I don't understand what the number of miscarages has to so with abortion. In the situation you describe the woman does not even realize she is pregnant. If she aborts then she not only knows she is pregnant she knowingly destroys the baby. Just because a so many miscarriages occur in no justification for aborting.

You've misunderstood me.

 

I am not using miscarriages to justify abortions.

I don't get your point at all. Sorry.

 

My point is that if we as a society really treated every moment of conception as the 'birth' of a child, and could know every time a woman miscarried, we'd be totally paralyzed because it happens so often. Which, by my math, would be 4.5 miscarriages EVERY minute.

 

(20% of all diagnosed pregancies end in miscarriage, and an equal number of miscarriages occur in undiagnosed pregnancies. There are roughly 6 million diagnosed pregancies a year. 20% of 6 million is 1.2 million. 1.2 X 2 is 2.4. 2,400,000/365/24/60= 4.5.)

 

Miscarriage would be the leading cause of death. By quite a margin.

 

From what I can tell, you are trying to say that since miscarriages happen so much, either A) we shouldn't treat fetuses as people or B) they aren't people.

 

If the basis that determines whether or not they are life is the amount of times that it happens, can't the number of times that something else happens be used to determine it's worth? A rape happens every 5 minutes; since it occurs so much, should we accept it as a reality and recognize it as a part of life, and therefore continue letting it occur?

 

For the record, your stats completely outnumber mine. I am talking about the principal of determining life's worth by looking at numbers.

How about some quotes from Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, the organization that the Democrats so strongly support:

 

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

 

"If we must have welfare, give it to the rich and not the poor."

 

"Organized charity itself is. . . the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents."

 

Abortion was designed to wipe out those that the Democrats claim they are protecting.

There's a lot wrong, here.

 

1) Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which eventually became Planned Parenthood years after she left the organization.

 

2) The ABCL never once supported abortion. In fact, Margaret Sanger didn't either, according to her autobiography- "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." In reality, she was more ambivilant, but the fact remains that it wasn't at the fore of her mind. Birth control was (she actually coined the phrase.)

 

3) Sanger was an eugenicist, and that's where your quotes come from. The quotes you provide have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Sadly, the promotion of 'race hygine' was common in Sanger's day, as a result of the political theory of biopower (Michel Foucault is a good read to understand that.)

 

I'm a little disappointed in your attempt at 'guilt by association,' HHSDad.

From what I can tell, you are trying to say that since miscarriages happen so much, either A) we shouldn't treat fetuses as people or B) they aren't people.

I'm saying that we don't treat these early miscarriages as equal to the death of a child.

I'm saying that we don't treat these early miscarriages as equal to the death of a child.

 

Once again, conventional human beliefs on death and grieving are reactions, not determining factors of life.

 

Theoretically, sat that there is a religion which they do zero mourning or grieving for the death of a child. Since the mourning of a 12 year old is same mourning of a 12 week old (absolutely no mourning) does that determine that neither has life? Absolutely not.

 

Human reaction is not a scientific foundation.

I'm saying that we don't treat these early miscarriages as equal to the death of a child.

 

I can assure you that, if you and your spouse have suffered a miscarriage, you do, indeed, consider it equal to the death of a child because a child is precisely what you have lost.

Once again, conventional human beliefs on death and grieving are reactions, not determining factors of life.

 

Theoretically, sat that there is a religion which they do zero mourning or grieving for the death of a child. Since the mourning of a 12 year old is same mourning of a 12 week old (absolutely no mourning) does that determine that neither has life? Absolutely not.

 

Human reaction is not a scientific foundation.

Neither is a religious argument. I was certainly not trying to lay a scientific foundation, to say that 'x amount of gief must be shown before we allow that something lived.'

 

What I am saying is that, to me, it cheapens REAL LIFE and REAL CHILDREN, to equate a zygote with a human being. As an example, I pointed out that our society would be unable to function for grief if we did so.

 

I am personally opposed to abortion past a certain point of development. But to argue that a zygote, a single cell, is the same as a child that you can hold in your arms is in my opinion as foolish as to say that there is no moral ramification to partial birth abortion.

 

What we need in this country is to drop our dogmatic rigidity when discussing abortion. I am very personally opposed to IDX, but because abortion opponents would deliberatly use it's ban as a stepping stone to ban all abortions (and, for some, all birth control) I'm forced to argue against banning something I personally oppose. This incrementalism against abortion keeps those of us on the left who are opposed to it's late term use trapped, just as trapped as LBBC feels by the Democratic party's support of a right to choose.

 

As long as the debate is framed as 'either we have all abortions available at all times, or we have no abortions available, ever' America will never resolve this issue.

I can assure you that, if you and your spouse have suffered a miscarriage, you do, indeed, consider it equal to the death of a child because a child is precisely what you have lost.

We're talking about two different occurences. You're talking about a miscarriage where the woman knows she's pregnant, maybe showing, maybe having already made plans for the childs room and given it boy and girl names.

 

I'm talking about something that happens so early that it never enters the woman's mind that she was pregnant.

What scares you more far right or far left?

 

The far right brings religion to the table, and religion is the most dangerous force on the planet. I'm not trying to say that religion is bad, or religious people are bad people, but the fact of the matter is that it's cause the most deaths in the history of man. So the far right scares me the most.

 

That's not to say that the far left isn't frightening -- it is. But not so much as the far right to me.

 

The issue of money has always been a hard one for me to pin down as far as my opinion goes. On one side, I really don't like the welfare system not being well adjusted and working to serve for those who actually need it and plan on getting on their feet. On the otherhand, it seems so easy to get caught up in 'the cycle', in which the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. There's no easy way to fix it, and you can't just say that it's the poor getting lazier and the rich working harder. I mean, UofL tuition is already almost twice as much per semester than it was when I was a Freshman. I have been working since I was a Sophomore in high school... I can't imagine how this year's graduates who are in the same boat as I was will be able to pay for it without taking out student loans. I REALLY can't imagine those who are too poor to even start college or get a bank loan. The ones who can will still be paying for those loans for years because a bachelors degree isn't as valuable as it once was, so they'll be paying extra money to go for longer if they can, or they simply won't be able to afford it and do their best with a Bachelors. Those who have the money from schollys or parents of course, will likely keep going and get that Masters or PhD, and they'll be able to pull in that extra money from those degrees to pay off- wait a second, they won't HAVE any student loans to pay off.

 

Now I'm not blaming those people in the latter situations, and I'm not trying to belittle them in any way -- especially those who earn scholarships. But I'm just saying, it's a system that is quick to solidify a person into a certain class. To be able to actually work ones way up from lower to upper class has got to be the hardest thing to do these days, in my opinion.

We're talking about two different occurences. You're talking about a miscarriage where the woman knows she's pregnant, maybe showing, maybe having already made plans for the childs room and given it boy and girl names.

 

I'm talking about something that happens so early that it never enters the woman's mind that she was pregnant.

 

Well, now, if one never knew she was pregnant and that she lost a child, I would have to admit that she most likely wouldn't be in a position to grieve the loss of a child. On the other hand, it is obvious from your posts that you have no personal knowledge of such painful losses.

 

In regard to abortion, I am, as I said, all for women having a choice. However, that choice is to either get pregnant or not to get pregnant. When she chooses (or allows) the former, she has brought another being into the equation. Some matters of existence are absolutes. In reality, they can't be changed to suit the whims of modern day life and greedy and manipulative medical practitioners don't alter truth.

 

I am always amused at the argument that all such decisions shopuld be left to "the woman and her physician". Contrary to what many of them believe, doctors are mere humans. A woman can always find a doctor to conclude whatever she seeks to have as a conclusion to her "malady". Greenbacks are never a drawback in the medical profession.

Well, now, if one never knew she was pregnant and that she lost a child, I would have to admit that she most likely wouldn't be in a position to grieve the loss of a child. On the other hand, it is obvious from your posts that you have no personal knowledge of such painful losses.

 

In regard to abortion, I am, as I said, all for women having a choice. However, that choice is to either get pregnant or not to get pregnant. When she chooses (or allows) the former, she has brought another being into the equation. Some matters of existence are absolutes. In reality, they can't be changed to suit the whims of modern day life and greedy and manipulative medical practitioners don't alter truth.

 

I am always amused at the argument that all such decisions shopuld be left to "the woman and her physician". Contrary to what many of them believe, doctors are mere humans. A woman can always find a doctor to conclude whatever she seeks to have as a conclusion to her "malady". Greenbacks are never a drawback in the medical profession.

Incorrect.

 

So when a woman uses birth control and still catches, has she chosen to be pregnant?

She chose to be sexually active knowing that the only 100% sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is abstinance. That means she knowingly took the chance that she wouldn't be the 1 in 100 (I just pulled that number out of the air, I'm not sure of the exact effectiveness percentage) women that got pregnant while taking the pill (or using other methods of birth control). So as far as I'm concerned as soon as she consents to having sex then she has also consented to the FACT that she may get pregnant.

She chose to be sexually active knowing that the only 100% sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is abstinance. That means she knowingly took the chance that she wouldn't be the 1 in 100 (I just pulled that number out of the air, I'm not sure of the exact effectiveness percentage) women that got pregnant while taking the pill (or using other methods of birth control). So as far as I'm concerned as soon as she consents to having sex then she has also consented to the FACT that she may get pregnant.

This is exactly the attitude I was looking for in my question.

 

The woman chose NOT to be pregnant, and took precautions against it. But she is bound by her body to the result. I'm just not able to see that as her 'choosing' to be pregnant, and it's why I will always support a woman's right to choose (in the context of an early-term abortion.)

She chose to engage in the activity that causes pregnancy knowing that she could become pregnant regardless of the precautions she took. How many women know that taking certain antibiotics can reduce the effectiveness of the pill? I know of at least one that found out the hard way.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of accepting the consequesces of your actions.

 

If you truly choose not to get pregnant then you will choose not to have sex.

 

And before it starts sounding like I place all of the responsibility at the woman's feet please know that I fully support very stringent enforcement of child support rulings and find dead beat dads to be among the lowest forms of human life. It takes two and both of them chose to engage in the activity. Umfortunately biology places a greater toll on the woman for making that choice.

This single issue reaches far in Constitutional Law.

 

The righties on the court do not beleive in the "right to privacy" and have basically stated that the government can favor religion - (Smith - history rooted in support of monotheistic god)

 

The lefties on the court strongly hold to the idea of a "right to privacy" in the Constitution (a right judicially created by Justice Douglas - Griswold) In addition, the lefties beleive in a "wall" between the government in religion.

 

Abortion is certainly about the "right to privacy" but also has unavoidable religious interpretation questions interwoven within.

 

Scalia will get another chance to make his argument in the near future - that there is no "right to privacy" within the Constitution, but ALSO (and this one might be the winner) that the history and tradition do not support the recognition of legal abortion.