:thumb::thumb:

I believe that anybody who would fight in favor of abortinists' "right" to commit infanticide by allowing the victims of botched abortions to die alone in dirty linen rooms with no medical attention qualifies as a nut job. (Marrying a nutty, race-baiting woman who believes that she has lived a tough life after graduating from two Ivy League schools and "earning" a $300,000/year salary does noting to diminish my opinion of Barrack Hussein Obama.)

I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country.

So, as long as they think long and hard about it, even if it is morally wrong, it is OK? Because so many people who have an abortion never have one again.

 

Of the abortions reported in 1999 to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions.

 

The situation may be even worse than this, because the reports that U.S. states make to the CDC are voluntary, and the largest abortion state, California, does not report. Forty-six states do report, and this led to a total count of 861,789 legal induced abortions in 1999. That means that in one year, by the most conservative data available, 64,634 abortions were performed on women who had had three or more previous abortions.

 

I am probably only dreaming, but I hope that someday there will be a world with no abortion, and people would to live with their consequences, such as having a child before they are ready.

Don't you think their opinions on the matter might be a little skewed by their personal beliefs?

 

I used to get nailed here all the time for providing "biased" links.

 

Well I was pointing more to the point that you believed that the article was true but still felt the need to make that comment. But I don't think that Stanek is lying, she made the same comments under oath to the Subcommittee on the Constitution (Committee on the Judiciary) in U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on H.R.4292, The "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000" on Thursday, July 20, 2000. I will provide a link if you wish, but they are all from pro-life sites.

So, as long as they think long and hard about it, even if it is morally wrong, it is OK? Because so many people who have an abortion never have one again.

 

 

 

I am probably only dreaming, but I hope that someday there will be a world with no abortion, and people would to live with their consequences, such as having a child before they are ready.

 

I can see why one would want to keep abortions legal fearing that people may start going the less safe, back alley route, instead.

I can see why one would want to keep abortions legal fearing that people may start going the less safe, back alley route, instead.

 

Using that logic, do we then legalize cocaine, meth, etc?

Using that logic, do we then legalize cocaine, meth, etc?

 

Meth, cocaine etc, were not legalized by the Supreme Court, were they?

Let's ignore the things that people don't like about me, and only talk about things that we all agree on. That way, I don't have to say anything concrete about political policies.

 

 

That is more or less what I gathered from it too. A very deft side-step I must admit.

I can see why one would want to keep abortions legal fearing that people may start going the less safe, back alley route, instead.

Why would it matter if people started going the less safe back alley route? What makes their saftey so important.

Let's ignore the things that people don't like about me, and only talk about things that we all agree on. That way, I don't have to say anything concrete about political policies.

 

I was thinking the same thing. (Paraphrase) "Let's not talk about things that really separate me from others lets just talk about things that make me look good and don't make me uncomfortable to answer."

Don't you think their opinions on the matter might be a little skewed by their personal beliefs?

 

I used to get nailed here all the time for providing "biased" links.

 

And your sources aren't biased?

:lol: Because you know where I heard the statistics I mentioned, and you know all of my professors?

Oh, please try to tell me that most college professors aren't liberal. :lol:

That is more or less what I gathered from it too. A very deft side-step I must admit.

 

You mean that those who are opposed to abortion should not work with those who are pro choice to reduce the number of abortions? That makes no sense to me.

Don't you think their opinions on the matter might be a little skewed by their personal beliefs?

 

I used to get nailed here all the time for providing "biased" links.

 

Your sources couldn't possibly be skewed by the author(s)r personal beliefs could they?

I can see why one would want to keep abortions legal fearing that people may start going the less safe, back alley route, instead.

 

It is such a better idea to kill unborn babies with safe methods instead of killing unborn babies with unsafe methods.

 

We would hate to see the unborn babies die before the abortionist and mother has a chance to kill them.

I'm not saying your lying, or that your link is wrong...

 

But it's funny that you provided a link from catholic.org on an abortion issue.

The mainstream media is working to hard to guard Barack Hussein Obama from the issues, so you have to go elsewhere.