Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[pattygreen 5]

So exactly how do you propose that YOU determine what situation is life threatening ENOUGH for YOU to decide whether a woman can have an abortion?

I never said that I need to make the decision. That's what we have doctors for. Doctors can determine if a woman who is pregnant is capable of carrying a child without dying if she does. Abortions should be performed only if a doctor deems it necessary to save the mother's life.

See, my dear, YOU do not have that right. And legislators do not have that right. That is why it is untenable for lawmakers and people like the doctor-killer and the protestors outside of Planned Parenthood to insist on making abortion illegal. They just do not have the right to decide for EVERYONE what constitutes a life threatening condition for ALL women.

So continue fighting to save little children. Counsel women who are newly pregnant on how to have a safe, healthy pregnancy, birth, and delivery. Teach women how to safely raise an unwanted child. Give them your money to ensure that they can successfully create new life and add to the population of this great country of ours. Recruit the babies into the fold of your religion. But when it comes to taking away a woman's right to choose by making abortion illegal, back off. You do not and should not have that power.

I believe you need to be the one to "back off".

I do what I can when the opportunity arises to counsel women who want to have abortions because they feel it is their only way out of a situation that they don't want to endure. I give my money to fund programs that help the cause. I share the gospel with anyone who will listen. I do my share. I've even taken in my share of 'unwanted' children. So don't lecture me about fighting for my cause.

[pattygreen 5]

There you gone again Patty with your biblical stretch. Most folks don`t consider a (fetus) a full term human being until the developed fetus gets delivered "alive" and is recognized at birth as a infant child. He we go again with your Stem Cell`s and opening up the Pandora`s Box of partial birth abortions too. Do "Creationist`s" believe that the Earth circles the Sun, the Moon circles the Earth and the Sun comes up in the East and Sets in the West? Is there anything that folklore and science can agree on?

Actually, you are wrong. More people believe that a fetus is a life, than those who don't. Polls show that more people are pro-life than pro-choice.

[pattygreen 5]

Abortion is a hot button issue, which will always be so. My thoughts on this are this. Women will always have abortions, they got them before when it was illegal and they get them now. The reason why they should stay legal is simple. Since we know women will have abortions regardless of the legality of it, why not make sure they are safe when they do get it which is why I think it will stay legal. This is one of those issues in which people are going to do it despite the dangers or not. No need to argue, pro choice won and I think so for a very long time to come.

With that mentality, why don't we make drugs legal, then we can keep people safe while they take them. People are going to use drugs dispite the dangers of them, so why not legalize them. Heck, why not make a society where anything goes!

We make laws because they are the "right" thing for the people. Some laws should never have been made, while others are good for all. Abortion is one of those laws that protects the right of the woman who gets pregnant to allow her to do something she would NEVER be allowed to do in society to anyone else without going to prison for it, while the law ignores the right of the baby within her.

BTW, most women will not have abortions anyway, whether the law allows them or not. Most women will have their babies if the law was reversed. If they chose to disobey the law, then they would have to suffer t

he consequence of that, just like anyone who disobeys any other law out there.

[BJean 16]

I believe you need to be the one to "back off".

I do what I can when the opportunity arises to counsel women who want to have abortions because they feel it is their only way out of a situation that they don't want to endure. I give my money to fund programs that help the cause. I share the gospel with anyone who will listen. I do my share. I've even taken in my share of 'unwanted' children. So don't lecture me about fighting for my cause.

How much money have you given? To what programs?

[BJean 16]

Actually, you are wrong. More people believe that a fetus is a life, than those who don't. Polls show that more people are pro-life than pro-choice.

Actually you're the one who is wrong. You constantly jump to ridiculous conclusions when you read polls. It is something that has always been a source of irritation for those who read your posts.

You declare certain facts but unlike Cleo's when you post links or cut and paste stuff to prove your point, it is obvious that you've jumped to a conclusion instead of actually gleaning factual data.

Besides, polls rarely provide the kind of hard and fast data that you and other Republicans claim. And you often base your arguments on worthless stuff that some right wing organization has concocted.

You generate more support for your opposition's cause than you ever do for your own.

[BJean 16]

I never said that I need to make the decision. That's what we have doctors for. Doctors can determine if a woman who is pregnant is capable of carrying a child without dying if she does. Abortions should be performed only if a doctor deems it necessary to save the mother's life.

Oh so now you've decided it's okay with you for doctors to be the ones who decide whether or not a woman can get an abortion? That's something, I guess.

Oh but wait a minute... doctors can be bought off. They can fudge the rules a bit in order to help out a woman who otherwise might not qualify for an abortion under your rules. And I mean YOUR rules. Because who's going to make all this legislation that you want to have passed that bans abortions if YOU don't make them?

Women are not objects. Women are perfectly as capable of deciding whether or not they can survive a pregnancy (usually with the help of a doctor, but not always.) They do not need someone else making a decision for them about whether or not they are capable of having a baby. Babies are not objects either. They are too important - in fact they are ALL IMPORTANT in this world. We don't need women being forced to produce children.

[BJean 16]

With that mentality, why don't we make drugs legal, then we can keep people safe while they take them. People are going to use drugs dispite the dangers of them, so why not legalize them. Heck, why not make a society where anything goes!

Drugs should probably be made legal. That's the only way we are ever going to have any control over them. The horrendous killings and wars in Mexico are probably a direct result of the illegal drug traffic in America.

There are certain things, very personal things, often things that deal with morality, that cannot be legislated. You're one of the people who thinks it is right to throw people in jail for things like abortion and drug use.

Throwing so many people in jail in America has been a travesty. It solves nothing. It is a huge waste of taxpayer money. And it obviously does not solve those kinds of "victimless" crimes. What we need to be doing is helping people. We need to help people who don't conform in our society and teach them to become people who can be an asset rather than liability to our country.

You rant on about welfare. But welfare could be a good thing if it is a stepping stone to getting people back on their feet. It's a bad thing if it doesn't help people find jobs and homes and a way to learn how to take care of their children instead of abusing them.

patty: BTW, most women will not have abortions anyway, whether the law allows them or not. Most women will have their babies if the law was reversed. If they chose to disobey the law, then they would have to suffer t

he consequence of that, just like anyone who disobeys any other law out there.

Wrong again. If a woman needs an abortion, she will get one and there will be a compassionate doctor or a butcher who will do the deed. There's always some sleezy creep who wants to gain from someone else's misfortune.

The consequences you speak of for a woman who gets an abortion if the law was reversed, is jail. That's just so wrong on so many levels it is nearly unthinkable for someone with any real understanding of kindness, goodness and light.

Edited May 28, 2010 by BJean

[tdslf1 0]

PG says,

With that mentality, why don't we make drugs legal, then we can keep people safe while they take them. People are going to use drugs dispite the dangers of them, so why not legalize them. Heck, why not make a society where anything goes!

We make laws because they are the "right" thing for the people. Some laws should never have been made, while others are good for all. Abortion is one of those laws that protects the right of the woman who gets pregnant to allow her to do something she would NEVER be allowed to do in society to anyone else without going to prison for it, while the law ignores the right of the baby within her.

BTW, most women will not have abortions anyway, whether the law allows them or not. Most women will have their babies if the law was reversed. If they chose to disobey the law, then they would have to suffer t

he consequence of that, just like anyone who disobeys any other law out there.

First, I don't have a horse in the race for drugs, so I have no comment on if people should legalize them or not, but I do have a say in what happens to MY body.

You are right about one point though. Laws are made because they are right for people. Roe law was right for women and is still right for women. We have no intentions of going back because religious people continue to try to make us feel guiltly about choices we make for our body. Abortion is not right for you I get that , but don't try to make it illegal if it is right for me. And as stated before, not all people thing of it as murder, and since the law has not changed it back to illegal, you keep your right to say no and I'll keep my right to say yes.

And as far as women having to have the baby if it is illegal, some might choose to but we know from history and facts, of which some people can be ignorant when they want to be, women will have abortions and die in the process or be unable to have children because of some slime doctor, because humans get desperate when backed into that particular corner.

[pattygreen 5]

I never said that I need to make the decision. That's what we have doctors for. Doctors can determine if a woman who is pregnant is capable of carrying a child without dying if she does. Abortions should be performed only if a doctor deems it necessary to save the mother's life.

Oh so now you've decided it's okay with you for doctors to be the ones who decide whether or not a woman can get an abortion? That's something, I guess.

Oh but wait a minute... doctors can be bought off. They can fudge the rules a bit in order to help out a woman who otherwise might not qualify for an abortion under your rules.

People fudge the rules to break all kinds of laws against things that are wrong, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the laws.

And I mean YOUR rules. Because who's going to make all this legislation that you want to have passed that bans abortions if YOU don't make them?

Oh believe me, there would be over 50% of all Americans who will support all the legislation. Regardless of your thinking that the polls are not telling the truth, you are wrong. more than half of all Americans are prolife.

Women are not objects. Women are perfectly as capable of deciding whether or not they can survive a pregnancy (usually with the help of a doctor, but not always.) They do not need someone else making a decision for them about whether or not they are capable of having a baby.

If the law were in my favor, there would be no decisions. The only women who would be allowed an abortion would be the ones whose lives were in danger if they carried it through to delivery.

Babies are not objects either. They are too important - in fact they are ALL IMPORTANT in this world. We don't need women being forced to produce children.

...................................

[pattygreen 5]

Wrong again. If a woman needs an abortion, she will get one and there will be a compassionate doctor or a butcher who will do the deed. There's always some sleezy creep who wants to gain from someone else's misfortune.

The consequences you speak of for a woman who gets an abortion if the law was reversed, is jail. That's just so wrong on so many levels it is nearly unthinkable for someone with any real understanding of kindness, goodness and light.

Oh really? Well, if anyone else breaks the law, they go to jail. That's just the way it is. Don't break the law then.

[pattygreen 5]

PG says,

With that mentality, why don't we make drugs legal, then we can keep people safe while they take them. People are going to use drugs dispite the dangers of them, so why not legalize them. Heck, why not make a society where anything goes!

We make laws because they are the "right" thing for the people. Some laws should never have been made, while others are good for all. Abortion is one of those laws that protects the right of the woman who gets pregnant to allow her to do something she would NEVER be allowed to do in society to anyone else without going to prison for it, while the law ignores the right of the baby within her.

BTW, most women will not have abortions anyway, whether the law allows them or not. Most women will have their babies if the law was reversed. If they chose to disobey the law, then they would have to suffer t

he consequence of that, just like anyone who disobeys any other law out there.

First, I don't have a horse in the race for drugs, so I have no comment on if people should legalize them or not, but I do have a say in what happens to MY body.

You are right about one point though. Laws are made because they are right for people. Roe law was right for women and is still right for women. We have no intentions of going back because religious people continue to try to make us feel guiltly about choices we make for our body.

Maybe YOU have no intentions of going back and changing a law that is soooo wrong and should never have been made, but many Americans do have that intention, and if it can be done, we will make it happen.

Abortion is not right for you I get that , but don't try to make it illegal if it is right for me. And as stated before, not all people thing of it as murder, and since the law has not changed it back to illegal, you keep your right to say no and I'll keep my right to say yes.

And I do. But in the meantime, I will do whatever I can, along with many others who feel that it is murder, to change the law back.

And as far as women having to have the baby if it is illegal, some might choose to but we know from history and facts, of which some people can be ignorant when they want to be, women will have abortions and die in the process or be unable to have children because of some slime doctor, because humans get desperate when backed into that particular corner.

If they die, it will be because they did not obey the laws of the land. I would not be happy if any women died from having an abortion that they tried to give themselves, anymore than I am happy with the millions of babies that die at their hands every day. This is what bugs me, no one cares about the dead babies. It's all about the women who must sacrifice 9 months of their lives to save a human being. I say that if you don't want a baby, get sterilized, or use birth control.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

October 12, 2007

Making Abortion Illegal Does Not Reduce Abortion Rate, Study Finds

Posted by Christine C.

“A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it,” writes Elisabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

According to the study, the number of abortions worldwide dropped from about 46 million in 1995 to slightly less than 42 million in 2003. About 20 million unsafe abortions are performed each year, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal, and 67,000 women die as a result of complications from these abortions. Here is the study’s abstract; registration is required for the full text.

The kicker is the study found that access to contraceptives is the best way to reduce abortion rates — not making abortion illegal. This, of course, is what feminist health advocates have been arguing for some time. Abortion rates in Eastern Europe, for instance, declined 50 percent since the fall of Communism allowed easier access to contraceptives. Here’s another example cited in the NYT story — and a look at how U.S. politics comes into play:

In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.

The Bush administration’s multibillion-dollar campaign against H.I.V./AIDS in Africa has directed money to programs that promote abstinence before marriage, and to condoms only as a last resort. It has prohibited the use of American money to support overseas family planning groups that provide abortions or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Of course making access to birth control easy and cheap or free would NEVER be acceptable to the anti-abortionists. That's because they start with the premise that any woman who has an unplanned pregnancy is to blame. And their approach is punitive. Make it illegal and throw all those who seek abortions or get one in jail.

And those 67,000 women who died from illegal abortions - well, they don't matter. They had it coming for NOT OBEYING THE LAW.

[pattygreen 5]

the study found that access to contraceptives is the best way to reduce abortion rates —[/b] not making abortion illegal.

Anyone can go to their local CVS and get there own contraceptives. There is no excuse. And leave it to a liberal to say that the government should pay for it or give it to them for free.

I am not against contraceptives. I, personally, prefer abstinence outside of marriage, but if that can't be tolerated by women, then they need to take care not to get pregnant if it's not what they want. Otherwise, be prepared to raise a child.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

the study found that access to contraceptives is the best way to reduce abortion rates —[/b] not making abortion illegal.

Anyone can go to their local CVS and get there own contraceptives. There is no excuse. And leave it to a liberal to say that the government should pay for it or give it to them for free.

I am not against contraceptives. I, personally, prefer abstinence outside of marriage, but if that can't be tolerated by women, then they need to take care not to get pregnant if it's not what they want. Otherwise, be prepared to raise a child.

And leave it to a religious right neocon to put the WHOLE burden on the woman. The planning, buying, cost and consequences. And then if they can't afford it or the birth control doesn't work - well then, how did you put it? Just be prepared to raise a child.

And if your real goal was to reduce the number of abortions (which it isn't) and not to punish women (which it is) then you would support free birth control and easy access and yes, have the government pay for it because the money wouldn't matter, the lives being saved would. And I'm sure the cost would be a pittance compared to corporate welfare. They would hardly notice it if we took the money from big oil, big banks, big anything and used it to fund free birth control (the kind doctors prescribe, you know, the more effective and easier to use types rather than drugstore brands.)

The republican who just resigned (another pesky sex scandal - he was married, 3 kids, you know the rest..) well he made abstinence videos. He was a family value's guy, you know.

So, here is the hypocritical republican definition of abstinence only education:

DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU'RE NOT MARRIED TO..UNTIL AFTER YOU'RE MARRIED.

[tdslf1 0]

PG,

I applaud the effort, but I don't think that law will be changing too soon, so do what you must to try and change it. Since the majority of people believe in the choice, this change back will be a long time coming. But I do applaud the effort. The kick in the caracha is the law has stood over several generations. I can't be 100 percent positive but with Obama having the choice of 2 to 3 more Supreme court picks to come under his belt, I feel rather confident this one will stand a little bit more time. But we "pro abortion" folks, as you and your ilk are fond of calling us, will be watching you........

Edited May 29, 2010 by tdslf1