Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,230
Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision. Full Story
Katie

Auburn, WA

#252409 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.htm...

"In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems.["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]"
cont.
I am not sure if you realize the NRLC is NOT referencing later-term abortions (that very small percentage where something has gone horribly wrong). Guttmacher did NOT address later-term, only late term, elective abortions. Here's a report contrasting that 1987 study with one from 2004. You might be pleased to learn the number of annual elective abortions dropped 22% between '87 and '04. And that's a good thing, imo.

"Public discussion about abortion in the United States has
generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have
abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention
are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for having abortions. While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy.2"

"In 1987, a survey of 1,900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with
school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could
not afford a child.4"

"One compelling reason is that the abortion rate declined by 22% between 1987 and 2002,7 and another is that the demographic characteristics of reproductive-age women in general and of abortion patients in particular have changed since 1987. For example, the proportion of abortion patients who have already had one or more children has increased, as have the proportions
who are aged 30 or older, who are nonwhite and who are cohabiting. In addition, between 1994 and 2000, the proportion of women having abortions who were poor increased.8"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/37110...
Katie

Auburn, WA

#252410 Aug 12, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they don't think of anything beyond their own nose. What happens to the woman or the family involved after the fact, or even the baby once born, is of no interest to them.
Chicky's "babe" (somebody else's child Chicky loves and cares for) is one of these babies. Born without a functioning brain, the PL OB refused to tell mom the dire straits of her pregnancy. Her birth has wreaked havoc on the family, drained them of their finances, and all while insurance companies refuse certain treatments because "babe" is not seen as one who'd benefit from treatment. It's cruel to do this to parents and children, imo. Chicky has posted about it in this very thread, but I have no idea where it would be found. It does give insight to her stance on abortion. That and other anecdotes she's shared. I, personally, think Chicky's got a good grasp on this issue and has much to offer people if they would listen. jmo
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#252411 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the risk every thinking person SHOULD know they're taking when having sex. So yes, consent to sex would be consent to the [risk] of pregnancy. How stupid to think people don't know that's the risk we all take when having sex, unless we've taken measures to completely remove that risk.
Consent to sex does not equal consent to having and carry a child. You can blab all u want about risks.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#252412 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

A VIABLE fetus born in 3rd tri-mester generally does NOT have the health issues as one born at 20 weeks. Sure they need to be in incubators, but a viable healthy fetus born 24 weeks on usually survives just fine.
Babies born at 24wks gestational age have a 39% survival rate according to the chart in the link below. Here are some facts you may wish to incorporate with your opinions.

"A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)."

"In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks."

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafte...

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252413 Aug 12, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure if you realize the NRLC is NOT referencing later-term abortions (that very small percentage where something has gone horribly wrong). Guttmacher did NOT address later-term, only late term, elective abortions. Here's a report contrasting that 1987 study with one from 2004. You might be pleased to learn the number of annual elective abortions dropped 22% between '87 and '04. And that's a good thing, imo.
"Public discussion about abortion in the United States has
generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have
abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention
are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for having abortions. While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy.2"
"In 1987, a survey of 1,900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with
school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could
not afford a child.4"
"One compelling reason is that the abortion rate declined by 22% between 1987 and 2002,7 and another is that the demographic characteristics of reproductive-age women in general and of abortion patients in particular have changed since 1987. For example, the proportion of abortion patients who have already had one or more children has increased, as have the proportions
who are aged 30 or older, who are nonwhite and who are cohabiting. In addition, between 1994 and 2000, the proportion of women having abortions who were poor increased.8"
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/37110...
Katie: "I am not sure if you realize the NRLC is NOT referencing later-term abortions (that very small percentage where something has gone horribly wrong). Guttmacher did NOT address later-term, only late term, elective abortions."

"Later-term" abortions" where you claim are the ones where "something went horribly wrong"; if the fetus is VIABLE (24 weeks on), there's nothing that went "horribly wrong", except that mother's life may be at risk. In which case BIRTH is no more risky than an abortion.

Katie, the info on my link specifically said, "16 weeks or more."

"Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems."

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252414 Aug 12, 2012
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Consent to sex does not equal consent to having and carry a child. You can blab all u want about risks.
The question was about consent to sex meaning consent to pregnancy. Why do you think you can change what I was replying to?

Yes it does, mean consent to pregnancy, Ladilulu. Everyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows that the risk to having sex is a pregnancy. You choose to have sex, you're choosing that risk as well.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252415 Aug 12, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies born at 24wks gestational age have a 39% survival rate according to the chart in the link below. Here are some facts you may wish to incorporate with your opinions.
"A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)."
"In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks."
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafte...
LOL, fool. I have facts that are incorporated in my opinions. Unlike you, a person who has no facts to base the stupidity she posts. All they're saying is that the ones born toward 24 weeks need more medical intervention to be able to get to a point of surviving without it, than those born closer to term.

I already said they'd need to be in an incubator, which for intelligent people who are aware of what that means, I didn't need to include the child may need invasive treatments because that was a given.

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

#252416 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems."
The article also states that the women in question were 16 weeks or more pregnant. 16 weeks is not considered an LTA. Most LTA's are classified at 20 weeks or more. For all we know, the good majority of these could've occurred before 20 weeks. Unfortunately, unless these women are interviewed again and are asked specifically at what week they terminated their pregnancies, we'll never know for sure.
Forever 21

Hicksville, NY

#252417 Aug 12, 2012
pupsee wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with elise, but I do see your point about learning ..
I did learn something .. that my hate filled attitude was getting me nowhere .. I also learned that the majority of the pl slant was nothing but hate ..
I learned that pc was not pro abortion as pl would have you believe ..
Nice to see you as always, Badaxe !!
This forum isn't about you pup see. It's about a head on fight for life for the pre born who are being threatened on a grand scale. It's not about getting along with people or changing focus on owhm you'll now be civil or nice too. Reality is that being PC mns death for a human womb. God wants you to defend those little ones not search for friendships amongst whose stance is the reason for those killings. Keep focus.you're turning this fight away from te ones who are the real victims. It'tragically sad you are falling for the lie of Satan that being PC is not about him. Sorry you are being deceived. Be nice to all but don't be hateful towards those whom Christ sent to defend he unborn. They are not perfect but neither are you. You went from attacking the evils of abortion to attacking people. Keep the facts of gruesome slaughter in your heart not your own desires. Again this is about the slaughter and people are here about that despite the arguing. Even the PC need your truth in order to receive it. Be kind to all pup see and fight for life. THe souls of these supporters who kill Gods little ones need your truth not your defense.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#252418 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "I am not sure if you realize the NRLC is NOT referencing later-term abortions (that very small percentage where something has gone horribly wrong). Guttmacher did NOT address later-term, only late term, elective abortions."
"Later-term" abortions" where you claim are the ones where "something went horribly wrong"; if the fetus is VIABLE (24 weeks on), there's nothing that went "horribly wrong", except that mother's life may be at risk. In which case BIRTH is no more risky than an abortion.
Katie, the info on my link specifically said, "16 weeks or more."
"Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems."
Yes, I know what you provided; the NRLC's version of the '87 Guttmacher's report. Clearly Guttmacher stated, as was quoted, that two percent of abortions were later-term, but these were not included in the report. NRLC included its own spoonfeeding to Guttmacher's report -- which focused on elective abortions.

Thought I'd offer the actual source, itself (plus the bonus of a comparison report of 2004), so people can come to their own conclusions.

You are pleased the number of annual abortions dropped 22% aren't you? I am.
grumpy

Garnerville, NY

#252419 Aug 12, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. You are incorrect. Their *total* abortion rate is lower than ours, BA. And I'm not talking about the total number, I'm talking about abortions as a *percentage* of pregnancies.
So your logic/assumptions are flawed.
You're leaving out some germain factors e.g.Given a country with no restrictions:
1) Is that country (society)apt to be judgemental of unwed mothers? I would guess not.
2) Is that society more apt to accept birth control paraphanalia as a normal common Medical expense?
My guess is that society would.
So my guess is that demand for abortion is less but per capita pregnancy is less. So his statistic may be valid.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252420 Aug 12, 2012
But you have a flawed argument: "I have known since I was 12 or so, that sex could lead to pregnancy and that I would be responsible for that child for the rest of my life."

One does not follow the other. You could abort, you could miscarry, you could have a stillborn, you could have given it up for adoption. You decided you had one option; other women believe in more.

If that bear gets you, you can still have a doctor ameliorate any damages he caused. You don't just have to sit there and acept the wounds.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, I hear that here and I always ignore it as too stupid to answer to, but hey, I'm being nice to you now, so I will. I have known since I was 12 or so, that sex could lead to pregnancy and that I would be responsible for that child for the rest of my life. Believe it or not, I have had many chances for sex that I have turned down because of this realization. In fact, it's very hard for me to feel sorry for anyone who got pregnant, or got someone pregnant, when I think of all the fine things I have walked away from. Anyway, hunting for bear with a bow may be exhilarating, but if the bear gets you, even by accident, remember, you put yourself in that situation, and you have no one to blame but yourself, you're accountable for you own actions, even if it seemed like fun at the time.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252421 Aug 12, 2012
It's not about appreciating anything; it's about a born women with rights and a pregnancy she doesn't desire. Feel free to prove that an LTA was performed due to mood swings, bub.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say that ONLY clinical depression qualifies as "mental health" moron, dont twist things. I said clinical depression would be covered under R v W's definition of "mental health". "Emotional" is the vague term when used to define "mental health" becuase it does include temporary, reversible MOODS. Who are you to pass a death sentence on a viable fetus because you are incapable of appreciating the value of life over temporary, "emotional" mood swings?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252422 Aug 12, 2012
Being rare has to do with percentages, not numbers. Rare diseases may have a few thousand sufferers, but the fact that we have over 300 million people means it is rare.

LTA's are rare.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I would agree that any life that could be saved is worth trying to save. Many on the PC side try to play down the significance of restrictions on LTA by saying how rare it is, look at any post or link from the PC side and the first thing they say is about how rare it is, relative in percentage, never the numbers. I dont think you fully understand where I am coming from on this, but I'm open to discussion, nice to meet you Old Lady.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252423 Aug 12, 2012
Abortion IS okay; you just don't like it. Of course it's about the woman. She takes all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, she suffers all the pain. She suffers any negative social reactions. It's HER body; at no time does she lose her right to make her own decisions.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>But isn't that my point? When no consideration is put on the fetus, in countries with no restrictions, that sends a message that abortion is OK, and all about the woman. Of course LTA abortions would be lower, they just abort sooner due to the lack of legal and moral respect of potentail human life.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252424 Aug 12, 2012
The "swill and pill" diet plan isn't your best option.
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Purely selfish for the reasons stated; absolutely!
I know I became a huge heffer after my second, and I honestly thought I would after the first,,,, that didn't stop me. Why? Because I know it's genetic and therefore not my fault.
Sure the booze are high calorie, but the illicit drug use keep me below 400 stone! That's good enough for me, I guess it wasn't for my ex....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252425 Aug 12, 2012
Been there, done that. Can't say I'd want to do it again.
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously really like who you're talking about,,,, induced coma's ROCK! Best trips EVER
LadiLulu

Langhorne, PA

#252426 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The question was about consent to sex meaning consent to pregnancy. Why do you think you can change what I was replying to?
Yes it does, mean consent to pregnancy, Ladilulu. Everyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows that the risk to having sex is a pregnancy. You choose to have sex, you're choosing that risk as well.
That poster isn't me, you stupid hag.
LadiLulu

Langhorne, PA

#252427 Aug 12, 2012
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>You're leaving out some germain factors e.g.Given a country with no restrictions:
1) Is that country (society)apt to be judgemental of unwed mothers? I would guess not.
2) Is that society more apt to accept birth control paraphanalia as a normal common Medical expense?
My guess is that society would.
So my guess is that demand for abortion is less but per capita pregnancy is less. So his statistic may be valid.
Read my statement again. I said percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion. So no, his statement is still invalid.

Especially given the fact that some countries with relatively high abortion rates (percent of abortion per pregnancy) also tend tone more restrictive in their policies.
1 post removed
Katie

Auburn, WA

#252429 Aug 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, fool. I have facts that are incorporated in my opinions. Unlike you, a person who has no facts to base the stupidity she posts. All they're saying is that the ones born toward 24 weeks need more medical intervention to be able to get to a point of surviving without it, than those born closer to term.
I already said they'd need to be in an incubator, which for intelligent people who are aware of what that means, I didn't need to include the child may need invasive treatments because that was a given.
As long as you realize you are giving a different impression than what the professionals claim, all is good. In your world, your opinion carries more weight than the professionals' because you *know* what you meant. In my world, the professionals' opinions carry more weight. And is why I included their info to go with yours. So people could make their own intelligent decisions.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text> Women who WANT their child will risk it to save their child's life, as well as their own. Viable means the chance to survive outside of the womb is good.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

====
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

A VIABLE fetus born in 3rd tri-mester generally does NOT have the health issues as one born at 20 weeks. Sure they need to be in incubators, but a viable healthy fetus born 24 weeks on usually survives just fine.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min harmonious 269,869
The hypocrisy, lies and crimes of liberals 2 min VN Vet 92
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Cornelius Scudmister 158,778
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min fetch almighty 1,125,439
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min Poof1 56,625
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 7 min Abdurratln 3,887
Rahall-Jenkins House race remains tight 14 min whatalaff 43
GOP types accused of 'thinly-veiled racism' for... 28 min spud 176
Obama wants an election about the economy, not him 38 min Even Steven 517
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Subduction Zone 120,871

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE