Michelle Bachmann

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

kathy ritvo, trainer of mucho macho man, was profiled in bloodhorse a few months back. i'm sure everyone knows her story about her heart transplant...but she also talked about the fact that at one point she became pregnant. her and her husband came to the painful decision to terminate the pregnancy because her doctor told her it would likely prove fatal. she already had two children-a family who needed her. now, who had the right to tell her to do otherwise? or force her to do so? thankfully, no one.

That's obviously a case where there is no choice. No sane person would force that.

Realize that the exception cases many pro-life people agree on, like rape and when the mother's life is in peril, are around 1% of all abortion cases, and the other 99% are simply "elective". The exceptions do not justify the elective abortions. It's not that juvenile. We can ban abortions where those factors of being the result of a documented crime or causing a legitimate medical emergency are not present.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's obviously a case where there is no choice. No sane person would force that.

Realize that the exception cases many pro-life people agree on, like rape and when the mother's life is in peril, are around 1% of all abortion cases, and the other 99% are simply "elective". The exceptions do not justify the elective abortions. It's not that juvenile. We can ban abortions where those factors of being the result of a documented crime or causing a legitimate medical emergency are not present.

and like i said above, the issue of a documented crime is a thorny one. what if the accused rapist goes free? what if the case doesn't go to trial? or what if people just shouldn't have to meet your choice of a burden of proof? then there's the fact that people can find professionals to say yea or nay to pretty much any topic under the sun, who would be the decider? three doctors say no, three say yes-should it be a committee? how much of a fight would it take? what if someone had to go through said hoops, was rejected by the 'abortion police' and died?
or, what if we just stay out of it, and let folks decide for themselves...no, we can't do that, we must be other peoples' judges.

and where does the 1% come from you mentioned above? have you done a survey? how many women don't say it was a crime, or a molestation? how many victims don't speak out already because they feel shame?

at any rate, i don't feel it's anyone's place to tell others what they should or shouldn't do regarding their reproduction choices. it's no one else's business.
and i asked you in a post above, but i guess you missed it...how does someone else's right affect you? how does a woman's right to choose have any affect on your life?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and like i said above, the issue of a documented crime is a thorny one. what if the accused rapist goes free? what if the case doesn't go to trial? or what if people just shouldn't have to meet your choice of a burden of proof? then there's the fact that people can find professionals to say yea or nay to pretty much any topic under the sun, who would be the decider? three doctors say no, three say yes-should it be a committee? how much of a fight would it take? what if someone had to go through said hoops, was rejected by the 'abortion police' and died?
or, what if we just stay out of it, and let folks decide for themselves...no, we can't do that, we must be other peoples' judges.

and where does the 1% come from you mentioned above? have you done a survey? how many women don't say it was a crime, or a molestation? how many victims don't speak out already because they feel shame?

at any rate, i don't feel it's anyone's place to tell others what they should or shouldn't do regarding their reproduction choices. it's no one else's business.
and i asked you in a post above, but i guess you missed it...how does someone else's right affect you? how does a woman's right to choose have any affect on your life?

I don't have a position on gay rights, and I don't know how that got in any way intertwined with what has become an abortion debate. So that's a total non-sequitur.

I did hear the 1% number (ballpark) over many years - whether it was 0.9% or 1.4%, something in between - I'm sure it varies year-to-year like any statistic. It's not 10%.

The hypothetical process I espoused - as a point of departure for a debate - was an attempt to get a better handle on it than we have now - where basically the role of God is played by the would-be mother: deciding who lives and who dies. That is unjust. There needs to be some sort of objective criteria. Innocent victims - yes, offspring in all stages of development - should not be killed without some sort of due process.

If we (the government of the United States) stayed out of this from 1973 and onward, there would be no federally sanctioned abortion. It would continue to be the risky crime it used to be. Medical abortion to save lives would still occur - doctors knew how to do it.

In case you missed MY point: Abortion is not a "right". It was not what Thomas Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence with all of us "being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights" (that reference to the Creator is his, not mine). Abortion is the result of an intellectually flawed Supreme Court decision that will someday be overturned. No legitimate "right" would give one person the ability under the law to kill another without any due process. That "right" certainly affects the life of the victim of the abortion!

The "woman's right to choose" - that sentence fragment - to choose what exactly? To choose to kill a baby. No one ever wants to complete the sentence, and I laugh at every politician who reads that talking point blankly off the teleprompter. That's the definition of vapid and unthinking.

If you have a better solution that addresses the rape situation or the threat to the mother's life, but does not reward irresponsibility, nor use abortion as a birth control method, I am all ears.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I don't have a position on gay rights, and I don't know how that got in any way intertwined with what has become an abortion debate. So that's a total non-sequitur.

I did hear the 1% number (ballpark) over many years - whether it was 0.9% or 1.4%, something in between - I'm sure it varies year-to-year like any statistic. It's not 10%.

The hypothetical process I espoused - as a point of departure for a debate - was an attempt to get a better handle on it than we have now - where basically the role of God is played by the would-be mother: deciding who lives and who dies. That is unjust. There needs to be some sort of objective criteria. Innocent victims - yes, offspring in all stages of development - should not be killed without some sort of due process.

If we (the government of the United States) stayed out of this from 1973 and onward, there would be no federally sanctioned abortion. It would continue to be the risky crime it used to be. Medical abortion to save lives would still occur - doctors knew how to do it.

In case you missed MY point: Abortion is not a "right". It was not what Thomas Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence with all of us "being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights" (that reference to the Creator is his, not mine). Abortion is the result of an intellectually flawed Supreme Court decision that will someday be overturned. No legitimate "right" would give one person the ability under the law to kill another without any due process. That "right" certainly affects the life of the victim of the abortion!

The "woman's right to choose" - that sentence fragment - to choose what exactly? To choose to kill a baby. No one ever wants to complete the sentence, and I laugh at every politician who reads that talking point blankly off the teleprompter. That's the definition of vapid and unthinking.

If you have a better solution that addresses the rape situation or the threat to the mother's life, but does not reward irresponsibility, nor use abortion as a birth control method, I am all ears.

my point about rights, be they for homosexuals or women, is that the granting of rights doesn't equate you losing any rights. do you disagree about that?

as for the %, i brought that up because it's probably a skewed number. like i said above, people don't necessarily explain why they choose to end a pregnancy.

as for the mother choosing-she's choosing whether to be pregnant or not. it's not as tho a woman has any other choice when she finds out she's pregnant. you can't move the embryo elsewhere. you either continue the pregnancy, or you don't. not everyone equates abortion to murder-your belief that it is such doesn't make it so.

as for 'rewarding', that's a strange term. no birth control prevention is 100% effective. my mother joked that my brother was born with foam on his head (they had used a spermicide, ooops). so, if a woman does everything possible, but still becomes pregnant, tough crap. i find that ridiculous. and i doubt most women have a standing reservation at the local clinic-that's also a ridiculous assumption.

and the declaration of independence..it's a remarkable document, but i'm pretty sure we go by the constitution when we make laws.

[Danzig]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



Share Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6]

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, nearly one-third will have had an abortion.[5]


it goes on from there...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



Share Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6]

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, nearly one-third will have had an abortion.[5]


it goes on from there...

OK - I like statistics. None of these tell us how many of the abortions were medically necessary to save the mother's life or were necessary because of a rape-caused pregnancy.

The racial composition is irrelevant to the question of whose life should be preserved, obviously. All new life is precious, and every individual has the same right to live.

We already know that abortion is used for unintended pregnancy. The question is how many really were necessitated by the need to save the mother's life or because a crime was committed where the woman never would have consented to the act in the first place.

[Antitrust32]

I think women who smoke, drink or do drugs when pregnant should be charged with child abuse and sentenced to prison.

but, I am okay with abortion purely because this country can not afford unwanted children.

I think abortion used as a form of birth control is disgusting.. but I'd rather the fetus be sucked out and destroyed than paying for millions of unwanted kids who become wards of the state.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK - I like statistics. None of these tell us how many of the abortions were medically necessary to save the mother's life or were necessary because of a rape-caused pregnancy.

The racial composition is irrelevant to the question of whose life should be preserved, obviously. All new life is precious, and every individual has the same right to live.

We already know that abortion is used for unintended pregnancy. The question is how many really were necessitated by the need to save the mother's life or because a crime was committed where the woman never would have consented to the act in the first place.

no, it wasn't a full list. like i said, it probably is impossible to know just how many were caused by crime-i don't think some victims admit that they were just that.
but i didn't realize just how many pregnancies were unintended-and i think it also said something on there about other birth control having been used but failed.
at any rate, i am not trying to change your mind on anything-i'm just trying to explain why i think the right should remain.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



Share Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6]

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, nearly one-third will have had an abortion.[5]


it goes on from there...

that is a shitload of irresponsible women. its shameful.

I cannot possibly understand how so many people have an unwanted pregnancy. there are tons of ways to prevent it.

get on the pill, take it at the same time every day, and use a condom... and in only the rarest of rare circumstances will someone become pregnant. certainly not half of all cases. maybe less than 1% of all cases.

if you cant do the above and dont want to get pregnant than dont have sex. or live up to your responsibility.

abortion is plain disgusting (obviously cases that occur from a crime or when its a health risk are different). but unfortunatly it is neccesary because we are filled with a population who are irresponsible. men and women. all they think about is now now now.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that is a shitload of irresponsible women. its shameful.

I cannot possibly understand how so many people have an unwanted pregnancy. there are tons of ways to prevent it.

get on the pill, take it at the same time every day, and use a condom... and in only the rarest of rare circumstances will someone become pregnant. certainly not half of all cases. maybe less than 1% of all cases.

if you cant do the above and dont want to get pregnant than dont have sex. or live up to your responsibility.

abortion is plain disgusting (obviously cases that occur from a crime or when its a health risk are different). but unfortunatly it is neccesary because we are filled with a population who are irresponsible. men and women. all they think about is now now now.

no doubt one segment of unintended pregnancy was birth control failure. i met a lady a few years back who was in her third trimester. she'd had her tubes tied a few years before-you'd think that would be fool proof-but it's not. i had to sign a paper back when i had mine done acknowledging there was a slight chance of pregnancy.
then there are guys who have had vasectomies-that's not 100% either. neither is the pill, condoms, etc.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my point about rights, be they for homosexuals or women, is that the granting of rights doesn't equate you losing any rights. do you disagree about that?

as for the %, i brought that up because it's probably a skewed number. like i said above, people don't necessarily explain why they choose to end a pregnancy.

as for the mother choosing-she's choosing whether to be pregnant or not. it's not as tho a woman has any other choice when she finds out she's pregnant. you can't move the embryo elsewhere. you either continue the pregnancy, or you don't. not everyone equates abortion to murder-your belief that it is such doesn't make it so.

as for 'rewarding', that's a strange term. no birth control prevention is 100% effective. my mother joked that my brother was born with foam on his head (they had used a spermicide, ooops). so, if a woman does everything possible, but still becomes pregnant, tough crap. i find that ridiculous. and i doubt most women have a standing reservation at the local clinic-that's also a ridiculous assumption.

and the declaration of independence..it's a remarkable document, but i'm pretty sure we go by the constitution when we make laws.

You're correct: The Constitution is the law of the land of course. The Declaration of Independence is often cited as a key piece of the intellectual background for that document. It actually defines the origin of rights, something which the Constitution builds on. That's my reason for citing it here.

There are many non-guarantees in life. You can check your parachute with absolute expertise in observation, and if you skydive 1000 times, there is a nonzero probability that at least once your chute may fail. If you quit smoking, or have never smoked at all, you still might get lung cancer. If you invest in only blue-chip stocks like GE, IBM, Microsoft, depending on the market you still may lose money. Each of these things is a risk. If you don't want to ever get in a car accident - don't drive, and don't be a passenger in a motor vehicle. If you never want to be (or get somebody) pregnant - do the math. If you proceed anyway, you implicitly accept the risk and the consquences.

Your point about not being able to move the embryo is correct - at least today. There's an interesting philosophical argument to be had about if or when technology provides that ability -would that bring an end to the current state of abortion? Or are people as concerned about killing the responsibility along with the child. The embryo is transferred, but somebody comes to you 18 years from now saying, "Hi Mom. Can you help me out with a college loan?"

Again, I don't have a position on homosexual rights - but following your argument - this is different. The question comes down to when the embryo is alive. If it is alive, then abortion MUST be murder. If the embryo is not alive - and I don't know how we make that case since it's growing and would eventually be a human in the same state of development as you or I -then it's not a murder. The criteria for the murder definition is that simple. Through that mechanism, someone has lost their rights - not me as a fellow citizen of the country - but the individual who was murdered. That's why this is different. These are not two independent citizens as is the case in your homosexual rights argument. One is dependent on the other, and one can be killed by the other, with the victim unable to do anything about it.

In the general case where independent citizens are "pursuing happiness" as the Declaration put forward, I agree that rights granted to one segment that don't affect the other segment does not reduce the rights of the other segment. This is as long as they are truly independent. I don't think that applies when one group are the recipients and the other group is made up of providers, by force, through taxation.