abortion is murder, and how shall we respond to it

[kenmaynard]

No trade offs

What do you mean by that. Just say what you believe. Why not speak in plain English?

 

[kenmaynard]

I don't think one has to be an abortion advocate to realize the issue is not always black and white. The law says we have the right to defend ourselves. If the pregnancy is a real threat to the mothers life it is abortion in self defense. Why did you avoid the question? Do you believe abortion should never be legal under any circumstance even if it will kill the mother?

Abortion to save the mother’s life

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5)

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306)

Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average)

Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support.

Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/mothers

Yes most abortions are selfish immoral acts. That doesn't mean that abortion to save the mothers life should be illegal. Do you believe abortion should be illegal even to save the mothers life?

 

[Lewis]

What do you think it means ? It means exactly what it says no trade offs. And that is plain english.

 

[kenmaynard]

What do you think it means ? It means exactly what it says no trade offs. And that is plain english.

So you are saying abortion should never be allowed. Even to save the life of the mother. That is the same as saying we should not have the right to use deadly force in self defense. If I were on a jury and someone killed an intruder to his home, who was intent on doing he and is family harm I would find him innocent of murder. The United States has always held self defense is an affirmative defense to taking a life. I do not want to see that change.

 

[Lewis]

Well do you think that the mothers life means more than the baby's life ?

 

[kenmaynard]

Well do you think that the mothers life means more than the baby's life ?

No life is worth more than another life, but the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to defend herself with deadly force.

 

[Lewis]

Well do you think that the mothers life means more than the baby's life ?

No life is worth more than another life, but the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to defend herself with deadly force.

WOW, deadly force huh, WOW and WOW again

 

[kenmaynard]

[quote="Lewis W":1pablhvu]Well do you think that the mothers life means more than the baby's life ?

No life is worth more than another life, but the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to defend herself with deadly force.

WOW, deadly force huh, WOW and WOW again[/quote:1pablhvu]


I understand you don't think we should have the right to use deadly force to protect ourselves or our families I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't know if I could kill an intruder, but I do know that if I sat on a jury of someone who did I wouldn't convict them of murder.

 

[Lewis]

That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

 

[kenmaynard]

That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

You aren't making sense to me. When a woman wants to protect her own life you say no trade offs, but when it come to you protecting yourself you say its ok. Why the double standard?

 

[NooneSpecial]

That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

You aren't making sense to me. When a woman wants to protect her own life you say no trade offs, but when it come to you protecting yourself you say its ok. Why the double standard?

There is a difference between an armed robber, or rapist who is bound to attack and INTENTIONALLY harm another person and an innocent baby.

No life really should have to be ended at the hand of another really...but cannot see any logic in the condoning of killing an innocent unborn child who has commited no wrong.

 

[kenmaynard]

That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

You aren't making sense to me. When a woman wants to protect her own life you say no trade offs, but when it come to you protecting yourself you say its ok. Why the double standard?

There is a difference between an armed robber, or rapist who is bound to attack and INTENTIONALLY harm another person and an innocent baby.

No life really should have to be ended at the hand of another really...but cannot see any logic in the condoning of killing an innocent unborn child who has commited no wrong.

Well if being pregnant will kill you, it follows that terminating the pregnancy is self defense.

 

[NooneSpecial]

Yes, well pregnant even if my life were in danger, I would go through with the pregnancy. Children are a gift from God. A life, NOT an unwanted extension and should be treated as thus.

 

[Caroline H]

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions.

Really, the argument of "abortion to save the mother's life" is practically a non-issue. It is just something that pro-abortionists use to weaken the other side's argument. They think that by getting someone who is against abortion to say that it should be allowed to save a woman's life, then they would be hypocrites and their argument against abortion is weakened.

In my opinion, if it does truly ever come down to my life or my child's life....I go with the child's life.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I thought I'd better reinsert this article that was posted earlier as it has a lot of truths in it. Christians defending abortion (mothers choice) is disgusting. I think the moderators need to put a rule that no promotion of abortion allowed on the forum. There is a rule for no promotion of homsexuality. As you can see in this article the deaths from abortion to save a mothers life was 0.004% of all abortions. That must have dropped by now as medical treatment has got a lot better since 1994.

Abortion to save the mother’s life

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5)

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306)

Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average)

Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support.

Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/mothers

 

[kenmaynard]

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions.

Really, the argument of "abortion to save the mother's life" is practically a non-issue. It is just something that pro-abortionists use to weaken the other side's argument. They think that by getting someone who is against abortion to say that it should be allowed to save a woman's life, then they would be hypocrites and their argument against abortion is weakened.

In my opinion, if it does truly ever come down to my life or my child's life....I go with the child's life.

Yes it is practically a non issue, but not a total non issue. I think it is safe to say logical people will agree abortion to save the life of the mother should be legal, and I think we can move on.

I have asked this several time to those who say abortion is murder. What should happen to the mother and Dr? Should they go to prison? For how long?

Say a 16 year old girl gets pregnant, and doesn't want to tell her parents. So she buys RU486 on the black market. She aborts the baby, but has complications has to go to the hospital and admits to the self administered abortion. How many years should she spend in prison? The rest of her life? Or should we give her the death penalty?

If you want to make abortion illegal it has to have consequences. Just say what you believe already.

 

[Vic C.]

kenmaynard look up the founder of planned parenthood margaret sanger, and then tell me if what she planned to do with the abortion isnt happenting perfeclty and also if one cant afford or have the will to take care of the child then put it up for adoption, instead of killing the baby, i have an elder in my church who does adopt and or foster unwanted children and hes a few of his own.

jason

Actually, it's wasn't Sanger. I posted this in May, 2008.

... the original organization that eventually became PP, was started by a woman by the name of Mary Ware Dennett. Dennentt first called it the National Birth Control League. Sanger later renamed it the American Birth Control League.

William Sanger, Margaret Sanger's estranged husband, was arrested in 1915 for distributing his wife's pamphlet, Family Limitation, while she was in exile in Europe. The arrest helped garner support for the birth control cause. Mary Ware Dennett attended several meetings called after the arrest to raise funds for William Sanger's defense, and was pulled slowly into the movement for contraceptive freedom.

Dennett outlined her personal realization of the importance of the cause in a letter to her mother: "Two things are very astonishing -- up to date -- one, that no one yet -- whether man or woman, radical or conservative has said a word in honest opposition to the necessity for information on birth-control; and the other that very few people want to come out in the open and help. Everyone is scared."[24] By March 1915, Dennett decided to organize the National Birth Control League (NBCL), the first organization in the country founded to legalize contraception. At that organizational meeting, Dennett gave the following inspiring speech outlining the goals of the NBCL....

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Women ... nettBC.htm
...

Since we are discussing the "who is getting...":

... Read the statistics about who actually gets abortions in this country. They aren't living the high life. Most abortions are performed on the uneducated and poor. I think they feel bad enough already. So sad the hatefulness here.

From "The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform":

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

The highest % isn't the poorest of the poor...

 

[kenmaynard]

kenmaynard look up the founder of planned parenthood margaret sanger,

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

The highest % isn't the poorest of the poor...

Ok So 86% of all abortions are performed on women who's entire family income is less than $60,000. That doesn't sound rich to me.

Also nearly 30% of abortions are done with women who's family income is less than $15,000. That is absolute poverty.

 

[Caroline H]

Ok So 86% of all abortions are performed on women who's entire family income is less than $60,000. That doesn't sound rich to me.

It sounds fine to me, and it certainly isn't the salary of the "uneducated and poor"

I have asked this several time to those who say abortion is murder. What should happen to the mother and Dr? Should they go to prison? For how long?

Yes, I think so. For however long people get sentenced for murder now....that is a figure that varies from case to case right?

 

[kenmaynard]

I thought I'd better reinsert this article that was posted earlier as it has a lot of truths in it. Christians defending abortion (mothers choice) is disgusting. I think the moderators need to put a rule that no promotion of abortion allowed on the forum. There is a rule for no promotion of homsexuality. As you can see in this article the deaths from abortion to save a mothers life was 0.004% of all abortions. That must have dropped by now as medical treatment has got a lot better since 1994.

Abortion to save the mother’s life

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5)

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306)

Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average)

Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support.

Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/mothers

The study you point to is 15 years old now and isn't related to the U.S. So here are a couple more.

2.8 per cent of 1,773 abortions performed in the US were attributed to risk to maternal health.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Here is another study that substantiates the previous one.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf