poster? Chuck Baldwin?

I also don't know what "chease" is.

[FrankRep]

so my question for you: by making it illegal,since prohibition wont make abortions cease, you will have many self inflicted abortions or abortions done by non professionals causing alot of deaths of the women (and probably by your logic they deserve to die). when they are not dead already since its illegal you have to add the massive emotional trauma she receives from her community, probably her family.. then she would end up in jail where she will die either´physicly or emotionally.. or otherwise you have to lock her up and force her to give birth, dont you? now choose witch one is the lesser of the two evils
I agree with Ron Paul, this is a State's Rights issue.
Each state can decide on how much murder they will tolerate.

[pcosmar]

so my question for you: by making it illegal,since prohibition wont make abortions chease, you will have many self inflicted abortions or abortions done by non professionals causing alot of deaths of the women (and probably by your logic they deserve to die). when they are not dead already since its illegal you have to add the massive emotional trauma she receives from her community, probably her family.. then she would end up in jail where she will die either´physicly or emotionally.. or otherwise you have to lock her up and force her to give birth, dont you? now choose witch one is the lesser of the two evils

When it was illegal, it was also socially unacceptable. The fact is that it was a lot rarer than the eugenics propaganda proposed.
Abortion was never about a "right", It was about promoting an Ideology.
It is about population control.
Control , not freedom or rights.

At this point in history I do not believe the "Genie can be put back in the bottle". It has (sadly) become socially acceptable.
I am both Pro-Life and Pro- Choice.
I just hope that none would make that choice.

I doubt that the Lawmakers will ever reverse this anyway, but it does distract from "the men behind the curtain."

[romeno182]

Regardless of my feelings or views on abortion, your original post was not constructive.

well comparing abortion with the nazis isnt either


It was about promoting an Ideology.
It is about population control.

yes pro-life is controlling the womens body and sexuality

anyway feel free to disagree

[nate895]

so my question for you: by making it illegal,since prohibition wont make abortions cease, you will have many self inflicted abortions or abortions done by non professionals causing alot of deaths of the women (and probably by your logic they deserve to die). when they are not dead already since its illegal you have to add the massive emotional trauma she receives from her community, probably her family.. then she would end up in jail where she will die either´physicly or emotionally.. or otherwise you have to lock her up and force her to give birth, dont you? now choose witch one is the lesser of the two evils

It has nothing to do with society. Women suffer physical and emotional pain from abortions because they violate sin against the most holy God, whose image they possess. Even in societies where abortion is accepted as normal, it still causes emotional trauma for the participants.

[AuH20]

When it was illegal, it was also socially unacceptable. The fact is that it was a lot rarer than the eugenics propaganda proposed.
Abortion was never about a "right", It was about promoting an Ideology.It is about population control.
Control , not freedom or rights.

At this point in history I do not believe the "Genie can be put back in the bottle". It has (sadly) become socially acceptable.
I am both Pro-Life and Pro- Choice.
I just hope that none would make that choice.

I doubt that the Lawmakers will ever reverse this anyway, but it does distract from "the men behind the curtain."

Well said. It's about dehumanization.

[romeno182]

It has nothing to do with society. Women suffer physical and emotional pain from abortions because they violate sin against the most holy God, whose image they possess. Even in societies where abortion is accepted as normal, it still causes emotional trauma for the participants.

well abortion is traumatic per se.. add religious/social values who are strongly discriminatory against women who have had abortion and you will have death and suicide

[moostraks]

.

yes pro-life is controlling the womens body and sexuality

anyway feel free to disagree

Bull chips. It is about making the protection of life a reality again. It is about making people responsible to consequences of their actions. It isn't the woman's body being shattered to pieces and sucked into the trash.

THanks for allowing us to disagree. Especially since some of us also see this directly correlated to the eugenics agenda. An agenda which has created generations of individuals who parrot these talking points, and will unwittingly follow tptb down the path of their own self destruction in old age:

We supported the rights of the woman's body and sexuality over the rights of the child. We wanted mandatory healthcare for everyone so no one was denied the right to indulge their baser nature without consequence. What do you mean we need to refuse care to older people as a cost effective measure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse...When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money"

What do you mean you are going to force me to participate in your healthcare plans? Why are homeopathic remedies and healers being squeezed out? Time will tell, but some of us see the writing on the wall...

[pcosmar]

.

well comparing abortion with the nazis isnt either

How so?
Hitlers Eugenics/Extermination was based and inspired by the very same philosophy.
The idea of superior and inferior genetics. selective breeding. A master race.
Killing the "unfit" or unwanted.
Seems parallel to me.

.
yes pro-life is controlling the womens body and sexuality

anyway feel free to disagree

I do disagree.
Pregnancy and giving birth is a natural result of sexuality. it is not "controlling".

In fact, it is a lack of self control that often leads to unwanted pregnancy.

[nate895]

well abortion is traumatic per se.. add religious/social values who are strongly discriminatory against women who have had abortion and you will have death and suicide

That's your speculation. Oh, and, so? Why should I give a hoot?

[romeno182]

It is about making people responsible to consequences of their actions.

ok whats your solution? force women to give birth? and then? give the child free to adoption? imprison the women who had abortion?

[Krugerrand]

ok whats your solution? force women to give birth? and then? give the child free to adoption? imprison the women who had abortion?

You either misunderstand or misrepresent the primary reasons for abortions. One of the biggest is that 'I'd have to cancel my cable and maybe wait another year to buy a new car.'

[nate895]

ok whats your solution? force women to give birth? and then? give the child free to adoption? imprison the women who had abortion?

Once again, why is that wrong? Why should you object to that?

[pcosmar]

ok whats your solution? force women to give birth? and then? give the child free to adoption? imprison the women who had abortion?

Force?
Choice?
Except in the case of rape. (rare*)
Having sex is a choice. Pregnancy is a possible consequence.

No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant.


*
most abortions are not due to rape, just unwanted pregnancy

[moostraks]

ok whats your solution? force women to give birth? and then? give the child free to adoption? imprison the women who had abortion?

pcosmar pretty much answered how I would have...

Odd that you seem incensed she should be unpaid for what you are claiming is an unwanted pregnancy.

Why such hostility? You read what I wrote. If you are out for selfish intentions then maybe you should see where this is headed instead of being concerned with the current capacity for pleasure.

TPTB give plenty of foreshadowing material as to their agenda if you seek for it. The eugenics agenda is going full steam. Look into the backgrounds of those spearheading the President's numerous working groups and czars.

[MelissaWV]

.

well comparing abortion with the nazis isnt either




Red herring. Your post of "stfu" did not address anyone, and was the second post, therefore it's fairly safe to deduce you were telling bobby to "stfu." If you'd taken three more seconds and typed "Chuck Baldwin needs to stfu." then it would have been better.

* * *

I think you'll find that most on this board are PERSONALLY Pro Life but not interested in having the Federal Government on "baby patrol," nosing around to see who has or has not had an abortion. That becomes a very slippery slope. Let's assume for a moment we fall down the rabbit hole and "all abortion is illegal" tomorrow. Let's assume that gracious Government doesn't go back and arrest people involved in abortions before the law passed (ex post facto and all that).

What's left? Okay, abortion is illegal as an action in this scenario. This means that the people who perform abortions, those that receive them, and those that ATTEMPT them, will all be criminals. Two rather perverse things leap immediately to mind:


A child whose mother tried to abort them is "evidence." Survivors of botched abortions would likewise be "evidence." People as evidence has a bad history in this country.

Attempted abortion is a very vague notion. Birth control could be categorized as abortion, or attempted abortion, in a lot of cases. Attempted abortion could also be applied, though, to all sorts of risky behavior. The implication that a zygote is a person and that a mother is responsible for its life could be used to justify all manner of frivolous arrests.


Lastly, in order to determine who's had an abortion once this theoretical ban goes into effect, you would need a medical exam. Probing through every woman's medical records to see if she might have ever had an abortion is against what nearly everyone on this board believes, no matter what they personally believe about abortion. The methodology of banning the practice is where snags come into view.

Education, better options, and making it socially unacceptable are a good start to getting back on track, and though numbers are still high, I don't think they're on a dramatic upswing.

[jmdrake]

I won't leave--although I almost made it my New Year's resolution to quit RPF. Some of the posts are inane and others make Ron Paul supporters look like Troglodytes.

But I like it here too much to leave

LOL. Every so often I make such a resolution. I know I spend to much time here and sometimes I expend way too much negative energy. But then sometimes I get some really good info too like this thread or this awesome post about taking our country back from someone who's been successful.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226429

I think the key to avoiding forum burnout is to balance online "activism" with real world action. For instance I had a great time recently promoting liberty at a MLK day rally. Almost no negative energy at all!

[jmdrake]

ok then answer this questions: you think by making abortion illegal they will no longer exist? are you for birth control since it kills billions if not trillions of potential babies? so the second before conception its just cells, and a second later its a baby? who gives you the right to decide for the women if she wants to have the baby or not? why the hipocrisy of preaching abstinence instead of a decent sexual education witch is demonstrated to be the most effective against
abortion? why are soo many pro-lifers also pro-war? why are so many pro-lifers also anti-gay, werent homosexuals once unborn babies? look it at it this way: a percentage of the aborted babies were homosexuals, maybe thats making abortion easier to accept for you? is abortion good: NO! has it always existed: YES! will it always exist: YES! does life begin at conception? NO, since its already alive before conception!! the cells are alive but the baby has a long way to go before we can call it even remotely a human beeing!! what happened before abortion became legal: women had very unsafe abortions and alot died. so waths the conclusion: there are far worse things happening in our world, and the best method to prevent as much abortions as possible is to promote liberty, prosperity, wisdom, knowledge, etc

Do you honestly believe that this:

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/sperm.jpg

is the same as this?

http://www.yourultrasound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/18wkmfullbodyed.jpg

I tell you what. Go to any obstetrician and ask him or her for material that they give their patients who have had a miscarriage. Read the books that tell these grieving mothers you lost a baby and don't let anyone else tell you different.

[romeno182]

Odd that you seem incensed she should be unpaid for what you are claiming is an unwanted pregnancy.

this really says it all.. thats not your businnes what shes choosing.. its called personal choiche, you dont have any right to force her in any decision its her pregnancy, and she has the right (and when you think she hasnt she will do it anyway cos thats what HISTORY has told) to decide abut her body (and with that i mean also about her pregnancy)! again its called personal choiche and it doesnt matter which emotional problems you have with abortion, she and only she has the right to decide..

i think there are far greater problems in the world then abortion, since abortions will always exist and the only way to lower them is prosperity and liberty

[jmdrake]

.

this really says it all.. thats not your businnes what shes choosing.. its called personal choiche, you dont have any right to force her in any decision its her pregnancy, and she has the right (and when you think she hasnt she will do it anyway cos thats what HISTORY has told) to decide abut her body (and with that i mean also about her pregnancy)! again its called personal choiche and it doesnt matter which emotional problems you have with abortion, she and only she has the right to decide..

i think there are far greater problems in the world then abortion, since abortions will always exist and the only way to lower them is prosperity and liberty

Murder will likewise always exist. And I suppose it takes away somebody's "choice". And while abortion existed before R v W, there was far fewer abortions.

[pcosmar]

What it is about.
Some quotes by Margret Sanger, the founder of Planed Parenthood.


The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

It is not about "choice", but rather about an agenda.

[reduen]

See ya... It is the governments job to protect the life of every citizen. Being in a mothers womb does not exclude you of this unalienable right.....


I know--posts like that make me wanna leave this place forever

[bobbyw24]

What it is about.
Some quotes by Margret Sanger, the founder of Planed Parenthood
It is not about "choice", but rather about an agenda.

True--Ms. Sanger would be proud that 65-70% of all abortions are done on "Women of Color."

[jmdrake]

Red herring. Your post of "stfu" did not address anyone, and was the second post, therefore it's fairly safe to deduce you were telling bobby to "stfu." If you'd taken three more seconds and typed "Chuck Baldwin needs to stfu." then it would have been better.

* * *

I think you'll find that most on this board are PERSONALLY Pro Life but not interested in having the Federal Government on "baby patrol," nosing around to see who has or has not had an abortion. That becomes a very slippery slope. Let's assume for a moment we fall down the rabbit hole and "all abortion is illegal" tomorrow. Let's assume that gracious Government doesn't go back and arrest people involved in abortions before the law passed (ex post facto and all that).

What's left? Okay, abortion is illegal as an action in this scenario. This means that the people who perform abortions, those that receive them, and those that ATTEMPT them, will all be criminals. Two rather perverse things leap immediately to mind:


A child whose mother tried to abort them is "evidence." Survivors of botched abortions would likewise be "evidence." People as evidence has a bad history in this country.

Attempted abortion is a very vague notion. Birth control could be categorized as abortion, or attempted abortion, in a lot of cases. Attempted abortion could also be applied, though, to all sorts of risky behavior. The implication that a zygote is a person and that a mother is responsible for its life could be used to justify all manner of frivolous arrests.


Lastly, in order to determine who's had an abortion once this theoretical ban goes into effect, you would need a medical exam. Probing through every woman's medical records to see if she might have ever had an abortion is against what nearly everyone on this board believes, no matter what they personally believe about abortion. The methodology of banning the practice is where snags come into view.

Education, better options, and making it socially unacceptable are a good start to getting back on track, and though numbers are still high, I don't think they're on a dramatic upswing.

Sure there are complexities to abortion. That's why it should be handled at the state level instead of "once size fits all" federal abortion law.

That said, the "abortion survivor" problem already exists. Babies that survive abortion are routinely killed. Besides, this is a different "survivor" problem than most crimes. It's not like the survivor problem with kidnapping, rape or robbery. In those crimes most victims aren't killed. In abortion they are by definition. If a change in abortion law led to significantly fewer abortions, but a higher percentage of survivors ended up being killed would that be a bad thing? That assumes that somehow there is a real difference between a 6 month old fetus inside the womb and a 6 month old fetus outside the womb. While there is a difference as far as the mother is concerned, I don't think there's any difference as far as the child is concerned.

As for birth control "abortions", there's already a way to distinguish that. Assisted suicide is illegal, but giving palliative care is legal as long as the intent is to relieve pain rather than to kill the patient. So let's take the birth control pill. Sure it's possible that it might work as a "morning after pill" to an already fertilized ovum, but the intent is to prevent the fertilization in the first place. (Condoms, of course, are not affected since they can only work by preventing fertilization). Modern IUDs also are primarily designed to prevent fertilization. The only form of "birth control" that would be affected by a total ban on abortion, assuming the same "primary motive" standard taken from palliative care, would be so called "emergency contraception". Here one has to take in the will of the population. American opinions on abortion change dramatically from "the first few days" to the "last few months". So it's unlikely that total bans on abortion that even barred emergency contraception would pass in even very conservative states. Even so, people cross state lines all the time to buy lottery tickets. The same could happen for "Plan B".

I agree that education is the best option. However this is hampered by people thinking that abortion is some sort of "sacred right" that is elevated even about rights mentioned in the bill of rights. (It's easier to restrict speech and religion in this country than it is to restrict abortion). If the "laboratory of the states" was allowed to work as originally intended, people living in different states could see the effect of different abortion laws and learn that whether this "right" was kept or not would not make the sky fall.

[moostraks]

.

this really says it all.. thats not your businnes what shes choosing.. its called personal choiche, you dont have any right to force her in any decision its her pregnancy, and she has the right (and when you think she hasnt she will do it anyway cos thats what HISTORY has told) to decide abut her body (and with that i mean also about her pregnancy)! again its called personal choiche and it doesnt matter which emotional problems you have with abortion, she and only she has the right to decide..

i think there are far greater problems in the world then abortion, since abortions will always exist and the only way to lower them is prosperity and liberty

The difference lay in when we both hold to the rights of the individual beginning. The woman had the choice to make prior to conception. Excepting rape, she made her choice and after conception it is the right of the child to have life protected.

I also don't believe in children as goods but as responsibilities. Selling people is the philosophy of those who embrace slavery.

A woman doesn't have the right to kill a child after a certain period right now due to public perception. While in utero technology has advanced enormously we are still hold to a ruling from 37 years ago? Not exactly progress, and why would that be?

This isn't an emotional problem I have with the issue, but an ethical and scientific one you have in touting the destruction of human life as being a measure of your liberty you enjoy.

As for prosperity and liberty lowering the problem of abortion it sounds like you have been listening to NPR's talking points. Have you followed liberal media's ideas on your future welfare? People as property is dehumanizing and will inevitably lead to your own destruction....

[MelissaWV]

Sure there are complexities to abortion. That's why it should be handled at the state level instead of "once size fits all" federal abortion law.

That said, the "abortion survivor" problem already exists. Babies that survive abortion are routinely killed. Besides, this is a different "survivor" problem than most crimes.



Agreed on the first point (as you can see from earlier posts).

The second point about "survivors" was made by me within the context of becoming "evidence." That is, essentially, what a child whose mother attempted to abort it would become. Our nation (well, at least half of it) has treated people as evidence before, or rather as contraband, and it wasn't exactly a pretty time period in our history. I know there are survivors now, and I know they aren't treated kindly, though who would expect them to be, considering the very people that "botched" the procedure already think of them as nothing more than a clump of cells. Why try to save a clump of cells?

I am still of the stand that it should be up to the smallest unit possible to make decisions like this, but that I personally reserve the right to think way less of someone for having an abortion.

[Krugerrand]

here's a survivor:
YouTube - Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor in Australia Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ)

[teacherone]

You know those sting operations where the feds call up a criminal, tell them they've won some fantastic prize, where to pick it up, and nab them on the spot?

I think we should do the same thing with abortion centers!

Here's how it works, a woman wishing to terminate her pregnancy enters an abortion center where she is led to the operating room. She walks in, the door locks behind her and boom! Gotcha!

for the next nine months she is force fed plenty of fruits, flourides, and vegetables. She may even leave her cell room once a day to perform a brief exercise routine meandering the hallways.

At the end of nine months, strap her down in the stirrups, give her some labor inducing drugs. If she resists-- spinal tap and C-section!

Once the baby is ex-utero, send the happy mother home. Don't forget to pay the taxi driver!

Now, off to find a nice family looking for a fresh infant. Can't find one? Unlucky--it's the state-run orphanage for you little guy.

Ahh...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

[nate895]

You know those sting operations where the feds call up a criminal, tell them they've won some fantastic prize, where to pick it up, and nab them on the spot?

I think we should do the same thing with abortion centers!

Here's how it works, a woman wishing to terminate her pregnancy enters an abortion center where she is led to the operating room. She walks in, the door locks behind her and boom! Gotcha!

for the next nine months she is force fed plenty of fruits, flourides, and vegetables. She may even leave her cell room once a day to perform a brief exercise routine meandering the hallways.

At the end of nine months, strap her down in the stirrups, give her some labor inducing drugs. If she resists-- spinal tap and C-section!

Once the baby is ex-utero, send the happy mother home. Don't forget to pay the taxi driver!

Now, off to find a nice family looking for a fresh infant. Can't find one? Unlucky--it's the state-run orphanage for you little guy.

Ahh...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

I think I saw an argument that was almost exactly like this as the textbook example of a "strawman."

[teacherone]

I think I saw an argument that was almost exactly like this as the textbook example of a "strawman."

do tell...

[teacherone]

ahh.... the pro-life libertarian.

don't make me pay taxes! it's mine all mine!

get government off my back!

monopoly of violence! they have all the guns! police are corrupt and evil!



what?? abortion?? criminals!

employ a state police force to track down doctors who performs abortions!

tap their phones!

read their emails!

reward the snitches!

arrest them! prosecute them with the state attorney! put them in jail!

arrest the women! put them in jail! prosecute them with the state attorney!

the kids? house them in state orphanages!

how to fund it? TAXES!!!

arggghhhhh

[nate895]

do tell...

I sold it, but last quarter I took a speech class and one of the 10 most common logical fallacies listed is the "strawman," and the abortion issue was one of the two examples (I forgot the other), and the pro-choice person in the debate made up a strawman about how all pro-lifers were religious zealots who wanted to peer in on people's personal lives and control through force, and that they all were in some sort-of terrorist conspiracy. The pro-life representative setup a strawman of the pro-choice person as a soulless demon who wanted to legalize murder.

However, let me stop there because there are some arguments that appear like strawmen, but aren't really. If someone takes the premises of the other side's argument and shows how that would necessarily, logically speaking, lead to a conclusion that we simply can't accept (or is contradictory) is a perfectly legitimate form of argument known in common parlance as reductio ad absurdum. In the technical sense, a reductio ad aburdum is only the reduction of premises, through logical deduction, to logical contradictions. An example of this would be when I took romeno's premises to justify legal abortion and showed how it lead logically to the acceptance of murder as a legal activity, a conclusion we cannot accept, and therefore we must either spot a fallacy (as I did in romeno's case), or reject a premise.

[Krugerrand]

ahh.... the pro-life libertarian.

don't make me pay taxes! it's mine all mine!

get government off my back!

monopoly of violence! they have all the guns! police are corrupt and evil!



what?? abortion?? criminals!

employ a state police force to track down doctors who performs abortions!

tap their phones!

read their emails!

reward the snitches!

arrest them! prosecute them with the state attorney! put them in jail!

arrest the women! put them in jail! prosecute them with the state attorney!

the kids? house them in state orphanages!

how to fund it? TAXES!!!

arggghhhhh

Yup .. .they're the same obnoxious hypocrites that think taxes should support a criminal justice system that prosecutes a mother or father that murders their newborn child.

[nate895]

Yup .. .they're the same obnoxious hypocrites that think taxes should support a criminal justice system that prosecutes a mother or father that murders their newborn child.

What a bunch of evil bastards those Christians are! How dare they value what they believe to bear the image of God! (As long as we are using strawmen, two can play that game) We need to use our government money to shutdown those churches, they aren't letting society accept abortion, those evil believers!!

[teacherone]

Yup .. .they're the same obnoxious hypocrites that think taxes should support a criminal justice system that prosecutes a mother or father that murders their newborn child.

if you want to outlaw abortion and you are as you say a Christian, then you need to ensure that the child receives the best care possible.

this means:

welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers who want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the incarceration of women caught before a succesful abortion took place.

funding the delivery of the baby.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

now all of this can be done of course.

but is it in line with the philosophy of liberty?

or is this scenario more likely to occur in a socialistic country?

[nate895]

if you want to outlaw abortion and you are as you say a Christian, then you need to ensure that the child receives the best care possible.

this means:

welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers you want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

now all of this can be done of course.

but is it in line with the philosophy of liberty?

or is this scenario more likely to occur in a socialistic country?

Why would doing our darndest to support a child properly necessarily mean statist welfare? Why can't I just give more money to the Church government, where that type of activity belongs? The Bible nowhere mentions that a Christian state must have welfare programs. In fact, the only welfare programs mentioned in the Scriptures wind up with bad consequences in the long run. However, the Church (and the priesthood in the OT) do participate in successful charitable ventures.

[teacherone]

so you would willingly pay taxes and use the force of government to coerce a woman into keeping her unwanted baby due to poverty-- but not willingly pay taxes to care for that baby?

how very christian of you!

[Danke]

so you would willingly pay taxes and use the force of government to coerce a woman into keeping her unwanted baby due to poverty-- but not willingly pay taxes to care for that baby?

how very christian of you!

That's silly.

Do you think mothers should be able to kill their children? And if not, are you willing to raise their children if one wishes to kill their child?

Government makes a law against murder, now all the taxpayers have to pay to keep the folks alive who someone wanted to have murdered?

[Krugerrand]

if you want to outlaw abortion and you are as you say a Christian, then you need to ensure that the child receives the best care possible.

this means:

welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers who want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the incarceration of women caught before a succesful abortion took place.

funding the delivery of the baby.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

now all of this can be done of course.

but is it in line with the philosophy of liberty?

or is this scenario more likely to occur in a socialistic country?

Please clarify when made any statement of faith.

[teacherone]

by the way-- a socialistic society doesn't only mean welfare-- it is a police state funded by taxes ---in the name of welfare-- in which everyone is watched by the watchers both in and out of uniform.

morally speaking, a society that chooses to outlaw abortion by using the force of government must also choose to care for the child born by using the force of government.

[nate895]

so you would willingly pay taxes and use the force of government to coerce a woman into keeping her unwanted baby due to poverty-- but not willingly pay taxes to care for that baby?

how very christian of you!

I don't think you have had a post so far on this thread where haven't either (1) committed an elementary informal logical fallacy (2) made bare assertions with no basis. In this post you are using an ad hominen attack (fallacious) and barely asserting that it is unchristian of me to not give taxes to the state for welfare for children who would be aborted and their mothers, etc. Part of the problem here is your assumption that "government" means the state, and that the only government capable of welfare is through the coercion of the state. In the Christian society, the state is but one manner of government meant specifically to execute the laws pertaining to the Second Table of the Ten Commandments (i.e., Commandments 5-10), as well as the other authorities vested in the state in the Law. It is the Church government's duty to enforce the First Table (1-4) of the Ten Commandments, and to conduct charitably exercises, preach the Gospel, and maintain Christian piety in general.

[teacherone]

That's silly.

Do you think mothers should be able to kill their children? And if not, are you willing to raise their children if one wishes to kill their child?

Government makes a law against murder, now all the taxpayers have to pay to keep the folks alive who someone wanted to have murdered?

so what do you do with the babies?

[nate895]

morally speaking, a society that chooses to outlaw abortion by using the force of government must also choose to care for the child born by using the force of government.

Another assertion, why? I somewhat agree, but why should I?

[teacherone]

I don't think you have had a post so far on this thread where haven't either (1) committed an elementary informal logical fallacy (2) made bare assertions with no basis. In this post you are using an ad hominen attack (fallacious) and barely asserting that it is unchristian of me to not give taxes to the state for welfare for children who would be aborted and their mothers, etc. Part of the problem here is your assumption that "government" means the state, and that the only government capable of welfare is through the coercion of the state. In the Christian society, the state is but one manner of government meant specifically to execute the laws pertaining to the Second Table of the Ten Commandments (i.e., Commandments 5-10), as well as the other authorities vested in the state in the Law. It is the Church government's duty to enforce the First Table (1-4) of the Ten Commandments, and to conduct charitably exercises, preach the Gospel, and maintain Christian piety in general.

hahahahaha :D lol at logical fallacies.

[pcosmar]

arggghhhhh
Wow. That is a lot of straw. You stuffed a fat man.


if you want to outlaw abortion and you are as you say a Christian, then you need to ensure that the child receives the best care possible.

this means:

welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers who want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the incarceration of women caught before a succesful abortion took place.

funding the delivery of the baby.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

now all of this can be done of course.

but is it in line with the philosophy of liberty?

or is this scenario more likely to occur in a socialistic country?

How was it handled before the murder of infants was made legal?

I have heard none calling for any of that. Just the overturning of a bad decision by the SC and a return to a position of respecting life.
Many say it is a state issue. I agree that it should not be a Federal issue, but bottom line is it is a private issue.
However the wholesale killing of infants for profit is disgusting. And the philosophy behind the organization that pushed this to legalization is frightening.
I wish for no more than a return to sanity. :(

[teacherone]

Please clarify when who made any statement of faith.

sorry---my bad. arguing with the ten commandment guy.

[nate895]

hahahahaha :D lol at logical fallacies.

What fallacy? My argument logically follows. It isn't fallacious. You may deem it unsound because of a bad premise, but it isn't fallacious.

[teacherone]

Wow. That is a lot of straw. You stuffed a fat man.



How was it handled before the murder of infants was made legal?

I have heard none calling for any of that. Just the overturning of a bad

of course you haven't-- that's because they don't think about the outcomes of their arguments. here they are--


Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.

South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:
Ireland, Malta.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_countries_is_abortion_illegal

now how many of the countries above are socialistic police states?

[pcosmar]

of course you haven't-- that's because they don't think about the outcomes of their arguments. here they are--



now how many of the countries above are socialistic police states?

What states where it IS legal are not socialist police states? :confused:

don't even include the US. :(

[nate895]

of course you haven't-- that's because they don't think about the outcomes of their arguments. here they are--



now how many of the countries above are socialistic police states?

Now, I have heard a lot of dumb arguments for a lot of things before, and this one isn't the dumbest, but it surely deserves an honorable mention. When you have a world that is almost 100% socialist with maybe a couple of exceptions, if you pulled out a list for anything being illegal, you would come up with the result that everything should be legal since all the police/socialist states ban it too. You're argument is incredulous for this reason. Stealing is a crime in all those places too. Should stealing be legal? Don't come back with some witty "taxes are stealing too, LOL" response, that isn't the point.

[Danke]

tearcherone, You a public school teacher by chance?

[moostraks]

so what do you do with the babies?

Have you really thought about what is currently being done with them? So your option is better?

Having the church return to carrying for the needy rather than buying chandeliers and big screen televisions would be a step in the right direction for society and the church....

[Promontorium]

YAY AN ABORTION THREAD!!!

Reminds me of a friend of mine, if a conversation with people got ridiculously hostile he would just yell out, "Hey, I know what we should talk about, abortion! That'll make people feel good."

[moostraks]

I have heard none calling for any of that. Just the overturning of a bad decision by the SC and a return to a position of respecting life.
Many say it is a state issue. I agree that it should not be a Federal issue, but bottom line is it is a private issue.
However the wholesale killing of infants for profit is disgusting. And the philosophy behind the organization that pushed this to legalization is frightening.
I wish for no more than a return to sanity. :(

Agreed on a state issue rather than federal.

On the plus side, those of us bearing children will the parents of the future generations so teach your children well.

[pcosmar]

Agreed on a state issue rather than federal.

On the plus side, those of us bearing children will the parents of the future generations so teach your children well.

Sadly, The only child I ever fathered was killed by an abortion.

I have several "adopted" Grandchildren though. ;)

[moostraks]

Sadly, The only child I ever fathered was killed by an abortion.

I have several "adopted" Grandchildren though. ;)

ugh...sorry!

My folks are MIA as grandparents so if you need anymore I have loaner grandchildren for you.:)

[teacherone]

tearcherone, You a public school teacher by chance?

nope--private!

[Danke]

nope--private!

Accredited?

[teacherone]

Accredited?

yes...why wanna send your kid?

[teacherone]

Now, I have heard a lot of dumb arguments for a lot of things before, and this one isn't the dumbest, but it surely deserves an honorable mention. When you have a world that is almost 100% socialist with maybe a couple of exceptions, if you pulled out a list for anything being illegal, you would come up with the result that everything should be legal since all the police/socialist states ban it too. You're argument is incredulous for this reason. Stealing is a crime in all those places too. Should stealing be legal? Don't come back with some witty "taxes are stealing too, LOL" response, that isn't the point.

i don't find it dumb to be honest. this is what i believe you need in order to outlaw abortion.


welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers who want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the incarceration of women caught before a succesful abortion took place.

funding the delivery of the baby.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

i'm all for it if you are!:D

[nate895]

i don't find it dumb to be honest. this is what i believe you need in order to outlaw abortion.



i'm all for it if you are!:D

Once again, why should I accept that the state must enforce levy taxes for welfare for single mothers, etc. if it punishes abortion? Do you base this on some sort of evidence, or just on your feelings on what is right or wrong?

[MelissaWV]

if you want to outlaw abortion and you are as you say a Christian, then you need to ensure that the child receives the best care possible.

this means:

welfare for mothers who wanted to get an abortion due to poverty or single parenthood.

funding state orphanages for mothers who want an abortion for any another reason.

funding state offices to find housing for children in state orphanages.

policing doctors' offices to ensure no illegal abortions are taking place.

funding the incarceration of women caught before a succesful abortion took place.

funding the delivery of the baby.

funding the prosecution of doctors and women who were caught after a sucessful abortion took place.

funding the incarceration of said doctors and women.

now all of this can be done of course.

but is it in line with the philosophy of liberty?

or is this scenario more likely to occur in a socialistic country?

Or, you could actually have looked at what I said...

Outlawing abortion is going to simply lead to a witch hunt. Outlawing abortion clinics, however, in a given locality is about as close as one can get. Making it socially unacceptable would be a good start, too, and providing REAL education about adoption and alternatives is also a good idea.

I'm not sure why you assume that foster homes would need to be "state-run."

We fund the incarceration of anyone who's incarcerated right now, and since the argument imposes the illegality of an action, one has to assume that there is still a State putting people in jail for various activities. For instance, a drunk driver who runs into and kills a pregnant lady (and is charged, I might add, with two counts of vehicular manslaughter in most cases, not one)... that person is going to find themselves in jail if found guilty most of the time. As a tangent, I'm all for jails being self-sufficient, or as close to it as possible. There's a middle ground somewhere between brutal chain gangs and Club Fed.

Funding the delivery of babies is another argument that makes no sense here. Are the abortions free? The State doesn't need a hand in this. If most insurance plans were tweaked, too, to tilt the scales so that coverage for women who decide to go through with pregnancy and give the baby up is attractive, it might help. Don't give me "oh but most of the women getting abortions don't HAVE health insurance!" either. The notion that women getting abortions are persecuted teen mommies is out-dated.


The analysis confirmed previous reports that the abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, dropping 33 percent from a peak of 29 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1980 to 20 per 1,000 in 2004.

During that period, the proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 dropped steadily, falling from 33 percent in 1974 to 17 percent in 2004. For those younger than 18, it fell from 15 percent of all abortions in 1974 to 6 percent in 2004. At the same time, the proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s increased from 50 percent to 57 percent, and the share done for women age 30 and older rose from 18 percent to 27 percent.

Welfare for women who were going to have an abortion due to single parenthood? What an absolute insult to all single parents out there. Not only is it too hard to be a single mom, I guess, but it's just too awful to even be single and pregnant. Somehow, even if she is going to give up her baby, a woman deserves welfare in your scenario. That doesn't make a lick of sense. What financial burden does she incur?

* * *

Your arguments are full of holes. You don't seem to want to read what anyone else is saying, as to why they personally think abortion is awful, or why they think the Government should butt out. You seem to instead see us all as wanting to strap every woman down and force her to squeeze out babies that the taxpayers have to support. I'm not sure who, exactly, you see as saying that, and instead you'll probably respond to this with some vague umbrella statement that, again, doesn't address any real concerns.