Black Pro-Life Advocates Plan Massive Abortion Protest Outside NAACP Meeting

[Alonzo]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- To draw attention to the way abortion disproportionately affects the African-American community, black pro-life advocates will be protesting outside the upcoming annual meeting of the nation's largest organization representing blacks. The NAACP protest will also reach the Democratic presidential candidate.

Rev. Clenard Childress, a New Jersey pastor, told LifeNews.com about the protest and said pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama and former candidate Hillary Clinton will be at the convention.

"Because 2008 is an election year, the presidential candidates will undoubtedly speak at the convention. This gives us a national stage to make our case to the American people, as a whole, as well as the convention delegates," he explained.

He said the protest at the Cincinnati, Ohio convention will highlight the failure of the NAACP to recognize how abortion is destroying the black community by the thousands.

"We will be addressing the failure of the joint board to read the resolution from Macon, Georgia that brings to the attention of the convention the alarming abortion rate and the increasing health risk," he said.

"Historically, the NAACP has failed to address the concerns of many of its delegates about abortion," he added.

The black pastor pointed to a 2004 resolution voicing support for “equal access to abortion” and urging its members to participate in a pro-abortion rally in Washington.

In 2007, the NAACP, for the second time in four years, blocked a proposed resolution expressing opposition to abortion.

He also pointed to black leaders like Jesse Jackson who historically took pro-life positions but compromised on the issue for political gain.

"Sadly, like Jackson, so many of America’s black leaders have sold out to the abortion industry," he says. "But we have an opportunity at the NAACP convention to remind these leaders of our real value system."

But, ultimately, if the African-American community can tackle the abortion issue, Childress says the pro-life movement will win and mothers and unborn children will be protected.

"Whether you are black or white, we know that the black community and its leadership hold the key to turning the abortion debate around. If my fellow black leaders begin to address the issue -- Roe v. Wade’s days are numbered," he concluded.

Childress is sponsoring two buses to bring 100 African-American pro-lifers with him to the event.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3973.html

I can hear the chants now:

"MORE TEEN PREGNANCY!"
"MORE HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS!"

Or is it going to be a reality free rally?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Most likely it will indeed be a "reality free" event, or as it often becomes "BYOR", or Bring Your Own Reality".

[firefox]

Abortion is good, especially for the poor who can't afford to deal with another mouth to feed. IMHO, it's much better for everyone involved to fully support a couple of kids than to insufficiently provide for several. Unfortunately, this problem won't end until a significant proportion of said pro-lifers comes to realize that zygotes and blastocysts aren't "alive" in the typical sense of the word, as it applies to humans.

[PostmodernProphet]

Abortion is good, especially for the poor who can't afford to deal with another mouth to feed. IMHO, it's much better for everyone involved to fully support a couple of kids than to insufficiently provide for several. Unfortunately, this problem won't end until a significant proportion of said pro-lifers comes to realize that zygotes and blastocysts aren't "alive" in the typical sense of the word, as it applies to humans.

considering the fact that a fertilized egg moves through the states of being a zygote and blastocyst and becomes an embryo before any woman realizes she is even pregnant, it is ridiculous to say that the problem of abortion will be affected at all by any level of knowledge about either......

and that's before coming to the realization that by any definition available, both a human zygote and a human blastocyst are as "alive" as they could possibly be......

[micfranklin]

Since it mentions the democratic presidential candidate they should know he is essentially pro-choice.

[ptif219]

Since it mentions the democratic presidential candidate they should know he is essentially pro-choice.

He is pro abortion and pro murder

[Alonzo]

He is pro abortion and pro murder

Pro-murder? Does he advocate killing people on the street?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Calling abortion murder is intellectual dishonesty at the highest level.

[ptif219]

Pro-murder? Does he advocate killing people on the street?

No he is pro-murder through abortion.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77500/barack_hussein_obama_jr_defends_partialbirth.html? page=2&cat=9


In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA, by the way, stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion.

He voted against a cloning ban in 2000, but voted for it in 2001.

In 1997, Obama twice voted “present” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24354


Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Last time I checked, I found no logical support for a fetus having claim to any individual rights as a born person, mainly because they aren't born, or individuals.

[Alonzo]

ptif if "No he is pro-murder through abortion." Then isn't saying he's "pro murder and pro abortion" like saying "He's pro murder and pro homicide"?

[ptif219]

Last time I checked, I found no logical support for a fetus having claim to any individual rights as a born person, mainly because they aren't born, or individuals.

So you have no problem with partial birth abortion where they suck out the brains of a fetus that could possibly live if allowed to come out of the birth canal could live?Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.

You have no problem with Obama blockingt the born alive infant bill?

[ptif219]

ptif if "No he is pro-murder through abortion." Then isn't saying he's "pro murder and pro abortion" like saying "He's pro murder and pro homicide"?

So then you condone partial birth abortion that kills a baby that could live outside the room.Sucking out the brains is not murder?

Proof a 21 week fetus can live making partial birth abortion murder which Obama supports.


http://www.local10.com/news/11053141/detail.html

MIAMI -- Sonja and Eddie Taylor's baby girl has earned a lot of nicknames during her four months in intensive care -- Queen B, Princess, Miracle -- but none is perhaps more perfect than her given name, Amillia.

"We were looking through the Internet and it meant fighter, resilient," Sonja Taylor said.

Amillia had to be to overcome some incredible odds.

"Survival of babies that is less than 22 weeks of gestation is close to zero, if not zero," said Dr. Phuket Tantavit, who specializes in neonatology.

The medical standard is not even to resuscitate a 22-week baby, so when Sonja Taylor knew she was going into labor in October after just 19 weeks, she lied about the baby's term.

Doctors worked to delay the birth, but nine days later, they had no choice but to perform an emergency C-section, thinking they were delivering a 23-week baby.

"I was prepared for the worst and prepared to break the bad news to the mother," said Dr. Guillermo Lievano, who delivered Amillia.

Weighing only 10 ounces, Tantavit inserted a breathing tube in Amillia. She responded surprisingly well, at which time Tantavit thought Amillia, slightly bigger than a pen, was something special.

Pediatric surgeon Dr. Holly Neville was immediately called upon to repair Amillia's left ear and much of her scalp, which was torn during delivery and left dangling.

"She was literally just a coke can under sterile drapes," Neville said.

Normally, the skin of a baby that age wouldn't accept stitches or handling, but somehow Amillia's skin was mature beyond her age.

"I had never seen such a small baby," Neville said.

It was months later when doctors verified Amillia's true age through her parent's fertility specialist and discovered the perfectly healthy baby was born at exactly 21 weeks and six days -- a world record

[Osborn F. Enready]

ptif said:
So you have no problem with partial birth abortion where they suck out the brains of a fetus that could possibly live if allowed to come out of the birth canal could live?

Nice appeal to emotion, but no. Its a womans body exclusively until that fetus is born and seperated, and she is the ONLY rights holder in the equation until birth and seperation.

I don't like late term abortions, but its part of the cost of individual rights.

Ptif said:
Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.

Good for him. One of very few things I can respect about the treasonous liar.

Ptif said:
You have no problem with Obama blockingt the born alive infant bill?

No.

PTIF said:
So then you condone partial birth abortion that kills a baby that could live outside the room.Sucking out the brains is not murder?

No.

[ptif219]

Nice appeal to emotion, but no. Its a womans body exclusively until that fetus is born and seperated, and she is the ONLY rights holder in the equation until birth and seperation.

I don't like late term abortions, but its part of the cost of individual rights.



Good for him. One of very few things I can respect about the treasonous liar.



No.



No.


It saddens me that you are that heartless to human life forms.

Funny how if you injure a woman the fetus dies it can give you jail time but it is legal for the mother and doctor to kill it.

[Alonzo]

So then you condone partial birth abortion that kills a baby that could live outside the room.Sucking out the brains is not murder?

Proof a 21 week fetus can live making partial birth abortion murder which Obama supports.


http://www.local10.com/news/11053141/detail.html

MIAMI -- Sonja and Eddie Taylor's baby girl has earned a lot of nicknames during her four months in intensive care -- Queen B, Princess, Miracle -- but none is perhaps more perfect than her given name, Amillia.

"We were looking through the Internet and it meant fighter, resilient," Sonja Taylor said.

Amillia had to be to overcome some incredible odds.

"Survival of babies that is less than 22 weeks of gestation is close to zero, if not zero," said Dr. Phuket Tantavit, who specializes in neonatology.

The medical standard is not even to resuscitate a 22-week baby, so when Sonja Taylor knew she was going into labor in October after just 19 weeks, she lied about the baby's term.

Doctors worked to delay the birth, but nine days later, they had no choice but to perform an emergency C-section, thinking they were delivering a 23-week baby.

"I was prepared for the worst and prepared to break the bad news to the mother," said Dr. Guillermo Lievano, who delivered Amillia.

Weighing only 10 ounces, Tantavit inserted a breathing tube in Amillia. She responded surprisingly well, at which time Tantavit thought Amillia, slightly bigger than a pen, was something special.

Pediatric surgeon Dr. Holly Neville was immediately called upon to repair Amillia's left ear and much of her scalp, which was torn during delivery and left dangling.

"She was literally just a coke can under sterile drapes," Neville said.

Normally, the skin of a baby that age wouldn't accept stitches or handling, but somehow Amillia's skin was mature beyond her age.

"I had never seen such a small baby," Neville said.

It was months later when doctors verified Amillia's true age through her parent's fertility specialist and discovered the perfectly healthy baby was born at exactly 21 weeks and six days -- a world record

a 22 week old fetus can survive (21 and 6 days isn't really 22 weeks), but most don't. The chance of survival increases with age.

But there are reasons for it:

Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once a pregnant woman has made the decision to have a late-term abortion, she or a doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:

* Although a woman may experience contractions, she does not have to experience labor.[13]
* IDX is an outpatient procedure; the woman does not have to be hospitalized.[13]
* The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.[14]
* The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[15]
* Instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion, potentially reducing the risk of uterine tearing.[16]
* The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe,[17] or a caesarian section may be done as soon as amniocentesis indicates lung maturity.[18] If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.[13]


The procedure also only accounts for .17 of all abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

No reason to take any risk to the mother to protect something that is part of her body and she doesn't want.

[NortheastCynic]

It always amazes me how people can make statements like that despite never having met or knowing anything about the people whom they're talking about

Just an observation.

I'm fairly certain that Osborn said that he 'didn't like' partial birth abortions. I be willing to be there are several things that Osborn personally doesn't like or believes to me immoral that he also thinks should be legal.

Libertarians, in general, keep their political and moral values separate.

-NC

[ptif219]

a 22 week old fetus can survive (21 and 6 days isn't really 22 weeks), but most don't. The chance of survival increases with age.

But there are reasons for it:



The procedure also only accounts for .17 of all abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

No reason to take any risk to the mother to protect something that is part of her body and she doesn't want.

Nice how you name your sources and give links.

Play it down but abortion is parents killing their children.


How about people take responibility for their action and give the human lifeform in the womb that they produced its right to life.


You probably have not had your child aborted or lived with and helped your wife get help to deal with an abortion.

There is emotional trauma women go through when they realize they killed their child.

I have been through both with different wives it is not fun.

[Alonzo]

You probably have not had your child aborted or lived with and helped your wife get help to deal with an abortion.

There is emotional trauma women go through when they realize they killed their child.

I have been through both with different wives it is not fun.

And the people who spend their live convincing women that "Abortion is murder" share in responsibility of that.

But the claim of trauma is wrong:

But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.

The study's authors say the results agree with previous studies -- including one by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD -- showing that severe mental distress following an abortion is rare....

Adler, director of health psychology at the University of California in San Francisco, also points out that it is important to look closer at studies that have found psychological harm after abortion to evaluate whether distress really was the result of the abortion, or of other events.

"Experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is itself distressing, as may be the events associated with it. For example, a woman's partner may respond to the pregnancy by leaving her. The abortion then occurs in the context of loss and abandonment, yet depression or distress following the abortion would be attributed to the procedure," Adler writes. Facing hostile protesters and intimidation in seeking an abortion also may be factors that heighten risk for psychological problems postabortion in some women, she says.

"Most women fare very well emotionally," agrees David Grimes, MD. "It's important to understand that abortion is not a problem, it's a solution. The problem is the unintended pregnancy. When that is behind them they oftentimes will feel much better. But it is well documented that relief is the overwhelming response of most women."

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion?page=2

How about people take responibility for their action and give the human lifeform in the womb that they produced its right to life.

I don't care about "should", only about what is most likely to happen.

Nice how you name your sources and give links.

I always do, either in the post or, if I'm going by memory, then by request.

[ptif219]

And the people who spend their live convincing women that "Abortion is murder" share in responsibility of that.

But the claim of trauma is wrong:



http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion?page=2



I don't care about "should", only about what is most likely to happen.



I always do, either in the post or, if I'm going by memory, then by request.

Trauma is not gone but believe what you want. Justify murder and let adults not be responsible for their action.That is the liberal way.After all abortion is just a liberal form of birth contol.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness From the declaration of independence.But it does not apply to babies in the womb in your eyes yet if not aborted it would.

Abortion is stopping human life.If you take away a life is that murder?Abortion does that America is killing its children at close to a million a year.


http://www.afterabortion.org/psychol.html

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD or PAS): A major random study found that a minimum of 19% of post- abortion women suffer from diagnosable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Approximately half had many, but not all, symptoms of PTSD, and 20 to 40 percent showed moderate to high levels of stress and avoidance behavior relative to their abortion experiences. (6) Because this is a major disorder which may be present in many plaintiffs, and is not readily understood outside the counseling profession, the following summary is more complete than other entries in this section. PTSD is a psychological dysfunction which results from a traumatic experience which overwhelms a person's normal defense mechanisms resulting in intense fear, feelings of helplessness or being trapped, or loss of control. The risk that an experience will be traumatic is increased when the traumatizing event is perceived as including threats of physical injury, sexual violation, or the witnessing of or participation in a violent death. PTSD results when the traumatic event causes the hyperarousal of "flight or fight" defense mechanisms. This hyperarousal causes these defense mechanisms to become disorganized, disconnected from present circumstances, and take on a life of their own resulting in abnormal behavior and major personality disorders. As an example of this disconnection of mental functions, some PTSD victim may experience intense emotion but without clear memory of the event; others may remember every detail but without emotion; still others may reexperience both the event and the emotions in intrusive and overwhelming flashback experiences. (7)

SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION: Thirty to fifty percent of aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style. (12)

SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS: Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. The identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.(13)

INCREASED SMOKING WITH CORRESPONDENT NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS: Post-abortion stress is linked with increased cigarette smoking. Women who abort are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and suffer the corresponding health risks. (14)

Post-abortion women are also more likely to continue smoking during subsequent wanted pregnancies with increased risk of neonatal death or congenital anomalies. (15)

ALCOHOL ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked with a two fold increased risk of alcohol abuse among women. (16) Abortion followed by alcohol abuse is linked to violent behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, and job loss. (17) (see also New Study Confirms Link Between Abortion and Substance Abuse)

DRUG ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked to subsequent drug abuse. In addition to the psycho-social costs of such abuse, drug abuse is linked with increased exposure to HIV/AIDS infections, congenital malformations, and assaultive behavior. (18)

EATING DISORDERS: For at least some women, post-abortion stress is associated with eating disorders such as binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia nervosa. (19)

CHILD NEGLECT OR ABUSE: Abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse. (20)

DIVORCE AND CHRONIC RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS: For most couples, an abortion causes unforeseen problems in their relationship. Post-abortion couples are more likely to divorce or separate. Many post-abortion women develop a greater difficulty forming lasting bonds with a male partner. This may be due to abortion related reactions such as lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and increased levels of depression, anxiety, and volatile anger. Women who have more than one abortion (representing about 45% of all abortions) are more likely to require public assistance, in part because they are also more likely to become single parents. (21)

REPEAT ABORTIONS: Women who have one abortion are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those with no prior abortion history. (22)

This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have a child and continued pressures to abort, such as abandonment by the new male partner. Aspects of self-punishment through repeated abortions are also reported. (23)

Approximately 45% of all abortions are now repeat abortions. The risk of falling into a repeat abortion pattern should be discussed with a patient considering her first abortion. Furthermore, since women who have more than one abortion are at a significantly increased risk of suffering physical and psychological sequelae, these heightened risks should be thoroughly discussed with women seeking abortions.

[Osborn F. Enready]

NorthEastCynic said:
I'm fairly certain that Osborn said that he 'didn't like' partial birth abortions. I be willing to be there are several things that Osborn personally doesn't like or believes to me immoral that he also thinks should be legal.

Thank you for noticing, so many don't.

Something tells me you share this plight equally with me in your own life, and are used to explaining it often when necessary, which I can respect greatly.

PTIF said:
It saddens me that you are that heartless to human life forms.

I am sorry to make you sad, but it is not an issue of heartlessness or my respect for human life. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite.

Because I respect human life as much as I do, I am not ambiguous or in denial about the difference between a born child, and a fetus living "through" the mother parasiticly, within her body, totally dependent on her will, her ability and her desire to have and provide for that child.

I totally abhor the idea that late-term abortions are done for anything other than protecting the life of the mother, but I accept that it does happen and am willing to let it happen legally, because I don't believe the state has the right to control a womans body to the point that it lays claim on something entirely dependent on her, that contributes NOTHING positive to her plight of living while within her, and to lay such claim would entail REMOVING or ABRIDGING rights of the mother to do so.

PTIF said:
Funny how if you injure a woman the fetus dies it can give you jail time but it is legal for the mother and doctor to kill it.

Its not funny to me.

Its actually quite logical if based on the will of the mother to carry and deliver, which would be the most logical deduction, since it IS her will and ability entirely that determines if the fetus will be carried to term, regardless of any law.


PTIF said:
Play it down but abortion is parents killing their children.

If you view it that way.... I view it as one of few choices for post conception responsibility regarding birth control, and unwanted birth.

PTIF said:
How about people take responibility for their action and give the human lifeform in the womb that they produced its right to life.

It hasn't earned a right to life until it exists on its own, naturally, or by the will of the mother for early removal and life support. What happens to its "right to life" when the mother falls down the steps and the fetus dies in the womb? It has no control over its existence, it has no right to life except by will and ability of the mother to provide it.

PTIF said:
You probably have not had your child aborted or lived with and helped your wife get help to deal with an abortion.

What difference does this make? Can only people who served in the military talk about the military? Can only people who have made tomato juice grasp what is entailed with making tomato juice?

For your information though, I know women who have had abortions and I fully understand as best another person can the depth of which this can affect a person, depending on their views, values, etc.

The fact is, we are all individuals that are born and hold rights as born individuals. A fetus is not born, and its rights are only potential rights, until birth, much like its a potential person, until birth.

PTIF said:
There is emotional trauma women go through when they realize they killed their child.

I have been through both with different wives it is not fun.

I can understand, but I still disagree.

All women are indivduals, and view it uniquely, and have a right to make that choice concerning their bodies until that fetus is born, and bestowed legal rights as enumerated and recognized.

[NortheastCynic]

Thank you for noticing, so many don't.

Something tells me you share this plight equally with me in your own life, and are used to explaining it often when necessary, which I can respect greatly.Holy God does it get old. God only knows how many times I've heard 'you think prostitution/drug use/etc. is okay?'. No, I think it's immoral, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Morality = a code of ethics that guides the choices of an INDIVIDUAL. Political philosophy = a code of ethics that guides the GOVERNANCE and LAWMAKING of SOCIETY.

-NC

[ptif219]

Thank you for noticing, so many don't.

Something tells me you share this plight equally with me in your own life, and are used to explaining it often when necessary, which I can respect greatly.



I am sorry to make you sad, but it is not an issue of heartlessness or my respect for human life. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite.

Because I respect human life as much as I do, I am not ambiguous or in denial about the difference between a born child, and a fetus living "through" the mother parasiticly, within her body, totally dependent on her will, her ability and her desire to have and provide for that child.

I totally abhor the idea that late-term abortions are done for anything other than protecting the life of the mother, but I accept that it does happen and am willing to let it happen legally, because I don't believe the state has the right to control a womans body to the point that it lays claim on something entirely dependent on her, that contributes NOTHING positive to her plight of living while within her, and to lay such claim would entail REMOVING or ABRIDGING rights of the mother to do so.



Its not funny to me.

Its actually quite logical if based on the will of the mother to carry and deliver, which would be the most logical deduction, since it IS her will and ability entirely that determines if the fetus will be carried to term, regardless of any law.




If you view it that way.... I view it as one of few choices for post conception responsibility regarding birth control, and unwanted birth.



It hasn't earned a right to life until it exists on its own, naturally, or by the will of the mother for early removal and life support. What happens to its "right to life" when the mother falls down the steps and the fetus dies in the womb? It has no control over its existence, it has no right to life except by will and ability of the mother to provide it.



What difference does this make? Can only people who served in the military talk about the military? Can only people who have made tomato juice grasp what is entailed with making tomato juice?

For your information though, I know women who have had abortions and I fully understand as best another person can the depth of which this can affect a person, depending on their views, values, etc.

The fact is, we are all individuals that are born and hold rights as born individuals. A fetus is not born, and its rights are only potential rights, until birth, much like its a potential person, until birth.

There is emotional trauma women go through when they realize they killed their child.

I have been through both with different wives it is not fun.

Nice rant and justification as to why it is ok to kill our children.

Check out my post before this one and then tell me abortion is ok and causes no problems.

[Alonzo]

Trauma is not gone but believe what you want. Justify murder and let adults not be responsible for their action.That is the liberal way.After all abortion is just a liberal foem of birth contol.

I'll believe what I want, especially when I have studies supporting my view and disagreeing with yours.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness From the declaration of independence.But it does not apply to babies in the womb in your eyes yet if not aborted it would.

Abortion is stopping human life.If you take away a life is that murder?Abortion does that America is killing its children at close to a million a year.

"Human" and "person" are distinct concepts. A fetus is, biologically, a "human" but is not a person in the legal or moral sense.

[ptif219]

I'll believe what I want, especially when I have studies supporting my view and disagreeing with yours.



"Human" and "person" are distinct concepts. A fetus is, biologically, a "human" but is not a person in the legal or moral sense.

Your study is over 20 years old mine is only 11 so which one is more up to date with the current times?

In the moral sense a fetus is a human but then it depends on what kind of morals you have if any.

[Alonzo]

Your study is over 20 years old mine is only 11 so which one is more up to date with the current times?

Uh.... mine was a reputable study published in 2000 by the "Archived of General Psychiatry".

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

Your's is from an anti-abortion site, and most of the sources are from the late 70's and early 80's. It is comprised by the "Elliot Institute" (says so at the bottom) which is an anti-abortion group, and as it is an ideologically biased institute I have little reason to believe their summary of the studies they site, even if most are a quarter century old, accurately represent the conclusions of the researchers in those studies.

In the moral sense a fetus is a human but then it depends on what kind of morals you have if any.

It depends on whether humans are persons due to intelligence, awareness etc. or persons because they have a certain genetic code.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PTIF said:
Nice rant and justification as to why it is ok to kill our children.

Children are born, fetus' are not.

Its not a rant, its a logical chain of extrapolation through deduction.

Also, they aren't "our" children. They are a product of two people, carried by one until birth, and no person has claim on that fetus other than the parents.

I am not the one trying to take away their rights, I am the one respecting their rights to practice safe, legal post conception birth control.

PTIF said:
Check out my post before this one and then tell me abortion is ok and causes no problems.

I did check out your post, and my position is the same.

I didn't say at anytime that "it causes no problems". I said each individual experiences their own problems, and there are several variables.

[ptif219]

Uh.... mine was a reputable study published in 2000 by the "Archived of General Psychiatry".

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

Your's is from an anti-abortion site, and most of the sources are from the late 70's and early 80's. It is comprised by the "Elliot Institute" (says so at the bottom) which is an anti-abortion group, and as it is an ideologically biased institute I have little reason to believe their summary of the studies they site, even if most are a quarter century old, accurately represent the conclusions of the researchers in those studies.



It depends on whether humans are persons due to intelligence, awareness etc. or persons because they have a certain genetic code.


Thats great but I know and have seen the trauma in my wife.

Here is the fact.

No abortion and there is a baby so the abortion kills the baby.Hence women are legally murdering there children.

You can justify all you want but that is the fact.Abortion kills what would develop into a baby so abortion kills the baby.

[Alonzo]

Thats great but I know and have seen the trauma in my wife.

And what? People get traumatized during car accidents, does that mean that driving should be illegal or that being traumatized, or killed, while driving is normal? Of course not. You take steps to prevent it, and most abortion providers have therapists and various resources on hand, to minimize such risks. And, in the end, the clear majority do not suffer such consequences.

The people you describe, that's unfortunate. But two people do not determine public policy, the overall effects on the population should determine that. And, when you look at the population of women who've had abortions, the overwhelming majority do not suffer such consequences.

Here is the fact.

No abortion and there is a baby so the abortion kills the baby.Hence women are legally murdering there children.

You can justify all you want but that is the fact.Abortion kills what would develop into a baby so abortion kills the baby.

Ummmm....... you just said it's not a baby. If it's not currently a baby, and you kill it, how did you kill a baby? It's like killing a newborn and saying "If you didn't kill it it would have become an adult, so therefore you killed an adult!"

[ptif219]

And what? People get traumatized during car accidents, does that mean that driving should be illegal or that being traumatized, or killed, while driving is normal? Of course not. You take steps to prevent it, and most abortion providers have therapists and various resources on hand, to minimize such risks. And, in the end, the clear majority do not suffer such consequences.

The people you describe, that's unfortunate. But two people do not determine public policy, the overall effects on the population should determine that. And, when you look at the population of women who've had abortions, the overwhelming majority do not suffer such consequences.



Ummmm....... you just said it's not a baby. If it's not currently a baby, and you kill it, how did you kill a baby? It's like killing a newborn and saying "If you didn't kill it it would have become an adult, so therefore you killed an adult!"

You don't understand truth.I guess killing babies because of irresponsibility is more important.

[Alonzo]

You don't understand truth.I guess killing babies because of irresponsibility is more important.

That's why you're the on using your personal experience with 2 women to argue what the fate of millions of women who have abortions is.

[ptif219]

That's why you're the on using your personal experience with 2 women to argue what the fate of millions of women who have abortions is.

The point is there are ministries that this is all they deal with but you would not know about that you are to busy promoting people being irresponible

[PostmodernProphet]

actually, Zo, it's far beyond anecdotal.....there is a website devoted to helping women with PASS which has gotten hundreds of thousands of hits.....

http://afterabortion.com/pass_details.html

[Alonzo]

actually, Zo, it's far beyond anecdotal.....there is a website devoted to helping women with PASS which has gotten hundreds of thousands of hits.....

http://afterabortion.com/pass_details.html

From the website:

PASS is an acronym for Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. PASS is an unofficial name, because it is not officially recognized by the medical community yet.

It also says that such a reaction is not normal:

If the feelings become severe, or persist for a long period of time, she may be suffering from Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). "PASS" is different from 'normal feelings' of loss and depression immediately following an abortion. How is it different? When is it PASS and not just 'normal feelings'?

Anything else you want to argue is irrelevant to the debate at hand, as your source points out two key facts right from the start.

1. PASS is not a disease that is recognized by the medical or psychiatric community.

2. It is not the normal result of an abortion.

There is nothing inconsistent with anything I have said, and abortion clinics typically have counselors on hand to weigh the risks and benefits of abortions with women, and many will turn away women who express serious doubt in having one.

Essentially, the syndrome your claiming exists is not recognized, and does not have reputable studies suggesting it should be.

The point is there are ministries that this is all they deal with but you would not know about that you are to busy promoting people being irresponible

I promote realistic responsibility, meaning I realize people want sex. I'd much prefer to be having sex right now than discussing this with you, and no amount of religious dogma would change that. But I also am responsible about it.

I really don't care what ministries do, just like with homosexuality they go out looking for a problem and, some of them anyway, do all they can to convince people a major problem exists.

[ptif219]

The denial is not well founded.


http://www.afterabortion.org/women_a.html



Since 1980, mental health providers have begun treating an increasing number of women who are suffering mental and emotional difficulties as a result of induced abortions. The best available evidence indicates that on average there is a ten year period of denial during which women who were traumatized by their abortions will repress their feelings.14,15 Therefore, as reported by former U.S. Surgeon General Koop, existing research is inadequate to measure the magnitude of this problem.

But while the number of women who suffer post-abortion trauma is unknown, the characteristics of women most likely to suffer severe post-abortion problems have been identified. Psychologists who work with women suffering from post-abortion sequelae have identified several common factors which can be used to identify women who are at the highest risk of suffering from these problems. In brief, women at high risk are those who:

Feel pressured into having the abortion, or
Feel uncertainty or ambivalence about their choice.
FEELING PRESSURED INTO AN ABORTION
The first high risk category includes women who feel pressured to choose abortion in order to comply with the needs or wishes of others.14,16 This is especially true if the "wishes" of others are experienced as coercion, whether subtle or overt, such as threatening to withhold love or approval unless she "does the best thing."6,14

Even lack of emotional support to keep a pregnancy may be experienced as a pressure "forcing" a woman to choose abortion.5,14,20 In addition, pressure from adverse circumstances, such as financial problems, being unmarried, social problems, or health problems may also make a woman feel she is being "forced" to accept abortion as her "only choice."

A study of 252 aborted women who suffered psychological sequelae reported that 53% felt "forced" into the abortion by others, and 65 percent felt "forced" by their circumstances. Only 33 percent felt "free" to make their own decisions. Conversely, 83 percent stated they would have kept the pregnancy if they had been encouraged to do so by one or more other persons, and 84 percent would have kept the pregnancy under "better circumstances."14,19


MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THE ABORTION

The second criteria for identifying high risk patients is the existence in the patient of any reluctance to have the abortion. The source of her doubts may result from either conflicting moral views about abortion, or from a conflicting desire to keep the baby.6,8,13,14,20

Various studies have found that 65 to 70 percent of women seeking abortions have a negative moral view of abortion.14,19 Only 6 to 20 percent of women receiving induced abortions report that they would have been willing to seek illegal abortions if abortion had not been legal.12,14

The vast majority of aborted women, therefore, can be classified as "soft core" aborters for whom abortion was a marginal choice which they would not have pursued if it had been illegal.

The ambivalence which the majority of women feel with regard to the morality of abortion is compounded by the ambivalence which many feel about keeping the baby. Researchers report that 30 to 60 percent of women seeking abortion express some desire to keep the child.5,14,19 Of women who suffer post abortion trauma, 45 percent went to the clinic still hoping for a "miracle" option which would have allowed them to avoid the abortion and/or keep the baby.14

From studies published on the characteristics of women seeking abortion, it can be estimated that up to 70 percent of all abortion patients fall into the category of high-risk patients because of the presence of coercive pressures and/or ambivalent feelings at the time of the abortion.14,19

It is noteworthy that the two criteria for high risk abortion patients -- feelings of being under pressure to abort and feelings of ambivalence -- are typical of women who abort for reasons of physical health,14 psychological health,6,14 fetal malformation,2 rape or incest.10,14

Indeed, when viewed within the frame work of high-risk criteria, all of the categories typically associated with "hard case" abortions are actually contra-indications for abortion. While there are many reasons for this, a simplified explanation is that the harder the circumstances which a pregnant woman faces, the more she feels "forced" into a decision which is not freely her own.


FEELINGS OF SELF-BETRAYAL

In light of the above evidence, the psychological impact on high-risk abortion patients is quite understandable. In the vast majority of cases, women seeking abortion feel under intense pressure to do so. Yet at the same time they experience moral qualms about abortion itself, and/or they feel maternal desires to protect their pregnancies. Therefore, for these women, abortion is not a glorious right by which they are able to reclaim control of their lives; instead it is an "evil necessity" to which they submit because they "have no choice."

Rather than affirming their own values, these women feel forced to compromise their values. Rather than feeling proud of themselves for standing up against difficult situations, they feel ashamed of themselves for being "spineless cowards."5,14

This feeling of self-betrayal is a devastating blow to the woman's self-image and her feelings of self-worth. She is internally divided by an emotional "war" within and against herself. On one side are her original moral beliefs and maternal desires. On the other side is her abortion experience which represents a choice to act against those feelings. These two sides of herself are irreconcilable. The unresolved feelings which arise from this internal warfare can manifest themselves as a wide variety of psychological illnesses.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debate-print.html

At present, some research findings suggest the experience of post-abortion trauma is abnormal and uncommon. When women come to Care Net centers for help, they aren't asking whether there is scientific evidence validating their post-abortion feelings. A woman experiencing the aftermath of abortion wants to know, "Will this pain ever stop?" Care Net centers help women find peace after an abortion. Women who regret their decision need to be granted societal permission to process their grief. The political debate is leaving women isolated and alienated. Pregnancy loss is real. And when their loss was their choice there is a serious combination of guilt and grief. More scientific evidence validating the suffering may help to provide resources for women who are experiencing post-abortion depression. No matter what the research states or how politics change, pregnancy centers will continue to help

information is a form of misinformation. The facts need to be given. Even if only one percent of women will experience post-abortion stress and 10 percent will suffer a form of depression, 10,000 and 100,000 women respectively will need help each year. Add that to the number of women unable to find help the year before and there is an enormous amount of unresolved emotional, spiritual, and sometimes even physical pain in women today. Many women are told that abortion is a minor surgical procedure after which many experience relief. What they are not told is that many of these same people proceed to struggle with their decision for 10, 20, and 30 years until finding true relief. Every year, approximately 15,000 women and men participate in post-abortion recovery classes offered at Care Net pregnancy centers.

[PostmodernProphet]

Anything else you want to argue is irrelevant to the debate at hand, as your source points out two key facts right from the start.

sure, I will add this, since it seems to me what IS relevant to the debate at hand is your position that the consequences of abortion for women are minimal.....

There's a lot of controversy about Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. Prolife activists claim PASS is real, and affects every woman who has an abortion. Prochoice activists claim it does not exist, and is a myth made up by prolifers to help in their "fight to make abortion illegal". Prochoice activists claim that PASS is a 'scare tactic' to try and pressure women into not choosing an abortion, and to pressure congress into making abortion illegal." So what's the 'truth'? To date, there have been conflicting "official" studies on whether PASS exists or not. I believe that PASS does exist as a real syndrome. I am neutral on the issue, yet I have experienced PASS, and I know through my own experiences and the experiences of other women that PASS is real. I feel we need to provide information and support for women before and after an abortion, and if a woman experiences PASS after an abortion, we need to reach out to her and help her through any problems she might have. Of course any woman who's experienced Post Abortion Stress Syndrome doesn't need me or anyone else to convince her it's real. We know, from what we have felt! It's real, and we are now learning by ourselves how to deal with it. When the rest of the world eventually catches up, and recognizes PASS for the serious issue it is, we'll be waiting! In the meantime this site and it's resources will help other women to feel less alone in their struggle with this problem.

[Alonzo]

PTIF, post something from organizations that aren't pro-life and I'll listen. Everything I've posted is from reputable medical sources, you seem only capable of posting from sites that have a pro-life agenda.

You're making claims that no reputable medical or psychological association has repeated, and claims of a massive problem that do not exist in reputable academic journals.

Also, the PBS link is an interview with this person:

Linda Cochrane (LC), R.N. is a consultant on post-abortion recovery for Care Net, an umbrella organization of over 1,000 Christian pregnancy centers in North America.

If you can find reputable organizations, ones that have no moral investment in either pro-life or pro-choice causes, or some other similar source that is reputable, such as when media outlets report on recent studies published in academic journals, then you have an argument. That's the standard I've used for sources, and bias exists on both sides. Just as I don't trust anti-abortion sources I also don't trust planned parenthood, or similar sites, for accurate info, and I wouldn't use them myself nor expect you to give them any weight as a credible source.

[Alonzo]

sure, I will add this, since it seems to me what IS relevant to the debate at hand is your position that the consequences of abortion for women are minimal.....

I don't even know the source of that quote. But, whatever the source, it's a quote of a persons opinion. It states that actual studies have supported its existence and some haven't. It doesn't say whether those that supported its existence did it outright, as saying PASS itself is a real syndrome, or did it by saying that certain symptoms may be real problems induced by abortion, but not the entire PASS syndrome itself. Either way, the quote presents no reputable study or source for me to argue anything.

[PostmodernProphet]

If you can find reputable organizations, ones that have no moral investment in either pro-life or pro-choice causes, or some other similar source that is reputable, such as when media outlets report on recent studies published in academic journals, then you have an argument. That's the standard I've used for sources, and bias exists on both sides. Just as I don't trust anti-abortion sources I also don't trust planned parenthood, or similar sites, for accurate info, and I wouldn't use them myself nor expect you to give them any weight as a credible source.

Dude, the site we are working from isn't pro-life or pro-choice....


This site is owned by 'jilly', a woman who has had 5 abortions, and overcome her own struggles with PASS. The website first came online in June 1998. The website has moderators that help with the message boards and chat rooms. These women are simply other women who've had an abortion themselves, and provide 'peer support' help. We do not have any health professionals here.
This site is not affiliated with or supported by any political or religious group, and is a neutral place of support, information and healing. We deal only with post abortion healing and issues, and do not deal with women who are currently pregnant and considering an abortion.

[ptif219]

PTIF, post something from organizations that aren't pro-life and I'll listen. Everything I've posted is from reputable medical sources, you seem only capable of posting from sites that have a pro-life agenda.

You're making claims that no reputable medical or psychological association has repeated, and claims of a massive problem that do not exist in reputable academic journals.

Also, the PBS link is an interview with this person:



If you can find reputable organizations, ones that have no moral investment in either pro-life or pro-choice causes, or some other similar source that is reputable, such as when media outlets report on recent studies published in academic journals, then you have an argument. That's the standard I've used for sources, and bias exists on both sides. Just as I don't trust anti-abortion sources I also don't trust planned parenthood, or similar sites, for accurate info, and I wouldn't use them myself nor expect you to give them any weight as a credible source.

If there is a falseness in facts prove it.

To blow off what they say is a copout.

The truth is they do great work for thousands of women every year but you don't want to admit it.

If it was not true would PBS take the time to have an interview?

[Alonzo]

Dude, the site we are working from isn't pro-life or pro-choice....

[/B]

PMP look at their politics page:

http://www.afterabortion.org/mainpol.html

It's pro-life. Not the extremists wing of that movement, but pro-life nonetheless.

I just went on the EBSCO Research database (Link (http://www.ebscohost.com/)) (you need an account with them to log on, so I don't like using it for debates as I can't give links), and tried to find Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, or "PASS". I can't find one mention of it in the entire research database. I then tried "post abortion syndrome" and got 9 hits, but only two actually mentioned something along those lines. One talked about healing spiritually and was a religious dissertation, but the other was titled "Does post abortion syndrome exist" and was from the American Psychological Association. The abstract says no and states:

a general consensus has been reached in the medical and scientific communities that most women who have abortions experience little or no psychological harm.

That's the only acknowledgment I can even find of it. It seems like something made up by pro-lifers.

I can't find anything to support it, and barely any non pro-life source acknowledging it.

[Alonzo]

If there is a falseness in facts prove it.

To blow off what they say is a copout.

The truth is they do great work for thousands of women every year but you don't want to admit it.

Read my last post. I also posted a study disputing the claimed facts on the second page. Here it is again:

But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.

The study's authors say the results agree with previous studies -- including one by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD -- showing that severe mental distress following an abortion is rare....

Adler, director of health psychology at the University of California in San Francisco, also points out that it is important to look closer at studies that have found psychological harm after abortion to evaluate whether distress really was the result of the abortion, or of other events.

"Experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is itself distressing, as may be the events associated with it. For example, a woman's partner may respond to the pregnancy by leaving her. The abortion then occurs in the context of loss and abandonment, yet depression or distress following the abortion would be attributed to the procedure," Adler writes. Facing hostile protesters and intimidation in seeking an abortion also may be factors that heighten risk for psychological problems postabortion in some women, she says.

"Most women fare very well emotionally," agrees David Grimes, MD. "It's important to understand that abortion is not a problem, it's a solution. The problem is the unintended pregnancy. When that is behind them they oftentimes will feel much better. But it is well documented that relief is the overwhelming response of most women."

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion?page=2

If it was not true would PBS take the time to have an interview?

Are you seriously arguing that being on TV makes it true? So when a news organization interviews a creationist and a biologist, that means both creationism and evolution are true?

[ptif219]

PMP look at their politics page:

http://www.afterabortion.org/mainpol.html

It's pro-life. Not the extremists wing of that movement, but pro-life nonetheless.

I just went on the EBSCO Research database (Link (http://www.ebscohost.com/)) (you need an account with them to log on, so I don't like using it for debates as I can't give links), and tried to find Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, or "PASS". I can't find one mention of it in the entire research database. I then tried "post abortion syndrome" and got 9 hits, but only two actually mentioned something along those lines. One talked about healing spiritually and was a religious dissertation, but the other was titled "Does post abortion syndrome exist" and was from the American Psychological Association. The abstract says no and states:



That's the only acknowledgment I can even find of it. It seems like something made up by pro-lifers.

I can't find anything to support it, and barely any non pro-life source acknowledging it.

Well then if doctors say life begins at conception that would make abortion murder.

http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld009.html

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania):
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune (University of Descartes):
"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being


Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic):
"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School):
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception


http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html
We can approach abortion from many perspectives: Biological, embryological, genetic, philosophical, social and economic, at the very least. As for the first three – my approach as a scientist, physician, surgeon, and simply someone who finished medical school, is factual.

There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate.

There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. (It defies sanity to claim that the implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall defines humanity more than does the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism's existence).

And to say that "size" is a determinant of humanity, of course, is an unscientific reason to deny an embryo his or her human status. In any event, it is an embryological reality, which no embryology textbook on earth denies, that at the moment of fertilization a new human being is formed.

Following below is some information about some of the less noble ideologies of my colleagues in medicine as they pertain to defining humanity and defending abortion. I hope it helps you refute pro-abortion lies.


http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."


Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

This, of course, should come as no surprise since the American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. v. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” Doctors knew it during the 1800's and doctors know it today. Human life begins at conception

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP look at their politics page:

http://www.afterabortion.org/mainpol.html




nice try, but my quotes came from www.afterabortion.com (http://www.afterabortion.com), not www.afterabortion.org (http://www.afterabortion.org....two)....two totally different places......

[Alonzo]

You just posted multiple religious, pro life sources and even reference an AMA statement from 1857, along with other 19th century doctors.

This has to be the strangest pro-life argument I've ever seen.

Well then if doctors say life begins at conception that would make abortion murder.

No. First, no one denies that a zygote, fetus etc. is alive. I don't think even idiots deny that. Second, if you mean a fully human life in the moral sense, that's a moral question, not a medical. Doctors can have moral opinions, but the criteria for "person" or "fully moral human", that's not a medical question.

Besides, if your argument is that "if doctors say life begins at conception then abortion is murder", then when doctors say, and I don't think you need me to point out that they do say, "morally human life does not begin at conception", then that must be so. So we have two opinions, both of which are based on separate moral principles.

[ptif219]

You just posted multiple religious, pro life sources and even reference an AMA statement from 1857, along with other 19th century doctors.

This has to be the strangest pro-life argument I've ever seen.



No. First, no one denies that a zygote, fetus etc. is alive. I don't think even idiots deny that. Second, if you mean a fully human life in the moral sense, that's a moral question, not a medical. Doctors can have moral opinions, but the criteria for "person" or "fully moral human", that's not a medical question.

Besides, if your argument is that "if doctors say life begins at conception then abortion is murder", then when doctors say, and I don't think you need me to point out that they do say, "morally human life does not begin at conception", then that must be so. So we have two opinions, both of which are based on separate moral principles.

So then only doctors who agree with you are right.

That means you don't want the truth you just want everyone to agree and admit you are right.

I can't do that but I see talking to you is like talking to the wall.

[PostmodernProphet]

No. First, no one denies that a zygote, fetus etc. is alive. I don't think even idiots deny that.

lol, post #3 to this very thread.....
Unfortunately, this problem won't end until a significant proportion of said pro-lifers comes to realize that zygotes and blastocysts aren't "alive" in the typical sense of the word, as it applies to humans.

[Alonzo]

nice try, but my quotes came from www.afterabortion.com (http://www.afterabortion.com), not www.afterabortion.org (http://www.afterabortion.org....two)....two totally different places......

Two almost identical links, I don't see why you think I intentionally messed that up, as the reason for the mistake is obvious.

But my mistake, it's not a pro-life site. That doesn't change the fact that the existence of PASS seemed completely unsupported by the medical and psychological community. I tried to look for it and I can't find it. Looking at the efforts you and ptif have made, I'm getting the feeling that you two can't either.

[PostmodernProphet]

Two almost identical links, I don't see why you think I intentionally messed that up, as the reason for the mistake is obvious.

oh, maybe because I had already provided the link and you wouldn't have needed to go searching for the other.....

[Alonzo]

So then only doctors who agree with you are right.

That means you don't want the truth you just want everyone to agree and admit you are right.

I can't do that but I see talking to you is like talking to the wall.

No ptif, it's because I've never claimed one side was factually correct with regards to the morality of abortion. The status of a fetus, zygote etc. is a moral issue. I have strong opinions on it and there are facts regarding level of development of that organism, but the morality of abortion, and whether it's killing, murder etc. is primarily a moral one and the criteria you use to answer the question "what is a person" is essential to the view you're likely to take.

The fact is there are doctors who would agree with me and doctors who would agree with you, but they're agreeing with our moral beliefs. There are no "facts" when it comes to morality. Facts may support moral opinions, but morals are simply that, opinions.

Now when you want to argue "facts", such as the ability to think or feel pain, that's different. The precise period isn't certain, but there is a general period of development where we know that those things are first capable of occurring. If you were to base your moral opinion on the ability of a fetus to feel pain, and you claimed that a two week old embryo was "fully human" because it feels pain, then the factual basis of your moral opinion would be wrong, but the moral conclusion you came to doesn't have a right or wrong answer. The same goes for someone who says "an 8 month old fetus isn't fully human because it can't feel pain".

Now, in this debate, the question is whether abortion has the consequences you say it does, and whether PASS exists. Those aren't moral questions, and the evidence suggests that abortion is not the traumatic even you say it is. As for PASS, there doesn't seem to be evidence to say much of anything as it seems the medical and psychological community doesn't even acknowledge it, either as real or discredited.

[Alonzo]

oh, maybe because I had already provided the link and you wouldn't have needed to go searching for the other.....

I'm debating two people at once, both using sites with the same name. You had just said:

Dude, the site we are working from isn't pro-life or pro-choice....


And you didn't put a link to the site in the post where you made that comment. I thought you two were using the same site and went back on the closest afterabortion link I saw. I recognize the site from before, but I'm debating two people in this thread, and I'm debating an abortion issue in another thread, so I don't know where I'm seeing what sites.

Damn, that's a lot to have to explain simply for confusing two afterabortion sites.

I will say that, while I think you're just as wrong as ptif, at least you're doing a better job debating and aren't referencing blatantly pro-life sites or 19th century doctors.

[4Reaganomics]

Rule # 76 Zo.

No excuses, Play like a Champion

[ptif219]

Two almost identical links, I don't see why you think I intentionally messed that up, as the reason for the mistake is obvious.

But my mistake, it's not a pro-life site. That doesn't change the fact that the existence of PASS seemed completely unsupported by the medical and psychological community. I tried to look for it and I can't find it. Looking at the efforts you and ptif have made, I'm getting the feeling that you two can't either.

http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page4.html

Pro-choice researchers writing in the August issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry have acknowledged that some women experience post-abortion syndrome (PAS). The research team, led by Dr. Brenda Major, diagnosed PAS among 1.4 percent of a sample of women who had abortions two years previously. Critics of abortion are elated by this admission but insist the researchers have only spotted the "tip of the iceberg."

"Even at the low rate identified in this study, the impact is tremendous," said Dr. Vincent Rue, who first proposed PAS as a variant of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 1981. "With 40 million abortions since 1972, this would translate into 560,000 cases of PAS."

Rue also notes that many women in the study reported psychiatric disorders that are less severe than full-blown PAS. Twenty percent of the women in the Majors study experienced clinical depression. Also, when asked if they would do it all over again, 31 percent reported that they would not have chosen abortion or were uncertain. "Since ambivalence is a good predictor of postabortion problems, " said Rue, "it is likely that many of these women are having post-abortion symptoms that simply fall short of full-blown PAS."

Unlike Rue, the Major's research team focused on the absence of problems among the majority of post-abortive women. They concluded that "most women do not experience psychological problems or regret about their abortion two years post-abortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression." Dr. David Reardon, who directs a post-abortion research and education organization known as the Elliot Institute, sees this association with prior depression as evidence of the need for abortion providers to provide better screening and counseling. "Clearly, this study shows that abortionists should be screening for a history of depression," he said. "It also confirms a large body of earlier research that shows that prior psychological problems are more likely to be made worse by abortion, not better."

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2906

Doctors in England testifying before the British House of Commons said abortion is a serious risk to a woman's mental health and can make her six times more likely to consider committing suicide. The doctors cited medical studies backing up their assertions as they commented on a bill to make the information available to women.

Dr. Trevor Stammers, who practices at St. George's University of London and teaches medicine there, said he supported the measure to make women aware of the risks and dangers associated with abortion.

He said that in 26 years of medical practice, all of which come after Britain legalized abortion in 1967, he has seen numerous women come to him with physical or mental health problems resulting from their abortion.

"The most recent research has shown very clearly that abortion presents a serious risk to the long-term mental health of women and why it is therefore important to know which women are being offered abortion on mental health grounds," he told lawmakers, according to a report in the Evening Standard newspaper.

Dr. Robert Balfour, a consultant gynecologist, agreed with the analysis and pointed to a study of 5,000 women in Finland conducted between 1987 and 2000 showing that those who had an abortion after an unplanned pregnancy were six times more likely to commit suicide than women who carried their baby to term

[Alonzo]

Rule # 76 Zo.

No excuses, Play like a Champion

I admitted my mistake, but as a response he seems to have accused me of intentionally linking to the wrong site. I think I have right to defend myself against such an accusation.

[ptif219]

No ptif, it's because I've never claimed one side was factually correct with regards to the morality of abortion. The status of a fetus, zygote etc. is a moral issue. I have strong opinions on it and there are facts regarding level of development of that organism, but the morality of abortion, and whether it's killing, murder etc. is primarily a moral one and the criteria you use to answer the question "what is a person" is essential to the view you're likely to take.

The fact is there are doctors who would agree with me and doctors who would agree with you, but they're agreeing with our moral beliefs. There are no "facts" when it comes to morality. Facts may support moral opinions, but morals are simply that, opinions.

Now when you want to argue "facts", such as the ability to think or feel pain, that's different. The precise period isn't certain, but there is a general period of development where we know that those things are first capable of occurring. If you were to base your moral opinion on the ability of a fetus to feel pain, and you claimed that a two week old embryo was "fully human" because it feels pain, then the factual basis of your moral opinion would be wrong, but the moral conclusion you came to doesn't have a right or wrong answer. The same goes for someone who says "an 8 month old fetus isn't fully human because it can't feel pain".

Now, in this debate, the question is whether abortion has the consequences you say it does, and whether PASS exists. Those aren't moral questions, and the evidence suggests that abortion is not the traumatic even you say it is. As for PASS, there doesn't seem to be evidence to say much of anything as it seems the medical and psychological community doesn't even acknowledge it, either as real or discredited.

Then you didn't read what I posted.They said from their earliest medical school time they were taught life begins at conception.If life begins at conception that means abortion ends a life and that my freind would make abortion legalized murder.

[ptif219]

I'm debating two people at once, both using sites with the same name. You had just said:



And you didn't put a link to the site in the post where you made that comment. I thought you two were using the same site and went back on the closest afterabortion link I saw. I recognize the site from before, but I'm debating two people in this thread, and I'm debating an abortion issue in another thread, so I don't know where I'm seeing what sites.

Damn, that's a lot to have to explain simply for confusing two afterabortion sites.

I will say that, while I think you're just as wrong as ptif, at least you're doing a better job debating and aren't referencing blatantly pro-life sites or 19th century doctors.


Point is you aren't debating for you have not proven one thing false on any of these sites you just say thats pro-life.

Show me where these sites are wrong or lying.

[Alonzo]

Since ptif still doesn't seem to grasp the concept of reputable sources, here's some reputable sources to help fill the gap. Posting evidence for my argument is better than banging my head against the wall:

From the American Psychological Association:

The panel's report, being published Friday in the journal Science, was commissioned by the American Psychological Association, which asked six experts to examine all current research and determine if a valid conclusion could be drawn about post-abortion psychological effects.

Dr. Nancy E. Adler, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco and the lead author of the report, said the panel surveyed more than 200 studies and found only ''about 19 or 20'' that met solid scientific standards.

A Clear Conclusion

Once those studies were examined, she said, the conclusion ''was really quite clear.''

Though some women may feel regret, sadness or guilt, ''the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women,'' the study said.

The panel was convened in 1988 after Dr. C. Everett Koop, then the Surgeon General, reported that studies were inadequate to draw final conclusions about the effects of abortion on women's mental health.

In the report in Science, the authors said case studies have shown that some women do experience severe distress after abortion and ''require sympathetic care.''

Result on Negative Effects

But for a vast majority of those who have voluntary abortions, ''severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath,'' the study said.

The greatest distress, it found, ''is likely to be before the abortion.''

''Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with a normal life stress,'' the study said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDE133FF935A35757C0A9669582 60

American Academy of Pediatrics:

Our evaluation of reproductive risk factors among multigravid women showed no association between history of spontaneous or therapeutic abortion and risk for a suicide attempt. We also found no association between previous fetal death, previous liveborn now dead, previous preterm delivery, and number of years between the index birth and the live birth immediately before the index birth and risk for postpartum suicide attempt among multiparous women.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/e669

From a study in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, published by the American Psychological Association:

The relationship of abortion to women's well-being in the context of childbearing experiences and coping resources is examined over a span of 8 yrs using a national sample of 5,295 US women. No evidence of widespread post-abortion trauma was found. Having 1 abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure. When childbearing and resource variables were controlled, neither having 1abortion nor having repeat abortions had an independent relationship to well-being, suggesting that the relationship of abortion to well-being reflects abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources. When childbearing and abortion variables were controlled, women's well-being was separately and positively related to employment, income, and education, but negatively related to total number of children.

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1992-39026-001

A group of 360 black teenage women of similar socioeconomic background who sought pregnancy tests from two Baltimore family planning providers was followed for two years to determine if those who obtained abortions were adversely affected by their abortion experience. After two years, the young women who had terminated their pregnancies were far more likely to have graduated from high school or to still be in school and at the appropriate grade level than were those who had decided to carry their pregnancy to term or those whose pregnancy test had been negative. Those who had obtained an abortion were also better off economically than were those in the other two groups after two years. An analysis of psychological stress showed that those who terminated their pregnancy had experience no greater levels of stress or anxiety than had the other teenagers at the time of the pregnancy test, and they were no more likely to have psychological problems two years later. The teenagers who had obtained abortions were also less likely than the other two groups to experience a subsequent pregnancy during the following two years and were slightly more likely to practice contraception. Thus, two years after their abortions, the young women who had chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy were doing as well as (and usually better than) those who had had a baby or who had not been pregnant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2620716&dopt=AbstractPlus

Archives of General Psychiatry:

Conclusions Most women do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years postabortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/8/777

From the British Medical Journal:

Prediction of depression from pregnancy outcome
Pregnancy outcome did not predict depression scores in either the full sample or in the subsample of pregnancies occurring between 1980 and 1992, even when adjusted for personal and social indicators (table 2). Examination of the raw data confirms similar scores for depression across the delivery and abortion groups, with 28.6% of participants in the delivery group compared with 24.8% in the abortion group being in the high risk category (mean depression scores 11.8 and 10.8, respectively).

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7528/1303

[Alonzo]

Then you didn't read what I posted.They said from their earliest medical school time they were taught life begins at conception.If life begins at conception that means abortion ends a life and that my freind would make abortion legalized murder.

So murder means ending a life? So the cow in your hamburger was "murdered"? When my grandmother was dying and we had her life support turned off we "murdered" her? When I had a pet euthanized because she have a very malignant cancer and chemo and radiation didn't work, I "murdered" her?

Or is it that "murder" refers to killing with malice, and that which is usually unlawful?

Point is you aren't debating for you have not proven one thing false on any of these sites you just say thats pro-life.

Show me where these sites are wrong or lying.

One of the sites is making a claim that a syndrome, PASS, exists when no reputable source even addresses it. So other than to say the individual symptoms aren't major problems, and that no reputable source agrees it exists, there's nothing I can post from the AMA, APA etc. that directly says it doesn't exist.

The other group of religious and pro life sites claim that abortion causes multiple problems, and I've posted multiple reputable sources stating the exact opposite.

[ptif219]

Since ptif still doesn't seem to grasp the concept of reputable sources, here's some reputable sources to help fill the gap. Posting evidence for my argument is better than banging my head against the wall:

From the American Psychological Association:

see the NY Times that has had a problem with truth and plagerism in the past

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDE133FF935A35757C0A9669582 60

American Academy of Pediatrics:

This is not about abortion but mostly about postpartum after birth.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/e669

From a study in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, published by the American Psychological Association:

It appears this is about 16 years old

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1992-39026-001



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2620716&dopt=AbstractPlus

Archives of General Psychiatry:

This only shows 2 years later I haqve shown Links that say it can take 10 or 20 or 30 years.

In my wife's case i took here for counseling 20 years after her abortion.No I did not know her when she had it.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/8/777

From the British Medical Journal:

Again this seems pretty old.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7528/1303

Still that doesnt make my sites wrong and you have shown no problems other then they are prolife.

[Alonzo]

What argument from your sites don't my sources dispute?

Also I don't think 92 is that old.

[ptif219]

So murder means ending a life? So the cow in your hamburger was "murdered"? When my grandmother was dying and we had her life support turned off we "murdered" her? When I had a pet euthanized because she have a very malignant cancer and chemo and radiation didn't work, I "murdered" her?

Or is it that "murder" refers to killing with malice, and that which is usually unlawful?



One of the sites is making a claim that a syndrome, PASS, exists when no reputable source even addresses it. So other than to say the individual symptoms aren't major problems, and that no reputable source agrees it exists, there's nothing I can post from the AMA, APA etc. that directly says it doesn't exist.

The other group of religious and pro life sites claim that abortion causes multiple problems, and I've posted multiple reputable sources stating the exact opposite.

When you have no facts you rant some crap about cows?

So I guess only research you approve counts.

I notice you blowoff my sources from post 53 even though it is medical doctors.Where are they wrong or where are they lying?

[Alonzo]

When you have no facts you rant some crap about cows?

You said:

If life begins at conception that means abortion ends a life and that my freind would make abortion legalized murder.

Since putting a pet with a terminal disease to sleep, pulling the plug on my grandmother, and eating beef, all result the ending of a life then, therefore, by your definition, its murder.

Murder is not simply ending a life, there's other aspects of what murder is and isn't that you left out, as otherwise all three examples meet the criteria you set for murder.


So I guess only research you approve counts.

Research that the medical and psychological community would approve is my standard. That's the evidence I listen to, that's the standard for evidence that I've adhered to when posting in this thread. Maybe it's a bit high for an internet forum, but you can't say I'm not holding myself to that same standard.

I notice you blowoff my sources from post 53 even though it is medical doctors.Where are they wrong or where are they lying?

Almost every doctor you quoted were making statements of biology, not morality. In the godand(something) website you linked to it even said the doctors quoted were arguing in favor of legal abortion.

It's a strawman argument, no one disputes a fetus is biologically alive. When it deserves rights, and when it is morally a person, is very different from when it's biologically alive.

[ptif219]

You said:



Since putting a pet with a terminal disease to sleep, pulling the plug on my grandmother, and eating beef, all result the ending of a life then, therefore, by your definition, its murder.

Murder is not simply ending a life, there's other aspects of what murder is and isn't that you left out, as otherwise all three examples meet the criteria you set for murder.


So then is a Unborn Ill or dieing or food?If not your argument is irrelevant.

Research that the medical and psychological community would approve is my standard. That's the evidence I listen to, that's the standard for evidence that I've adhered to when posting in this thread. Maybe it's a bit high for an internet forum, but you can't say I'm not holding myself to that same standard.



Almost every doctor you quoted were making statements of biology, not morality. In the godand(something) website you linked to it even said the doctors quoted were arguing in favor of legal abortion.

It's a strawman argument, no one disputes a fetus is biologically alive. When it deserves rights, and when it is morally a person, is very different from when it's biologically alive.

No what they said is it was a human life.Is not your argument it is not a human life until it is born.

Isn't biology what doctors deal with.Seems you want doctors opinions only when they agree with you.

You set stadards you think no one can meet to prove your point.Your standards are not mine so it means little to me that you want to be an elitist and set the standards here.You have learned well from Obama and Gore.

[Alonzo]

So then is a Unborn Ill or dieing or food?If not your argument is irrelevant.

Well, as a vegetarian, I don't agree that a cow should be food anymore than fetus is food. And, honestly, I'm sympathetic to the argument that killing a cow is murder. The reason is that a cow is much more cognitively aware than a fetus ever is, and more intelligent than a fetus ever is.

But your argument is that ending life=murder. My point is that can't be the case, there are other aspects of murder that you recognize but aren't defining. What are they?

No what they said is it was a human life.Is not your argument it is not a human life until it is born.

Yes and no. Biologically, as I've said throughout the thread and in every other abortion debate I've had, a zygote, embryo and fetus is human. But, as in deserving the status of person and all the rights, both morally and legally, that come with it, no. Humans have value, in my mind, because our intelligence and awareness, essentially due to our cognitive capacity as a species. I don't mean that smart people are worth more than less smart people by that, just that the level of cognition of humans grants a certain moral status that a barracuda or cardinal doesn't have.

Isn't biology what doctors deal with.

Exactly, doctors deal with biology. That says nothing of morality. The only issue I've argued is whether a fetus, zygote etc. is human in the moral sense, not the biological one.

You set stadards you think no one can meet to prove your point.Your standards are not mine so it means little to me that you want to be an elitist and set the standards here.You have learned well from Obama and Gore.

Every try to write a paper for an academic course? If you can't meet that standard you'd never be able to do it. I know that that's an awfully high standard for a debate website, but it's really the only one that science should be argued in.

[ptif219]

Well, as a vegetarian, I don't agree that a cow should be food anymore than fetus is food. And, honestly, I'm sympathetic to the argument that killing a cow is murder. The reason is that a cow is much more cognitively aware than a fetus ever is, and more intelligent than a fetus ever is.

But your argument is that ending life=murder. My point is that can't be the case, there are other aspects of murder that you recognize but aren't defining. What are they?

Murder is taking a life in a malice way or without reguard to life.This fits abortion.No abortion a baby,A US citizen so abortion killed a US citizen because of the parents irresponsibility.This the only legal way I know of to committ child abuse or to kill your child.

Yes and no. Biologically, as I've said throughout the thread and in every other abortion debate I've had, a zygote, embryo and fetus is human. But, as in deserving the status of person and all the rights, both morally and legally, that come with it, no. Humans have value, in my mind, because our intelligence and awareness, essentially due to our cognitive capacity as a species. I don't mean that smart people are worth more than less smart people by that, just that the level of cognition of humans grants a certain moral status that a barracuda or cardinal doesn't have.



Exactly, doctors deal with biology. That says nothing of morality. The only issue I've argued is whether a fetus, zygote etc. is human in the moral sense, not the biological one.

PTIF219: What do doctors have to do with Morals?Yet your standard is doctors.I did not know morals were part of science or biology.Law or something being legal does not necessarily have anything to do with morals.Actually in my mind a parent with morals could never kill its child in the womb or out.

Every try to write a paper for an academic course? If you can't meet that standard you'd never be able to do it. I know that that's an awfully high standard for a debate website, but it's really the only one that science should be argued in.

But do you think you are the teacher and get to set the standards.Again are you arguing science, morals or law you keep changing it.

[PostmodernProphet]

I thought you two were using the same site

I will accept your apology....I hadn't been reading his posts, I assumed he was using the same site as I had.....

[Alonzo]

Murder is taking a life in a malice way or without reguard to life.This fits abortion.No abortion a baby,A US citizen so abortion killed a US citizen because of the parents irresponsibility.This the only legal way I know of to committ child abuse or to kill your child.

Malice: feeling a need to see others suffer

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=malice

Nope, not malice, so it doesn't fit your definition of murder. That is unless you can show that doctors want to cause suffering when they perform abortions, and that doctors agree that all abortions involve an embryo or fetus capable of suffering, something which they're simply not capable of before a certain point.

So again, what is the distinction between the cow in your hamburger and the fetus? There's a distinction you're making that you seem reluctant to state.

But do you think you are the teacher and get to set the standards.Again are you arguing science, morals or law you keep changing it.

The bulk of the debate is one of science. In particular the effects of abortion on women. You then brought in whether a fetus, embryo etc. is a human life, something which has different definitions depending on whether you are making a scientific or moral argument.

I don't think we've argued much regarding the law. The only reference to law has been with the issue of murder, as murder typically is a form of unlawful killing.

[ptif219]

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=malice

Nope, not malice, so it doesn't fit your definition of murder. That is unless you can show that doctors want to cause suffering when they perform abortions, and that doctors agree that all abortions involve an embryo or fetus capable of suffering, something which they're simply not capable of before a certain point.

So again, what is the distinction between the cow in your hamburger and the fetus? There's a distinction you're making that you seem reluctant to state.



The bulk of the debate is one of science. In particular the effects of abortion on women. You then brought in whether a fetus, embryo etc. is a human life, something which has different definitions depending on whether you are making a scientific or moral argument.

I don't think we've argued much regarding the law. The only reference to law has been with the issue of murder, as murder typically is a form of unlawful killing.

Stop the bull you are loking like someone who has no proof.

So killing an innocent that is not there by its own actions and has done nothing wrong is not malice.You have some strange views that have no logic or morals involved.

I gave you science and you bring up morals you are spinning so fast you are making me dizzy.

When you kill a baby for meat on the table let me know otherwise the cow is irrelevant.It also makes no sense except to you and your blind justifications.

If it is science then I have should where doctors say at conception it is a human life that would make abortion murder.

[I Like Beer]

The bulk of the debate is one of science. In particular the effects of abortion on women. You then brought in whether a fetus, embryo etc. is a human life, something which has different definitions depending on whether you are making a scientific or moral argument.

Zo, I just wanted to say that you have the patience of a saint for continuing with this.

Ptif - if we want to talk about whether a fetus is a human life, let's first define what makes a human alive? So, what makes you alive? How do we know when one is no longer alive - what is the 'moment of death'?

[Alonzo]

Stop the bull you are loking like someone who has no proof.

So killing an innocent that is not there by its own actions and has done nothing wrong is not malice.You have some strange views that have no logic or morals involved.

And since malice requires a desire to see something suffer, how does that fit with abortion?

I gave you science and you bring up morals you are spinning so fast you are making me dizzy.

You posted doctors stating a biological fact, that any fertilized egg is alive and is biologically human as it contains a complete, and unique, human DNA code.

But you then twist their words to argue morality, that is when someone is a human in the moral sense, or a person, and when ending its life is actually murder.

When you kill a baby for meat on the table let me know otherwise the cow is irrelevant.It also makes no sense except to you and your blind justifications.

So if I eat a fetus its not murder? I don't think you believe that.

My point is that I want to know why its ok to end the life of a cow but its not ok to end the life of a fetus, embryo etc. What is the basis of the distinction you are making?

If it is science then I have should where doctors say at conception it is a human life that would make abortion murder.

The links you posted stated that the same doctors making those comments were in support of continuing to perform abortions.

Biologically human and morally human are distinct terms, and then were only referring to the biological said. And, even if they weren't, considering that tons of doctors have no qualms about performing abortions then your argument reaches a deadlock anyway.

[Alonzo]

Zo, I just wanted to say that you have the patience of a saint for continuing with this.


Heh, it's more of a game at this point to see if he can explain what makes one being capable of being murdered and one not capable of being murdered. He clearly has an opinion on the issue but I'm starting to wonder if he even knows what that opinion is.

[ptif219]

Zo, I just wanted to say that you have the patience of a saint for continuing with this.

Ptif - if we want to talk about whether a fetus is a human life, let's first define what makes a human alive? So, what makes you alive? How do we know when one is no longer alive - what is the 'moment of death'?

Maybe you need to talk to the doctors who i posted that say life begins at conception.

I am not a doctor so I showed proof from doctors.

[Alonzo]

Maybe you need to talk to the doctors who i posted that say life begins at conception.

I am not a doctor so I showed proof from doctors.

Ptif, who disputes that biological life begins at conception, and do you think those doctors were making a moral statement or a biological one? Because the link you quoted from makes it clear that they were not making a moral statement on abortion:

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins. More testimonies are inc