Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Brain waves are detected quite early in the pregnancy. So I can assume that the pro-abortion people are against late term abortions then?

fetal sentience

I don't have any statistics on hand, but IIRC, something like 1% of abortions are late term. And the overwhelmingly vast majority are done in order to save the mother's life.

[Sava]

Originally posted by ckweb


That is a such sweeping and ignorant over-generalization . . . just because there are a select few nutsos in the pro-life movement, who always get the attention of the liberal press who are more than happy to tar and feather the entire movement, you should not lump all pro-life advocates together. In my experience, most pro-life people aren't even socially active; just like most pro-choice. They are normal everyday people who will express their views only in the course of conversation or dialogue. Among those that are active, there are irresponsible advocates and there are responsible advocates with the latter being in the majority! The responsible advocates do the things like "supporting causes and courses of action that reduce the number of abortions"!

It's called sarcasm. And this thread is proof that most Pro-Lifers aren't responsible advocates. In fact, the majority of Pro-Lifers I've had experience with are usually against Sex Education in schools and against promoting the use of contraceptives because they believe that that would make people more likely to have sex at an early age.

[mactbone]

It's called responding in like. He posts an irrelevant pic, I'll do the same.

[Sava]

Exactly... this particular Pro-Life argument (and this thread) are irrelevant. They are simply raw expressions of outrage against a form of abortion that is rare and stereotypical. IMO Lincoln doesn't care about reducing the number of abortions, only lashing out at those who he feels are "immoral".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
And the overwhelmingly vast majority are done in order to save the mother's life.

Liar.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
It's called sarcasm.

Sure, it didn't seem like sarcasm to me. But, if you say so, okay then.

Originally posted by Sava
And this thread is proof that most Pro-Lifers aren't responsible advocates. In fact, the majority of Pro-Lifers I've had experience with are usually against Sex Education in schools and against promoting the use of contraceptives because they believe that that would make people more likely to have sex at an early age.

And in what ways have pro-lifers in this thread been irresponsible advocates. I might not agree with everything Lincoln has claimed and written but it seems to me his list of sources, for instance, was a reasonably comprehensive and broad use of material on the subject. Heck, many of his sources were pro-choice sources. It is clear Lincoln is passionate about the topic but suggesting he is irresponsible seems ludicrous.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by MacTBone
It's called responding in like. He posts an irrelevant pic, I'll do the same.

IMO, Lincoln's picture isn't irrelevant . . . but if you think it is, you might explain why it is irrelevant rather than resorting to such a horrendous comparison between a fetus and cows in a slaughterhouse!

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
Exactly... this particular Pro-Life argument (and this thread) are irrelevant. They are simply raw expressions of outrage against a form of abortion that is rare and stereotypical. IMO Lincoln doesn't care about reducing the number of abortions, only lashing out at those who he feels are "immoral".

And you don't care about listening to viewpoints you disagree with . . . in every discussion in which I have encountered your posts, you impose your idea of what another person is claiming, usually as a strawman, and then wave the hand to dismiss it rather than engage it. I think Lincoln's genuine passion and concern for the unborn is obvious and heartfelt. As far as I can tell, the question of immorality takes a back seat to that concern.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava


I don't have any statistics on hand, but IIRC, something like 1% of abortions are late term. And the overwhelmingly vast majority are done in order to save the mother's life.

Actually it's 15 to 20%, and the majority are not done in order to save the mother. The are a number of medical conditions which require the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother - certain congenital heart malformations, eclampsia, and HELP are the most common. These conditions do not become life threatening until the third trimester, at which time it is possible to deliver a viable infant via C-section. The number of cases in which a pregnant woman is found to have cancer during her pregnancy are really quite few. The majority of pregnacies occur in women under age 35.

[Lincoln]

It looks like (except for loinburger) none of the pro-abortion people want to come out and say that they are against late term abortions. If doc is correct (and his figures certainly agree with the ones I have seen) then we as a nation have killed several million sentient human beings. Does this bother anyone or do you all agree with some of the abortion doctors in my previous long posts who suggest that we simply provide the victims with some pain medication before we kill them? Is that the best solution? If not what is your suggestion as to how we should deal with this problem? Should we just continue to pretend that it is only 1 or 2 percent? And even if it is, are these few (million) lives unimportant? Or is the ideology of "pro-choice" more important than innocent lives?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Actually it's 15 to 20%, and the majority are not done in order to save the mother. The are a number of medical conditions which require the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother - certain congenital heart malformations, eclampsia, and HELP are the most common. These conditions do not become life threatening until the third trimester, at which time it is possible to deliver a viable infant via C-section. The number of cases in which a pregnant woman is found to have cancer during her pregnancy are really quite few. The majority of pregnacies occur in women under age 35.

Source, Doc? The CDC disagrees:

"The CDC reports group all abortions after 20 weeks of gestation into one category. After the CDC figures are adjusted for underreporting, approximately 16,450 procedures, or roughly 1% of all abortions in 1992, were estimated to have been performed beyond 20 weeks since the woman's last menstrual period (see Table 1).

Table 1. Induced Abortions, 1992
Gestational age Number
Total 1,528,930
<9 weeks 798,850
9-10 weeks 377,570
11-12 weeks 181,960
13-15 weeks 94,060
16-20 weeks 60,040
>20 weeks 16,450
21-22 weeks 10,340
23-24 weeks 4,940
25-26 weeks 850
>26 weeks 320

Note: Numbers are estimates by AGI based on AGI survey data, the CDC abortion surveillance reports and data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics."

You can also see the statistics on the CDC web site, year by year. Nowhere near 15% are late-term abortions.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Seeker
Only sentient beings have human rights.
Before that, it has no more rights than my last Big Mac.


Emotionalism: Sentiment, tradition, etc are not good bases for giving human rights. When we talk about rights, only thinking beings need apply. Stopping a beating heart, blah blah, is just emotionalism.
If you cry over an aborted fetus you should become a Jain, since the fetus has the same status as any pig, cow, etc.

This one I have to answer.
A pig Hun. Try killing a pregnant woman and you will be charge with 2 murders and not one. So they the fetus do have some rights.

[Lincoln]

I just have one question:

Why is the central issue constantly avoided by the pro-choice crowd? If the figure (for 1992) is "only" 17,000 or so does that make it Okay? Are we suposed to all argue about numbers now to evade that fact that innocent sentient human life is being purposely destroyed? or should we do as Ron Jeremy and Mac did and make a big joke about it?

[Boris Godunov]

Well, of those 17,000, you then have to consider how many procedures were done because the mother's life was at risk, or there were severe problems with the fetus, etc.

Now factor in the vastly fewer number of women who have died obtaining safe, legal abortions since abortions have been legal as opposed to the means they were left with when abortions were not legal.

Regardless, abortion rates have been steadily declining over the past 10 years, thanks to improved sex education, access to contraception and the raising of standards of living. If you wan't to keep it declining, continue making education and contraceptives available for teenagers, the urban poor, etc. That will have the added benefit of cutting down on STD transmission as well.

[Lincoln]

Anyway here is a better picture of the actual stastics:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html

Here is just on excerpt:

The methods of data collection differ as well. The CDC collects most of its information indirectly, mainly through reports from state health departments. Reports for the 45 states that collect information on abortion and the District of Columbia vary in completeness, with some lacking information on as many as 40-50% of the abortions that occur in the state.

But of course that does not answer the central question...