Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
this is a myth created by the religious right which wants to deny abortions to poor women but has no will to provide for the mother and the children already born. that is what is detestable.
There is no evidence that women who have had abortions regret the decisions. mostly they are relieved and are able to lead their lives which would have changed dramatically at a time they were not ready to handle it.
many of them are mothers who love the children they have already or had later after the abortion. there is no life-time guilt or regrets.
Recent studies from Finland have shown that women who've had abortions have a suicide rate over 3x higher than all women, and 6x higher than women who've given birth. Other studies have confirmed that abortion increases the suicide rate in women, as well as greatly raising the rate of alcohol and substance abuse.
With depression and suicide so much higher in women who've aborted, its safe to assume that it has a huge negative effect on women.
Where does this idea come from that the 'religious right' don't want to support poor mothers and children? Most on the right want to see some more stringent policies put in place to reduce welfare fraud and abuse, but we don't want it removed for those who truly need it. Local churches provide many services to poor mothers and families because 'the religious right' does care about them and we're actively doing something about it. Our bloated anti-poverty programs are massive burdens filled with waste and fraud that prevents help from getting to those who truly need it. That's why we want these programs to be overhauled.
Recent studies from Finland have shown that women who've had abortions have a suicide rate over 3x higher than all women, and 6x higher than women who've given birth. Other studies have confirmed that abortion increases the suicide rate in women, as well as greatly raising the rate of alcohol and substance abuse.
Where does this idea come from that the 'religious right' don't want to support poor mothers and children? Most on the right want to see some more stringent policies put in place to reduce welfare fraud and abuse, but we don't want it removed for those who truly need it. Local churches provide many services to poor mothers and families because 'the religious right' does care about them and we're actively doing something about it. Our bloated anti-poverty programs are massive burdens filled with waste and fraud that prevents help from getting to those who truly need it. That's why we want these programs to be overhauled.
I am going to believe that these studies actually exist. There also many valid studies that indicate the opposite - that women who have had abortions lead productive life without regret or guilt. as i said before many are mothers or become mother later when they are ready to have a child. this is responsible behavior that is good for society, for women, and for children. let us give a rest this thing about regret and guilt.
there are also studies that in states with lesser number of abortions, due to heavy restrictions, child abuse rise. let us save the children.
if you want stringent restrictions placed on women with children and worry about abuse where is your concern about corporations that commit fraud and tax evasion by the billions and never get punished? why take it out on women and children because a few commit fraud? where is your hear for the born children who go hungry, get palced in foster homes, and die from abuse. every child deserves to be wanted and loved.
Yeah, like you did with the study you posted from the National Review!
I did review the underlying study before I posted it.
So lets get back to your reasons for supporting the abortion of a living being. You claim that child birth is WAY deadlier than aborting a living being.
But, what about the other side effects of abortion?
Below is a description of the risks that have been associated with abortion:
Pelvic Infection: Bacteria (germs) from the vagina or cervix may enter the uterus and cause an infection. Antibiotics may clear up such an infection. In rare cases, a repeat suction, hospitalization or surgery may be needed. Infection rates are less than 1 percent for suction curettage, 1.5 percent for D&E and 5 percent for labor induction.
Incomplete abortion: Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. The reported rate of such complications is less than 1 percent after a D&E; whereas, following a labor induction procedure, the rate may be as high as 36 percent.
Blood clots in the uterus: Blood clots that cause severe cramping occur in about 1 percent of all abortions. The clots usually are removed by a repeat suction curettage.
Heavy bleeding: Some amount of bleeding is common following an abortion. Heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging) is not common and may be treated by repeat suction, medication or, rarely, surgery. Ask the doctor to explain heavy bleeding and what to do if it occurs.
Cut or torn cervix: The opening of the uterus may be torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. This happens in less than 1 percent of first trimester abortions.
Perforation of the uterus wall: A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. The reported rate is 1 out of every 500 abortions. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery may be required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases a hysterectomy may be required.
Anesthesia-related complications: As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. The reported risks of anesthesia-related complications is around 1 per 5,000 abortions.
Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies.
if you want stringent restrictions placed on women with children and worry about abuse where is your concern about corporations that commit fraud and tax evasion by the billions and never get punished? why take it out on women and children because a few commit fraud? where is your hear for the born children who go hungry, get palced in foster homes, and die from abuse. every child deserves to be wanted and loved.
Why are you deflecting from the issue at hand. You are responding to a person that says that in order to provide effectively for women and children, abuse of the system should be a priority. Instead of arguing that the poster's position is right or wrong, you bring in a completely unrelated issue that (I am 99% sure) you cannot prove has any effect on funding welfare or solving the issues around welfare abuse.
One life is no more valuable than any other. Your position is not that a living breathing woman's life is more important than that of a fetus, your position is not being pregnant is more valuable than a human life. A woman carries a child (and your failure to answer my question leads me to believe your only experience with regard to pregnancy and childbirth is a visit to PP when necessary) for 9 months. Should she keep that child, it could be a lifetime, if she gives the child over in an adoption, then her LIFE is disrupted for one year at the most. So your position is that one year out of the life of a woman is far more valuable than the life she created.
your opinion is subjective. one life IS more valuable than another. in the case of pregnancy it is up to the individual woman to decide for herself. as for the thought not being pregnant is more valuable than fetus? is also up to the woman to decide. a pregnancy can get a woman fired, it can discontinue her financial livelihood. a woman can and does get to decide if she wants to remain pregnant. you post like giving up a child for adoption is the easiest thing to do that a woman wouldn't think of it again. some babies don't get adopted and some go to homes where life isn't great and they are mistreated. adoption is not the answer to an unwanted pregnancy, it is the answer, sometimes to unwanted parenting.
your opinion is subjective. one life IS more valuable than another. in the case of pregnancy it is up to the individual woman to decide for herself. as for the thought not being pregnant is more valuable than fetus? is also up to the woman to decide. a pregnancy can get a woman fired, it can discontinue her financial livelihood. a woman can and does get to decide if she wants to remain pregnant. you post like giving up a child for adoption is the easiest thing to do that a woman wouldn't think of it again. some babies don't get adopted and some go to homes where life isn't great and they are mistreated. adoption is not the answer to an unwanted pregnancy, it is the answer, sometimes to unwanted parenting.
All life is precious, regardless of what stage that life is at any point in time. Your defense that a woman can get fired if she gets pregnant. Which is illegal. Has no bearing on the value of life. The same woman can be fired for other reasons that are actually legal, so that is an absurd reason to destroy human life.
The woman is not "deciding for herself." She is deciding to end another human life. A life that was created and carries her DNA.
When did taking the life of a living being become an easier choice than offering that living being an opportunity to realize it's full potential?
Pro-abortion advocates always claim that killing a living being is better for them because the only alternative is being mistreated by adoptive parents, when we all know that the reality is that the majority of adopted children live a normal childhood and lead productive lives.
I never said the decision to place your child up for adoption was an easy one, but the reality is, killing your child should really not be an easy one either. The guilt a woman suffers from killing her child would certainly outweigh the guilt of a woman who chose to let her child live, but live with a more financially, emotionally and physically stable family.
The only way to ease the guilt and shame a woman suffers as a result of killing her progeny is to convince her that her child is not a living being, but a "choice," or "a blob of cells." This worked until technology caught up with the propaganda and has proven so much of that propaganda to be false.
The abortion advocates become rabid about this propaganda, more to assure themselves that they have not ended the life of their own offspring (the ultimate betrayal of a mother to her child) because they cannot deal with the guilt and immorality of their actions. It is easy to focus that anger onto the people that value your child's life more than you do and to demonize and ridicule them or judge and define them as evil and ignorant. Why? Because acknowledging that pro-life supporters see value in all life, including the one growing inside another woman, means dealing head on with the fact that someone else values the life of your offspring more than you do. That (other than a life threatening illness) the inconveniences of life are much more important than protecting your child and sacrificing to make sure that your child is given the opportunity to live the life that was breathed into it.
All life is precious, regardless of what stage that life is at any point in time. Your defense that a woman can get fired if she gets pregnant. Which is illegal. Has no bearing on the value of life. The same woman can be fired for other reasons that are actually legal, so that is an absurd reason to destroy human life.
The woman is not "deciding for herself." She is deciding to end another human life. A life that was created and carries her DNA.
...
The only way to ease the guilt and shame a woman suffers as a result of killing her progeny is to convince her that her child is not a living being, but a "choice," or "a blob of cells." This worked until technology caught up with the propaganda and has proven so much of that propaganda to be false.
The abortion advocates become rabid about this propaganda, more to assure themselves that they have not ended the life of their own offspring (the ultimate betrayal of a mother to her child) because they cannot deal with the guilt and immorality of their actions. It is easy to focus that anger onto the people that value your child's life more than you do and to demonize and ridicule them or judge and define them as evil and ignorant. Why? Because acknowledging that pro-life supporters see value in all life, including the one growing inside another woman, means dealing head on with the fact that someone else values the life of your offspring more than you do. That (other than a life threatening illness) the inconveniences of life are much more important than protecting your child and sacrificing to make sure that your child is given the opportunity to live the life that was breathed into it.
If you feel so strongly, you should dedicate time and financial resources to counseling the poor vulnerable at-risk population segments/groups to make what you consider the "right decision". Something very few prolife groups ever participate in doing.
Your impassioned prolife arguments are missing the point that it is not your decision. The choice to have an abortion is protected by law and is at the sole discretion of the would-be mother.
Why are you deflecting from the issue at hand. You are responding to a person that says that in order to provide effectively for women and children, abuse of the system should be a priority. Instead of arguing that the poster's position is right or wrong, you bring in a completely unrelated issue that (I am 99% sure) you cannot prove has any effect on funding welfare or solving the issues around welfare abuse.
providing for women and children who need support should be the priority, period. abuse of systems will always happen and it happens in every level. it is indeed relevant to ask why pick on poor people when corporation, and the people who run these corporations, are not penalized? nobody goes to jail. and yet the religious right rant about children on welfare because they suspect abuse.
in any case both are essentail for the welfare of society, of women, and children - public assistance and abortion rights for those who choose to have without hurdles place on them.
All life is precious, regardless of what stage that life is at any point in time. Your defense that a woman can get fired if she gets pregnant. Which is illegal. Has no bearing on the value of life. The same woman can be fired for other reasons that are actually legal, so that is an absurd reason to destroy human life.
"All life is precious".
Your thoughts on the death penalty?
Quote:
Pro-abortion advocates always claim that killing a living being is better for them because the only alternative is being mistreated by adoptive parents, when we all know that the reality is that the majority of adopted children live a normal childhood and lead productive lives.
Your thoughts on gay couples adopting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
