gadgetlady

I have mixed emotions about this. It's a good tool, but it can also be easily misused. To complicate matters for me, my brother is one of the key leaders in the development of RFID. If you google "Chris Diorio RFID" you can see who he is.

I haven't had time to review the entire page, but a cursory review provides this: four states (Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) did not report abortion data for 1998--1999, three states (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire) did not report data for 2000--2002, and three states (California, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) did not report data for 2003--2004. Data for California and Oklahoma were estimated before 1998; however, data for nonreporting states have not been estimated since then. Third, data provided to state or area health departments by providers might be incomplete (63). Fourth, the overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to CDC for 2004 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed. In addition, the abortion total for 2000 provided to CDC by central health agencies are 20% lower than that reported for 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available) for the same reporting areas by The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a private organization that contacts abortion providers directly. (emphasis mine) It's pretty difficult to have an accurate statistical analysis when you include a large (and liberal) state like California prior to 1998, and then don't include it after that. Remember, abortion was legal in CA prior to Roe. From my cursory review and the CDC's own admitted shortfallings in their ability to gather numbers, I have to dismiss the numbers as grossly inaccurate and the conclusion, therefore, as inaccurate as well. As an aside, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, indicates that "In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million abortions in 1996." (An Overview of Abortion in the United States). Now while I don't trust the Alan Guttmacher Institute as far as I can throw them, most people who don't know their affiliation with Planned Parenthood (or don't have a problem with it) regard their information as gospel truth. So the difference of, oh, roughly half a million reported abortions is awfully curious. I will try to comment on the rest of the findings later, after I've had time to review in more depth.

This is in complete opposition to any numbers I have ever seen. Can you cite some studies or from where you get your numbers? Because if you look at the numbers immediately post-Roe vs. the numbers now, there is a dramatic increase. Can you cite contradictions? Because I don't see them. That is not necessarily true -- some women choose abortion because it is easy. Regardless, it is really inconsequential. If a teenager has decided that shoplifting is what she wants to do, she will do it. Should we then make shoplifting easier? If it's the deliberate taking of a human life, then it should be illegal regardless of whether people will do it anyway. Now I understand that you disagree that it is the deliberate taking of a human life -- I'm just trying to help you understand why the "women will do it anyway" argument doesn't hold water with me. Yes, I think it does. Because the implication with what you said is that the fetus is not alive, not yet a life, and is incapable of life. The reverse is true. The fetus IS alive and it IS a life. After all, without food and water I am incapable of life, but that doesn't mean that I'm not alive now. In other words, no. You are fine with abortion after viability (performed "lightly" or not), even though the "fetus" is "capable of life" at this point. Why? Should we determine whether a person is killed or not based on finances or emotional support? Should one person ever be allowed to decide for another person whether they get the right to live or be killed based on their perception of that person's value? I would love a fool-proof birth control method. But I don't think that would solve the abortion issue, because even now many having abortions report not using birth control at all. Scientists are working on an artificial placenta. We'll see what happens first. Me, too. Enjoy your precious children!

It's not propaganda. The quantity of regulations over freestanding abortion clinics is dramatically lower than the quantity of regulations over a veterinary clinic or any other medical facility. Not just last Tuesday. 100% of the time. And the abortion industry strenuously objects any time anyone tries to change it. And the medical studies aren't calculated or inflammatory. They're studies. I fully believe people should have control over their reproductive organs. The baby isn't an organ.

That is a reference to the fact that you are so committed to the abortion movement that you refuse to even consider that there are valid medical studies demonstrating the complications of abortion. And you are so equally committed that you don't care that abortion is less regulated than animal clinics.

It's not propaganda. It's a medical study. The only reason you consider it propaganda is because the data it finds violates the holy grail of "safe" abortion.

Incapable of life independent of the mother, not incapable of life. Do you, then, support restrictions on abortion after viability? Or do you support abortion on demand up until 9 months of pregnancy? If/when medical technology advances to the point where an unborn baby can be sustained apart from the mother at the time she becomes aware of the pregnancy (e.g. 6 weeks or so), would you support legislation to remove the baby alive (rather than abort the baby and cause death) and have the baby supported artificially? I don't believe in discriminating against anyone on the basis of age. I don't believe in imposing the death penalty on anyone because they are an inconvenience to another person. I believe both lives are valuable and should be treated as such.

Why don't you try reading the .pdf I posted, not the "biased" commentaries on it? It's very informative.

From where do you get these statistics? Because abortion has dramatically increased in all places when it has become legal.

This presumes that in 100% of the situations where a woman is abortion-minded, her life will be tragic if she chooses to bring her baby to term. That's a fallacious assumption. What a woman perceives as an untenable situation may not be. Many of us have faced situations in our lives that we perceived to be without hope. And yet, somehow some things have a way of working themselves out for the better, despite our inability to see such a resolution in the throes of the perceived disaster. It's really, should the [insert your favorite word for unborn baby] lose it's life, not it's potential life. There is no such thing as a potential life. Either it's a life or it's not. From http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187: A common way to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion is to refer to pregnancy as "creating potential life." Calling an unborn child a "potential life" is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a "potential life." Think about it. First, you could potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex there's potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, you could create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life. It's like saying, "I just had a potential thought." What could that possibly mean, you just had a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn't. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn't. But you never have a potential thought. In the same way, pregnancy doesn't create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion is needed to end pregnancy and not a potential one, a real life must be involved, not a potential one. It's really interesting that the abortion industry so loves the word "choice", when really when women resort to abortion it's because they felt they did not have a choice. Women are sold a bill of goods that having a baby "at the wrong time" will ruin their lives -- that they can't be successful, productive members of society if they have a baby or if they can't choose the "exact right moment" to have a child (as if there is one). What abortion does is it pits women against their children. And that's a very sad thing.

luluc said something interesting in one of her posts: The implication is that a "fetus" is something other than a "life". That points to the success of the abortion movement in defining the thing growing in the womb as something other than human. She said, "not just a fetus" -- as if a fetus is something other than a growing human life! Of course the unborn baby is a fetus! It's just another word for the same thing. Wherein lies the confusion. It is easier to discriminate, abuse, maim, or kill someone when you simply define them as something other than a person.

Baloney. Here's one study: Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth. This study takes into account the 1-year after both incidents. One of the problems with a statistical analysis of abortion vs. pregnancy is that women who carry their babies to term have 9 months to "have complications" -- and often the studies include non-pregnancy related issues (like car accidents). The Finland study is exceptional; I suggest taking the time to read the entire thing. And did you know that abortion is a better predictor of breast cancer than any other factor? If you'd like to read a commentary, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3362.html; to download the .pdf of the study, go to http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf The abortion industry is sadly less regulated than the veterinary industry in the US. Read Planned Parenthood: Trusted Health Provider or Greedy Abortion Business? to learn about how Planned Parenthood tried to avoid complying with state safety regulations that other medical facilities had to comply with.

luluc, I absolutely do not want to add to your grief / guilt over this matter -- if you don't want to "talk" about it please feel free to just "walk away" from this conversation. I strongly suggest since you're still carrying this with you after so many years that you seek some post abortion counseling. I would be happy to refer some organizations if you don't know where to go. I do, however, have a comment. How can "it" (the unborn baby) be both a life and your body?

Curious here -- why do you consider it a sin?

I am BLOWN AWAY by this story. What the hell right does the State (capital "S" intentional) have to come into a retail store and tell them to hand over 60% of the cost of "dormant" gift cards? Maine: Why let unused gift cards go to waste? - Retail - MSNBC.com The most amazing part of the story is in the last paragraph: "The refusal of national firms to pay up has left a hole in the state budget." IT WAS NEVER THEIR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! And they put it in the budget, and now it's the retailer's fault? We live in a scary, scary world.

vs. Interestingly, luluc's situation is not unique. Complications, minor to major (including death) happen regularly with "safe and legal" abortions.

Fetus is a definition of a stage of being. Just like infant, toddler, adolescent, and elderly. It is a continuum of life. Calling the unborn baby a "fetus" allows you to disassociate but it doesn't change reality. The baby is NOT the woman's body, unless she has two heads, two brains, four arms, four legs, and if she's carrying a male baby, a penis -- and two sets of separate DNA and two separate circulatory systems.

Ohhhh, that's a good one! Thanks for the handy quote :clap2:

In the case of abortion, the body and health and life of two people are involved.

And this happened before Roe . . . where? This is a ridiculous, inflammatory argument.

I think the impression that it leans towards the right is because everything else is SOOOOO far left that everyone's lost perspective and doesn't know what "balanced" is anymore.

OUTRAGEOUS! I'm not surprised he's a former judge, mayor, and politician. Once I was in small claim's court awaiting my turn, listening in on another case. I don't remember the details, but I do remember the losing party saying to the judge, "But the LAW says . . .". She cut him off, saying, "I don't care what the law says. In this courtroom, I AM THE LAW." I will never forget that. A measly small claims court judge screaming out "I AM THE LAW" -- and meaning it -- to the detriment of this poor business owner who had just followed the ACTUAL law.

My accountant told me the story of two (grown) children who inherited their family's house on the beach in California. The house had been in the family since the 1940's. It was worth $30M, and it was all paid off. The kids had to sell the family house because they couldn't afford the $15M in death taxes. It's not like the taxes hadn't already been paid on the house. "I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you." Disgusting.

Actually, I, too, loved the hijack. It is fascinating reading about both of your experiences in Cuba, Elena and green. I had a similar "Potemkin Village" experience visiting Russia when I was young. Perhaps you should start a whole new thread, Elena, on "growing up and living in a Communist country"!

{shaking head} Incredible. What's even more incredible is that people are befuddled enough by this convoluted logic to accept the conclusion!