So, 1% have an abortion for rape.

3% for mother health issues.

3% for fetal health issues.

 

That means 93% have an abortion because of personal choice that they simply don't want the baby.

 

Somewhere around 70-80% have one simply because of how having a baby would change their life and they don't want their life changed. It would inconvenience them.

 

And you think that those people who don't want to be inconvenienced in their life by raising a child without special needs would understand a parent taking on a special needs child by choice?

 

You think more of them than I do. And I pray for those people.

On a side note, RM's stats show that the big reason why so many don't want abortion outlawed for rape and health of the mother is 4% of the abortions.

 

Read a stat today and I hope I get it right but said in the past 39 years of R v Wade, there have been 49 million abortions.

 

And somehow Darfur is a horrible situation.

Katrina is a horrible situation for this country.

But 49 unborn babies killed is a choice this country says it is okay to make.

 

I don't understand that.

On a side note, RM's stats show that the big reason why so many don't want abortion outlawed for rape and health of the mother is 4% of the abortions.

 

Read a stat today and I hope I get it right but said in the past 39 years of R v Wade, there have been 49 million abortions.

 

And somehow Darfur is a horrible situation.

Katrina is a horrible situation for this country.

But 49 unborn babies killed is a choice this country says it is okay to make.

 

I don't understand that.

 

 

Me either.

So, 1% have an abortion for rape.

3% for mother health issues.

3% for fetal health issues.

 

That means 93% have an abortion because of personal choice that they simply don't want the baby.

 

Somewhere around 70-80% have one simply because of how having a baby would change their life and they don't want their life changed. It would inconvenience them.

 

And you think that those people who don't want to be inconvenienced in their life by raising a child without special needs would understand a parent taking on a special needs child by choice?

 

 

 

You think more of them than I do. And I pray for those people.

 

That's not what you said. You said the majority would choose to have an abortion if faced with the situation Palin faced. There's no hard data to back that up. We have the 3% that said that was the reason. The 70-80% are other reasons you mentioned above, but do not necessarily mean that they were faced with the same situation. You can't transfer reasons. I will have to dig for the statistics, but I think a great number of abortions are decided upon before a woman even begins pre-natal care. In which case, they would not even know the condition of the fetus.

That's not what you said. You said the majority would choose to have an abortion if faced with the situation Palin faced. There's no hard data to back that up. We have the 3% that said that was the reason. The 70-80% are other reasons you mentioned above, but do not necessarily mean that they were faced with the same situation. You can't transfer reasons. I will have to dig for the statistics, but I think a great number of abortions are decided upon before a woman even begins pre-natal care. In which case, they would not even know the condition of the fetus.

 

I don't think I said that or at least I did not mean to.

 

I said they can't understand a person keeping a special needs child. That was the point of the article. They are having a hard time with Palin, because they just do not understand that choice.

Isn't there a funny saying about statistics out there? Bueller.....Bueller......

On a side note, RM's stats show that the big reason why so many don't want abortion outlawed for rape and health of the mother is 4% of the abortions.

 

Read a stat today and I hope I get it right but said in the past 39 years of R v Wade, there have been 49 million abortions.

 

And somehow Darfur is a horrible situation.

Katrina is a horrible situation for this country.

But 49 unborn babies killed is a choice this country says it is okay to make.

 

I don't understand that.

 

Me either.

 

 

That makes 3 of us....:thumb:

Hence, the first two words of my post. Again, the thread concerns the media, which should be neutral. Unfortunately we've come to expect it from the two political sides. We shouldn't expect it from the media.

 

 

What do you consider "media"? I don't watch TV, so I don't know if there is a liberal bias or not. I only know of it because I listen to talk radio about 4-8 hours a day. Now, radio is media I assume. And what I listen to sure isn't liberal biased. If I hear ONE liberal point of view a day, it is a miracle.

 

Why is radio held to a different standard than TV? I assume more folks listen to, or have access to radios than TV. Car, work, etc. Why is there no concern about the bias that is on the radio?

 

O'Reilly had a good interview with Obama today while I was listening. I think it was on TV as well, but I thought both parties handles themselves as well as could be expected. It didn't come off as biased, unlike say Rush or Hannity might. Rush mentioned the term "liberal bias" 27 times in one segment, which I guess is 15 minutes or so. Hey, I was bored, taking my lunch break in my car. If you say it that many times, I guess it must be true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_importance_of_trig_being.html

 

Trig's moment in the spotlight is a milestone of that movement. But it comes at a paradoxical time. Unlike African-Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the last few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by pre-natal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome -- not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to less than 1,000.

 

The protest against these trends has come in interesting forms. Last year pro-choice Sen. Edward Kennedy joined with pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback to propose a bill that would have required medical professionals to tell expectant parents that genetic tests are sometimes inaccurate and to give them up-to-date information on the quality of life that people with Down syndrome can enjoy. The bill did not pass, but it was a principled gesture from Rosemary's brother.

So what are you insinuating? I'd like you to explain that a little better.

 

Based on the body of your posts, in my opinion I think you do a whole lot of finger pointing and are one of the more partisan posters on here (to be fair, there are plenty like you from the R side), so when TB and G states that she is getting tired of all the finger pointing and you agree, I find that quite funny.

What do you consider "media"? I don't watch TV, so I don't know if there is a liberal bias or not. I only know of it because I listen to talk radio about 4-8 hours a day. Now, radio is media I assume. And what I listen to sure isn't liberal biased. If I hear ONE liberal point of view a day, it is a miracle.

 

Why is radio held to a different standard than TV? I assume more folks listen to, or have access to radios than TV. Car, work, etc. Why is there no concern about the bias that is on the radio?

 

O'Reilly had a good interview with Obama today while I was listening. I think it was on TV as well, but I thought both parties handles themselves as well as could be expected. It didn't come off as biased, unlike say Rush or Hannity might. Rush mentioned the term "liberal bias" 27 times in one segment, which I guess is 15 minutes or so. Hey, I was bored, taking my lunch break in my car. If you say it that many times, I guess it must be true.

 

 

Media would include radio, along with tv and print. Not sure what the stats are but my guess is that tv and print reach far more than radio talk shows. There are only a handful of really well known radio talk show hosts, as opposed to tv and print personalities.

 

I found an article that states 17% of the population regularly listen to talk radio vs 29% who watch network and 39% who watch cable news. It appeared that 12% regularly read newspapers. So the audience for tv and print is about 3 times that of radio. I do understand that you would think there is a large conservative bias if all you do is listen to radio. There is a conservative dominance of the radio waves.

bball...

 

Replace a few words including liberals with conservatives and the paragraph still works. Obama has been attacked, smeared, belittled. Is that okay with you? Conservatives are no saints...

 

I disagree with you. I tend to think of liberals as educated elistists, particularly those from the Ivy League schools or southern California.

While conservatives may not be saints at least we try to adhere to the Constitution as our Founding Fathers intended. If you want to make a change try passing a Constitutional Amendment, instead of using that living costitution line and making up stuff.

http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=30659=3title=bring_me_to_lifemore=1c=1tb=1pb=1

 

It has been noted ad infinitum in the mainstream press that John McCain’s running mate opposes abortion in all circumstances except to preserve the threatened life of the expectant mother. Her views have raised the eyebrows not only of those committed to preventing the reversal of Roe v. Wade, but also of those who staunchly oppose abortion for birth-control purposes but feel it should be legal in cases where pregnancies occur as a result of sexual assault or molestation.

 

From a philosophical perspective, Palin’s view makes total sense. The unborn child is always innocent, even if he or she was conceived as a result of a criminal act. The unborn child, according to Palin, should not be punished for the sinful act of one of the parents.

 

This view cannot reasonably be called extreme. Is it “odd”, in our post-Roe culture?

 

In a new article entitled “Palin the Pragmatic”, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes notes that as Governor of Alaska, Palin has not emphasized her socially conservative views: “[Palin] She opposes abortion and gay rights and, as an evangelical Christian, believes in a God-centered universe. But these matters are neither her top priorities as governor nor even her second-tier concerns. Her social conservatism has been muted.” Barnes continues: “Palin has frequently voiced her support for anti-abortion bills requiring parental consent for girls under 17 and outlawing partial-birth abortions. ‘Alaskans know I am pro-life and have never wavered in my belief in the sanctity of every human life,’ she declared in April. But she refused to introduce the pro-life measures in a special legislative session last spring devoted to the gas pipeline. ‘These issues are so important they shouldn't be diluted with oil and gas deliberations,’ she said. Later, she declined to call a separate special session to take up the abortion bills. Her reasoning: Pro-lifers had failed to persuade her the bills could pass the state senate. Nor would she intervene to pressure two Republican senators who opposed the legislation to change their minds…The anointing of Palin as the new Reagan is surely premature. Let's say she's a potential Reagan. Like him, Palin has focused on a few big issues, while allowing others popular with conservatives to fall by the wayside. This brand of pragmatic conservatism worked for Reagan. It's worked for Palin too.”