Slashdot Mirror

but abortions are in no way unavoidable.

While most are probably avoidable, saying that they are "in no way" unavoidable is somewhat over the top. Consider abortions for medical reasons, for instance (in cases where both the mother and child would die if the pregnancy came to term).

Agreed. I did not mean for my statement to be all inclusive. I should have said "the vast majority" of abortions are in no way unavoidable. Quick google: http://www.nrlc.org/archive/ne... http://www.abortionfacts.com/f... https://www.quora.com/What-per...

I agree wholeheartedly. What you're describing is called partial birth abortion, and it is supported by the 'pro-choice' crowd. A ban on this procedure was vetoed by then President Clinton.

I warn you that the diagrams and descriptions in the links are pretty gruesome.

I agree wholeheartedly. What you're describing is called partial birth abortion, and it is supported by the 'pro-choice' crowd. A ban on this procedure was vetoed by then President Clinton.

I warn you that the diagrams and descriptions in the links are pretty gruesome.

it is allowed now, and perhaps that is something that needs to be addressed. for a long time up until the mid-1800's, the rule of thumb for abortions was that it was ok before the baby's kick could be felt. I'd be okay with the deadline being around 20 weeks, but in any case the vast majority of abortions happen long before the end of the first trimester.

Babies as young as 25 weeks premature have survived to be healthy adults outside after care and treatment in the NICU. That is far earlier than most terminations!

Lies! Judging from the actual numbers, it looks to me like the majority (54%) of abortions are performed prior to 8 weeks of gestation, and especially before 10 weeks (77%). At 10 weeks, the fetus is about 1 inch in length. It's just a ball of stuff that in a few weeks will become a human.

Unwanted pregnancy sucks, but it's not the end of the world. A culture that values only the convience of now, and the "benefit of the species", is very likely going to be a very unpleasant place to live long term.

You are extremely naive. You probably haven't had sex yet, but I'd say you are in need of a good near-pregnancy scare or two. Even the most careful people have them now and then. It certainly makes you think about what you would do.

Compassion is a very valuable force in society, which pays more than it costs.

Yes, but what if the compassionate thing is to prevent another unwanted baby? ...and some research even indicates it may very well make society a better place to live in.

The imperial Roman culture of the Augustian age would have suited you well, you're a fascist babykiller, etc, etc...

You're nuts if you can't differentiate between destroying a ball of tissue the size of a marble and killing fully-developed beings.

I support partial birth abortion.

Why? this is an innocent human being, born, and murdered with a pair of scissors being rammed into his (or her) skull.

Why would any right-thinking person do such a thing?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#sh owit

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed. According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist "delivered the baby's body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature _9313pb.asp

My choice for president is based primarily on the issue of abortion.

I honestly would consider John Kerry if he held a view in favor of helping mothers with unwanted pregnancies get counseling so they could make informed decisions before they became a statistic.

Human life is precious. I sincerely believe the war in Iraq is saving more lives than are being lost. But that isn't enough for me to vote for Bush.

I was conceived in 1973, the first year abortions became legal. It would be the last time my separated parents had sex before they divorced. Through a series of miracles, they didn't find out about the pregnancy until the 2nd trimester. The only state where it was legal to have an abortion at that stage was New York. Even though my parents lived in Georgia, my mom had the train ticket and hospital appointment. I thank God she stood up to my dad that day and didn't get on the train. She was the swing vote for my life that day.

Your vote makes a difference. I'm voting for Peroutka for president [Constitution Party]. I'm voting various parties for Congress and local legislature. If you're confused on who to vote for, find an issue that's a conviction and stick to it. You'll be able to sleep a whole lot better at night.

My wife is a doctor, so I have some experience hearing about this sort of thing. You're wrong. This is a similar situation to the whole "Walmart allows their pharmacists to dispense medications based on their personal preference" issue. In short, in rural areas where Walmart is the only relatively nearby pharmacy, Walmart allows their pharmacists to not dispense birth control or the morning after pill if it "disagrees with their morals" or something like that. Given that the doctor writing th prescription is the one with all the medical education, the pharmacist really has no business getting involed.

Now, about the abortion issue. Women will get abortions if they need them. However, often times in many rural areas, it is now well known who the abortion providers are. Therey may be only one or two doctors in an area. If the either or any of the doctors approached is pro-life and refuses to perform an abortion, that doctor probably won't help the patient find someone who does. In addition, due to the current level of violence from supposed pro-life "Christians" leveled against abortion providers, many doctors who are pro-choice either will not perform abortions or won't advertise it widely.

Before it was legalized, women got abortions from unsafe practicioners, and many got sick and died. Once it became legal (Roe v Wade) the number suddenly didn't increase abruptly, but the number of women dying certainly dropped dramatically.

I ecourage you to read more about the abortion issue. There are many different resources available. The previous two should be relatively unbiased, being about.com, and the CDC. If you're interested in some pro-choice information, please go here Pro-Choice America.

An abortion is a health and safety issue, and also very often an economic one, for the woman involved. Many of the women who get abortions are in some of the poorer socio-economic groups. Given that the government does a horrible job in educating people about their safe-sex and birth control options (don't get me started about those issues and religion), would you rather that the woman bears the cost of having the child (that she doesn't want)?

Please read the linked to information. It can be quite eye-opening.

I apologize for the fact that I'm posting this anonomously. Thanks.

America has been killing children for many years now.

No matter what spin you put on it, abortion is murder, plain and simple. If they're going to ban anti-abortion sites, then they must ban pro-abortion sites as well. In America, abortions account for an average of 4,500 babies aborted a day, which far outweighs the acts of any terrorists!

RU-486 usually kills the unborn child, after ten days of the mother waiting around for the miscarriage. It is also dangerous to the mother.

What nightmare scenario is VV imagining?

This One?
"In July of 1996, an FDA advisory panel recommended approval of RU-486 even though the American clinical trials were still not complete. Most shocking of all, this recommendation was made despite the unimpeachable testimony of Dr. Mark Louviere, a physician who treated a woman for a life-threatening hemorrhage two weeks after the RU-486 was administered. The woman had lost one-half to two-thirds of her blood. But what really bothered Dr. Louviere (but not the committee, apparently) was even though he reported the complication to the Planned Parenthood clinic which administered the experimental drug, a representative of the same Planned Parenthood clinic subsequently told the media that there had been "no complications among the 238 women" they aborted in this manner. "

What could possibly be done to make RU-486 more dangerous than it already is? Export it to poor brown people in third world countries.

In 1995, 56 men were executed in the United States:

33 were white - 58.9%

22 were black - 39.3%

1 was Asian. - 1.8%

(Source: US Dept. of Justice)

In 1995, 605,376 abortions were performed in 34 US states:

349,857 were white - 57.8%

205,442 were black - 33.9%

32,357 were "other" - 5.3%

17,720 were "unknown" - 2.9%

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)

Hmmm... 6% isn't MUCH more likely. Of course, this is overall US, but it also doesn't include all 50 states in the abortion statistic. Plus, there's no such thing as an "Unknown" in the death penalty. It's still showing though that the chances the baby is black are pretty high up there.

As for the It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however comment, I'm suprised to see such an extreme religous person talking this way about abortion! Since it's obvious you must believe in Original Sin, and the Sin's of the Father being passed down generations by this comment... The child is innocent, until it's surroundings corrupt it.