Are you still in favor of killing this child?

[Ben Kenobi]

unraised kids running galore.

Spiffor:

Different issues, between abortion and contraception.

Do you agree that it is wrong to use abortion as a form of contraception?

Read my first replay to Solver in this thread (page 1), and see how predictable you are

Predictable or consistant?

You assume that the unborn are not persons, yet provide no justification. That's all I'm trying to show.

[The Mad Viking]

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You assume that the unborn are not persons, yet provide no justification. That's all I'm trying to show.

They never invite me to parties or buy me drinks. That'll do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you agree that we should ban all abortions except for the case of rape?

NO! Did you even read what I wrote .

I think all abortions should be illegal, except for after 'viability' (when the child can live outside the body), and then the child should be removed.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


They never invite me to parties or buy me drinks. That'll do.

So are you also going to make all the people you went to school with eligible for execution?

[Alexander's Horse]

I believe reproduction is women's business. I'm not going to be judgemental about the choices they make.

I don't think termination is a good idea but, as has been said before, if Bishops could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Dis]

if abortion was legal when I was born, I probably wouldn't be here

It's hard to support something that would have denied your own existance.

But I'm just being silly. I still support abortions if done early.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You assume that the unborn are not persons, yet provide no justification. That's all I'm trying to show.

Hm.

On the contrary, you need to provide evidence that the "unborn" (whatever it is) are persons.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well then. How would one prove the sentience of any person?

I suppose medical specialists are better at doing this.

The point is whether you think it is fair or not. If not, why not.

[blackice]

Anti-abortion bias obvious
Media ignore change of heart by women who made it legal
KATHLEEN PARKER
Tribune Media Services

What if the women who helped make abortion-on-demand the law of the land changed their minds? They did.

And what if no one cared? Apparently, no one does.

Or so one might surmise from the media's inattention to the latest motion filed in federal court seeking to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 abortion ruling, a reversal of which would return abortion jurisdiction to states.

On Monday, Sandra Cano -- "Mary Doe" in the U.S. Supreme Court Doe vs. Bolton abortion case, which was a companion case to the more-famous Roe vs. Wade -- filed a motion in Georgia to vacate the court's ruling.

Like Norma McCorvey of Roe vs. Wade, Cano says she regrets her role in helping legalize abortion and wants to "right a wrong."

McCorvey filed a similar motion in Texas in June. Her case, which included some 5,400 pages of evidence, was thrown out by the district court within 48 hours, but has been appealed to the 5th Circuit Federal Court. The judge must have been a fast reader.

Despite the enormous importance of Cano's motion, the mainstream media have largely ignored it. A Lexis-Nexis search turned up only one story about the filing, but it was a report by U.S. Newswire, a division of Medialink Worldwide Inc., which is essentially a vehicle for corporate communications.

In the Cano case, the relevant entity is The Justice Foundation, which is representing both Cano and McCorvey.

The nonprofit foundation historically has offered free legal assistance in cases of school choice, limited government, free market and recently in women's health.

The Justice Foundation concedes that "women's health" means "pro-life" issues and is now the exclusive focus of its work. Which, might we infer, explains why the media are ignoring this latest filing?

Let me be blunt: What we have here is a clear and present bias against the pro-life side of the abortion debate.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the majority of people in the media are pro-choice. And, giving the devil his due, reporters hate press conferences and press releases. They don't like being beckoned to appear and report on what feel like propaganda events.

Still. When it comes to one of the landmark cases that changed life in ways we're just beginning to understand, we might deign to note what amounts to a shift in the culture's tectonic plates. It is news.

The Justice Foundation's media director, Anne Newman, said Wednesday that she had received only three or four media phone calls and only six hits on the Web site since Cano announced her filing. Although network affiliates sent reporters and cameras to the press conference, which included testimonials by women who regretted their abortions, only one local station reported the event, according to Newman.

Here's what you didn't learn from the media:

The ruling in Cano's case expanded abortion rights beyond Roe's trimester approach based on "health of the mother" considerations. Health has been loosely defined as mental anguish or even financial considerations, thus allowing women to get abortions at any time up to and including "partial-birth."

The gist of Cano's current motion is that, 30 years ago, the Supreme Court didn't consider the physical and emotional effects of abortion on women, primarily because there was no information available at the time. Now, plaintiffs contend, we have 30 years of evidence that abortion harms women (link www.operationoutcry.org )

Both McCorvey and Cano, neither of whom ever had an abortion, claim they were used by lawyers on fraudulent grounds.

Cano says she never even sought an abortion. An impoverished mother of three whose husband was in jail at the time, she went to a legal-aid office for a divorce and wound up an unwitting and unwilling activist. McCorvey was a drug abuser living on the streets, easily manipulated by her ambitious lawyers, she says.

Whatever these women did or didn't do, they surely were used by savvier sorts for the purpose of securing reproductive control for women. Those of us who were around during those heady days of free love and narcissistic thrall were convinced that the Second Coming could bring no greater news.

The fact that many now think otherwise -- based on experience and new evidence provided by advanced technology -- is surely worthy of discussion. And of reporting.

The fact that the mainstream media have decided to ignore Cano's case suggests that the media, at least, have made up their collective mind. Once again, it seems, Cano and McCorvey are irrelevant to the larger social "goal" as determined by an elite few.

Kathleen

Parker

http://www.operationoutcry.org/stories/storiesPDFViewer.asp?pdffile=AmberArk.pdf

Just one....


Social engineering, for those who think my subjects and or post's are not related...think again...Sure I post about one topic, but which topic? A clue for the dense I am totally against media, government sponsored social engineering in any form....

Why? That to me is a stupid question the answer to those who care is obvious.

social engineering
n.
The practical application of sociological principles to particular social problems.

For whom are these practical applications for and why? Now who's pricipals? These social problems whom does it effect? and why? Ultimately who gains from these changes?
What are the features, advantages and bennefits?
Now who gains from them? Who ends up with the advantages and bennefits?
Who is harmed most by these social engineering specialist's? A good question is why are they targeting the children of our society?


next...

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if the women who helped make abortion-on-demand the law of the land changed their minds? They did.

And what if no one cared? Apparently, no one does.

Why should anyone care? This debate isn't about one person, it's about society at large. She can be anything she wants, it doesn't matter one iota.

[blackice]

And your resonse to this has sent the Disney world stocks soaring.

Only in one breath would say the fed court ruling in the states can not be affected by a state ruling. Then in the same breath when challenged by "will see" facts state the fed ruling is about society at large not the one person who changed it...

On Monday, Sandra Cano -- "Mary Doe" in the U.S. Supreme Court Doe vs. Bolton abortion case, which was a companion case to the more-famous Roe vs. Wade -- filed a motion in Georgia to vacate the court's ruling.

Like Norma McCorvey of Roe vs. Wade, Cano says she regrets her role in helping legalize abortion and wants to "right a wrong."

McCorvey filed a similar motion in Texas in June. Her case, which included some 5,400 pages of evidence, was thrown out by the district court within 48 hours, but has been appealed to the 5th Circuit Federal Court. The judge must have been a fast reader.

Now if we are not all mistaken here she can "vacate that ruling federally right? If so then what you mean to say is the court ruling was not to decide on the case, but society...

Now which is it? The judged ruled on the case or made laws for society? Both? In either case was that what the judge was to do at the time? If the judge ruled because of the position of Roe because of the arguement at the time....

If so then the judge must also rule in favor of the applicant in this "vacation" in favor of Roe too...

If not then the judge is ruling cases based on thier opinion of social engineering not the case before them...

That would be wrong would it not? Mickey

[Jack the Bodiless]

1. Women who seek abortions are just as happy with their situation as normal expectant mothers. They have nothing to be depressed about. Life is just peachy for them.

So life is all peachy for those who are expecting? I thought that pregnancy was a terrible burden, hence the need for abortion. Nowhere does my argument assume that life is all good for either, both groups have their problems. My argument merely states that both groups will be approximately the same.

No, they are NOT the same. They are not even REMOTELY the same.

Do you honestly believe that women who seek abortions are living under approximately the same circumstances as normal expectant mothers? That they have the same financial and /or relationship issues? That women who seek abortions generally have no reason to do so?

Then you have chosen to bury your head in the sand.

2. Women who seek and are denied abortions are happy about that. It doesn't bother them at all. They didn't really want one anyway.

No. All I say is that women who carry their child on average, commit suicide far less than the woman who choose to abort.

That is not ALL you're saying. You are saying that they commit suicide BECAUSE they have abortions, rather than recognizing the obvious: that the abortion and the suicide have a common cause.

"Here are statistics which show that fighter pilots who eject from their aircraft are significantly more likely to sustain injury or death than those who land normally after an uneventful patrol. Therefore ejection seats are hazardous, and should be removed from all fighter aircraft immediately".

Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. The only exception to this is ectopic pregnancy, which occurs around 1% of all pregnancies. The vast majority are performed for reasons of convenience, as Spiffor has aptly demonstrated. Without an ejection seat, the pilot will die in a plane crash. Without an abortion, can we say that all mothers will die?

Most importantly,

Abortion always results in the death of an unborn child. Ejection seats do not kill another person during operation.

Again, you've missed the point entirely.

My point is that you are using a fallacious argument.

Forget about abortion for a moment. Let's assume that the topic of this thread is "ejection seats are dangerous". Do you AGREE that because ejection seats are used in situations where planes crash and lives are lost, the ejection seat is RESPONSIBLE for plane crashes and lost lives?

If you do NOT agree: can you see why the argument I gave is FALLACIOUS?

If you CAN see that the argument is fallacious: can you see that your "abortions cause suicide" argument contains the SAME fallacy?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Do we have comparable stats for the suicide rate among women who get abortions in Europe?

...Because I suspect that the activities of "pro-lifers" are largely responsible for the suicide rate in the US. Far too many desperate, upset, vulnerable women go to clinics where a hysterical mob screams "Whore! Murderer! Scum!" at them.

[Urban Ranger]

Whatever these women did or didn't do, they surely were used by savvier sorts for the purpose of securing reproductive control for women.

Bald assertion.