LETTER: Stand up for the unborn child

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. And did you notice her lame attempt at threatening? How juvenile.

I am soooo scared....lol... I've been back a little over 24 hours, and she has told 2 bold faced lies. Some things never change.

Godless Heathen wrote:

<quoted text>
I watched the other, longer video showing people that were in line at that rally and it was astounding to me the level of hate, racism, and ignorance that was coming from that group of people. Anything from comparing Obama to a monkey (if I need to explain that one, you aren't paying enough attention folks) to calling the protesters baby killers (probably in response to his pro-choice politics, I guess). It ran the whole spectrum of hate.
Ain't livin' in a free country grand?

Hi GH!! How are you? I've missed you!(Homer)

Brown eyed gal wrote:

<quoted text>
Good Lord, lady. It is about time you turned yourself in. Remember, the first step in getting help for a problem is admitting you have one. Good for you.

ROFLMAO I'm sorry, I've tried to keep my mouth shut and be careful what I say but this just made me laugh ...

Godless Heathen wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care if even one person doesn't fit the mold. You can't paint everyone into a pretty little picture. That's what you don't seem to get. Being pro-choice means you include EVERYONE. You can't put a little sentence at the end that says 'well, not everyone ends up that way' and call it good.
I am so sick and tired of your 'liberal people suck' rants. It's people like YOU that are constantly beating people like ME down while all I am trying to do is be a good person and help other people.
And I am addressing YOU because YOU are the one who made the ignorant statement.
I'm not going to live my life by your standards because I find your standards to be quite deplorable. What you post on this forum is not in the least bit respectable and only serves to help you get your rocks off by hurting others. I hope it does it for you.

Great post, GH. I will add that I have read her original post a few times now. Maybe it is just me, but I almost get the sense that she WANTS her little theory to be true. I also think maybe that is why she can be so nasty to PCers on here, because she realizes we are not the evil, unethical, hatemongering people she would have us be.

Brown eyed gal wrote:

<quoted text>
Good Lord, lady. It is about time you turned yourself in. Remember, the first step in getting help for a problem is admitting you have one. Good for you.

LOL!

Brilliant wrote:

<quoted text>
Editorials are OPINIONS. NOT FACT.
Here are the FACTS:
Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities
By Susan A. Cohen
Most antiabortion activists oppose abortion for moral and religious reasons. In their effort to win broader public support and legitimacy, however, antiabortion leaders frequently assert that abortion is not only wrong, but that it harms women physically and psychologically. Such charges have been made repeatedly for years, but repetition and even acceptance by members of Congress and other high-ranking political officials do not make them true.
AND
Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.
AND
Representing the APA at the hearing, Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that "severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." While acknowledging that there were flaws in much of the research, she testified nonetheless that the weight of the evidence persuasively showed that "abortion is usually psychologically benign." Echoing Koop's point about the public health implications, Adler said that given the millions of women who had had abortions, "if severe reaction were common, there would be an epidemic of women seeking treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic."
More Studies, Similar Conclusions
Later in 1989, the APA itself convened a panel to comprehensively assess the body of research meeting the minimum criteria for scientific validity. The APA review determined that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy "does not pose a psychological hazard for most women." As summarized in the Guttmacher Institute's May 2006 report, Abortion in Women's Lives, the APA found that "women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted or who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion may feel a greater sense of loss, anxiety and distress. For most women, however, the time of greatest distress is likely to be before an abortion; after an abortion, women frequently report feeling 'relief and happiness.'"
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr09...
So DEAL with it.

Great Source....Guttmacher institute is pro-choice..don't see how this is not bias opinion..DEAL with it!
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which favors the "freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies" (Mission statement), indicates that "about 14,000 women have abortions each year because they became pregnant after rape or incest." At the same time, it indicates that in 1996, "1.37 million abortions took place." In other words, some 99% of all the abortions that occur have nothing to do with rape or incest, according to "pro-choice" sources.(Source: Website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute)

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which favors the "freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies" (Mission statement), indicates that "on average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner." In other words, the dominant reasons women ask for this medical procedure have nothing to do with medical needs, according to "pro-choice" sources.(Source: Website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute)

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which favors the "freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies" (Mission statement), states that 12%, that is, 164,400 of the 1.37 million abortions that occurred in 1996 occurred after 12 weeks of pregnancy. It further indicates that some 13,700 of these abortions took place at 21 weeks or more (Source: Website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute). Babies delivered at this stage of development have been known to survive.

Both the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood are pro-abortion, so it is fair to suspect that there may be a "pro-choice" bias to the study. Additional bias may be suspected from the nature of the survey.

lalalulu wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi pupsy.
Why did you have the Great Wall of China as your avatar?
:)

from a trip
no biggie

pupsy wrote:

<quoted text>
from a trip
no biggie

Really? Cool!!

:)

Inaccuracies of public opinion polls on abortion:
Polls can give inaccurate results if:

An inadequate number of persons were sampled.
The individuals polled did not include a representative sample of the population. Results are unreliable if they involve persons whose ages, religious beliefs, gender, race, nationality, etc. are atypical.
Loaded questions are asked.
The answers are not completely thought out.
Confusing terminology is used. 1

Loaded questions:
For example, one 1980 poll asked similar questions, worded in two different ways: 2

"Do you think there should be an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting abortions, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?" Those in favor of an amendment: 29%; opposed 67%. Here, the pollsters used the term "abortion" which they probably selected as the most emotionally neutral term that they could find.
"Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution protecting the life of the unborn child, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?" In favor of an amendment: 50%; opposed 34%. Here, the implication is that an abortion kills a child.

Meanwhile, a poll conducted one year later asked a heavily weighted question: 3

"The decision on whether or not to perform an abortion rests with the consenting patient, and should be performed by a licensed physician in conformance with good medical practice." 90% were in favor of this statement. But the question is deceptive. The pollsters combined two questions in to one: should a woman be able to decide to have an abortion, and should it be done by a skilled practitioner.

Pro-choice groups could focus on the answer to the first question, and claim that less than 30% of the population is pro-life. They could use the results of the third question and claim 10%. Pro-life groups could center on the second question and claim that half the population was pro-life. And both groups would be correct - at least they could support their assertion with statistics.

Another example of biased questions is seen in a Wirthlin Worldwide National Quorum poll, conducted on behalf of the pro-life group Faith2Action in 2002-DEC 4 (N=1001; margin of error = 3.2%)

One question was worded: "In light of recent medical advances such as in-utero surgery and 3-D ultrasound technology, which reveals the unborn child's body and facial features in detail, are you in favor of restoring legal protection for unborn children?" 68% of those sampled were strongly or somewhat in favor. A person who disagreed with this question would be in the position of not protecting children.
Another was worded: "Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who uphold laws that restore protection for unborn children?" 66% of those sampled were strongly or somewhat in favor. The implication is that some nominees might refuse to uphold existing laws.

"Gut-reaction" questions:
One deficiency with most polls is that they require snap judgments from the subjects, without examining all of the implications of their decision. For example:

The Gallup Poll reports on a yearly basis the percentage of American adults who oppose abortion access for all reasons. Results have ranged from 22% in 1975 to 12% in 1995. The value in the year 2000 was 19%
Yet, a Time-CNN poll in 1992 showed that only 11% of American adults would withhold an abortion needed to save the life of the woman, and only 12% would prohibit an abortion if the woman's health is in danger.

Los Angeles Times Poll:
This was taken on 2005-JAN-14 to 18. They asked 1,118 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, or should be legal most of the time, or should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Results:

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

Margin of error ±3% percentage points. It is notable that 12% of American adults would totally prohibit all abortions, including those needed to save the life of the mother.

CBS News Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 & 22. They asked 737 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Results:

37% favor stricter limits. This is a decrease of one percentage point from a similar poll on 2003-JAN.
35% favor general availability. This is a decrease of 4 percentage points.
25% favor no abortion access. This is a decrease of one percentage point.

Margin of error ±4

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 to 23. They asked 1,001 randomly selected American adults the question: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Results:

55% responded sometimes legal. This is an increase of 1 percentage point from a similar poll in 1975
23% always legal; this is an increase of 2 percentage points.
20% always illegal; this is reduction of 2 percentage points.
2% uncertain.

Margin of error ±3 percentage points.

Gallup/CNN/USA Today polls:
A series of polls were taken of American adults during May, June and November, 2005. 2 They seem to show a significant shift in the pro-choice direction: First, they asked the question: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" Results were:

Response: 2005-MAY 2005-JUN 2005-NOV
Legal under any circumstances 23% 24% 26%
Legal under most circumstances 12% 15% 16%
Legal only under a few circumstances 40% 40% 39%
Illegal in all circumstances 22% 20% 16%
No opinion/no response 3% 1% 3%

In their 2005-NOV poll they asked the additional question: "Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals:"

Question: Favor Oppose
A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion 69% 28%
A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion 64% 34%
A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother 37% 61%

We have a vague hunch that the shift in support for and against abortion access was indirectly caused by President Bush's nomination of two new Supreme Court justices. For the first time in over three decades, the possibility of re-criminalization of abortion has become real, and American adults might be seriously thinking about the future

Inaccuracies of public opinion polls on abortion:
Polls can give inaccurate results if:
An inadequate number of persons were sampled.
The individuals polled did not include a representative sample of the population. Results are unreliable if they involve persons whose ages, religious beliefs, gender, race, nationality, etc. are atypical.
Loaded questions are asked.
The answers are not completely thought out.
Confusing terminology is used. 1
Loaded questions:
For example, one 1980 poll asked similar questions, worded in two different ways: 2
"Do you think there should be an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting abortions, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?" Those in favor of an amendment: 29%; opposed 67%. Here, the pollsters used the term "abortion" which they probably selected as the most emotionally neutral term that they could find.
"Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution protecting the life of the unborn child, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?" In favor of an amendment: 50%; opposed 34%. Here, the implication is that an abortion kills a child.
Meanwhile, a poll conducted one year later asked a heavily weighted question: 3
"The decision on whether or not to perform an abortion rests with the consenting patient, and should be performed by a licensed physician in conformance with good medical practice." 90% were in favor of this statement. But the question is deceptive. The pollsters combined two questions in to one: should a woman be able to decide to have an abortion, and should it be done by a skilled practitioner.
Pro-choice groups could focus on the answer to the first question, and claim that less than 30% of the population is pro-life. They could use the results of the third question and claim 10%. Pro-life groups could center on the second question and claim that half the population was pro-life. And both groups would be correct - at least they could support their assertion with statistics.
Another example of biased questions is seen in a Wirthlin Worldwide National Quorum poll, conducted on behalf of the pro-life group Faith2Action in 2002-DEC 4 (N=1001; margin of error = 3.2%)
One question was worded: "In light of recent medical advances such as in-utero surgery and 3-D ultrasound technology, which reveals the unborn child's body and facial features in detail, are you in favor of restoring legal protection for unborn children?" 68% of those sampled were strongly or somewhat in favor. A person who disagreed with this question would be in the position of not protecting children.
Another was worded: "Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who uphold laws that restore protection for unborn children?" 66% of those sampled were strongly or somewhat in favor. The implication is that some nominees might refuse to uphold existing laws.
"Gut-reaction" questions:

One deficiency with most polls is that they require snap judgments from the subjects, without examining all of the implications of their decision. For example:
The Gallup Poll reports on a yearly basis the percentage of American adults who oppose abortion access for all reasons. Results have ranged from 22% in 1975 to 12% in 1995. The value in the year 2000 was 19%
Yet, a Time-CNN poll in 1992 showed that only 11% of American adults would withhold an abortion needed to save the life of the woman, and only 12% would prohibit an abortion if the woman's health is in danger.
Language used:
As a minimum, we need to know were the exact questions asked, of whom was it asked, how many individuals were sampled, and under what conditions were the questions asked. Does the question talk about:
terminating a pregnancy,...or murdering babies?
women's rights,...or killing children?
access to an abortion,...or compulsory parenthood for every pregnant woman?
whether the individual personally approves or disapproves of abortion for themselves,... or what laws should be in place to prohibit a woman who wants an abortion from getting one.
Inadequate study:

Even with a careful set of questions, and a representative sampling of the population, there remains one overwhelming factor that reduces the effectiveness of polls. Some individuals or their partners have never had a crisis pregnancy, or have never had a close friend with an unwanted pregnancy. They are liable to answer questions on the basis of their religious or political views. But if they have to face a crisis pregnancy and are forced to think through all the options, they often change their opinion from pro-life to pro-choice, or vice versa. Unfortunately, polls tend to weight the opinion of those who have never thoroughly examined the questions equally with those who have. Polls are exactly what they claim to be: an expression of the opinion of the public -- whether informed or not.
A better poll:
The following questionnaire is provided to political candidates by Project Vote Smart in order to determine their positions on a range of abortion questions. With few modifications, it could form the basis of an improved public opinion poll:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning abortion:
a) Abortions should always be illegal.
b) Abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support.
c) Abortions should always be legally available.
d) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
e) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
f) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
g) Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government.
h) Prohibit the dilation and extraction procedure, also known as "partial birth" abortion.
i) Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
j) Support "buffer-zones" by requiring demonstrators to stay at least five feet from abortion clinic doorways and driveways.
k) Provide funding for family planning programs as a means to decrease the number of abortions. 5
The ideal poll:
In the author's opinion, the best polling technique would be for the agency to pose a number of situations to their subjects -- describing a scenario that a pregnant woman might find herself in, and asking if the woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she wishes one.
For example, a poll could be taken in which 50% of the subjects were asked the following questions. The other 50% would be asked the same questions, with "baby" substituted for "fetus:"
A woman became pregnant due to a contraceptive failure. She is a university student and does not want to interrupt her education.
A 16 year old teenager in high school conceived four weeks ago, was abandoned by her boyfriend, and believes that her parents will throw her out of the house if they find out.

Just Me wrote:

<quoted text>
Cham, you need to start regrouping. You spend way too much time on here in vain.
You are stooping to lower levels everyday.
I think that TT tragic story is not one that should be used by you to open up your act.
okay? what was done to her is not a joking matter and you are showing disrespect by using her for you own agenda.
kthanks!

No, it is NOT a joking matter. However, your position is that rape/incest victims should not be allowed to abort. THAT is disrespectful and sick!

Then again, if I'm wrong, please let me know. Would you not advocate forcing a young incest victim to continue a pregnancy? If I'm wrong, I have no problem apologizing.

Brilliant wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Lala. That was fun.

This is for you and Lala. Be sure to click all around the windows, pictures, etc. There's a lot here. LMAO

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

Brilliant wrote:

<quoted text>
He also said there should be no health exceptions for the mother.
He is a freak.

Too many phlegm noises. What was up with that?

Brilliant wrote:

<quoted text>
What are the punishments and for whom?

Section 2. Except as permitted by section 3, 4, 5 or 6 of this Act, any person who knowingly performs any procedure upon a pregnant woman, or uses any instrument upon a pregnant woman, or administers any medicine or drug or substance or device to a pregnant woman, or prescribes or procures or sells any medicine or drug or substance or device for use by a pregnant woman, or employs any other means, with the intent of causing the terminateion of the life of an unborn human being, is guilty of performing an illegal abortion, which is a Class 4 Felony.

In South Dakota, a Class 4 Felony carries: ten years imprisonment in the state penitentiary. In addition, a fine of ten thousand dollars may be imposed.