So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[93henfan]

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

Did you see the list of atheist’s posts I put up? That was just the first few from a quick Google search...

Yes, We Catholics tend to be drivers in the anti-abortion movement...but we by no way are the preponderance of the movements membership...

It’s a moral issue much, much more than a religious issue..

I maintain that Trip is correct on the religious aspect though. It's both moral (obviously), but also hugely a religious push by the Catholic church. Go walk down the line of idiots outside Planned Parenthood trying to further mentally wreck the women who had to make the excruciating decision to go there. I'd bet you any amount that they are AT LEAST 75% Catholics.

[93henfan]

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

So why are Catholics alone in being pro-science in this debate? What is making other religions and atheists into Luddites?

I expect better from you, of all people. Did you not read my post of the ECLA's stance. The last quote is basically what you paraphrased in your viability outside the womb discussion.

I'll let this failed post of yours slide. Your quality is usually very good.

[93henfan]

Alrighty Altar Boy Veterans Association Local, I'll be back in a few hours. Gotta shower up and go eat crabs with Ivy. Happy trolling.

[89Hen]

But 89 is fooling himself into thinking his choices aren't driven by religion. Or he's trying to fool us.

I can forgive that though. What I can't forgive are people who when asked, don't fight against the notion that a teen or woman should suffer, potentially for life, because "actions have consequences." As if a teenage girl cold-bloodily murdered an innocent person instead of terminating a collection of cells (in their own bodies) that have no memories, no consciousness, and less of anything than the chicken we regularly kill and eat.

It's already a tough decision and potentially traumatic. But on top of that, we're going to add medically unsafe, life threatening, and criminal (including up to murder?). That is a sick fantasy.

You're a dunce Trip. My pro-life stance is driven by logic and compassion.

My church is openly against birth control. I vehemently disagree with that position.

My church does not allow priests to get married. I think our church would be better off if they could.

How is it that I'm not falling in line with everything? Could it be that I actually develop positions on my own?

[89Hen]

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

Oy vey 93, please keep up with the thread. Yes, Catholics are the driving force on the pro-life movement and we have quite a few Catholics here, as you know. I'm sure plenty of people are, but none of us are bound or influenced by the church on this issue. We all have our own take and path that led us to our positions.

And you are not pro-life in the sense that you are pro-choice for others. It would be like saying I would never steal, but I'll leave it up to others whether they want to steal.

[CAA Flagship]

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

I think the religion tie to the issue, at least in the case of 89Hen, is not correct. Just because he is Catholic and has the same ultimate slant as the Church, doesn't mean that it is strictly a religious-based decision. There are only two ultimate sides to this issue. Just because one is on the same side of a religion does not mean that religion is the reason. It may be the source of information, but I think 89Hen provided enough information as to why his views are what they are without the need to tie it to a religion.

That being said, I suggest that everyone read the official stats from the CDC (2014) to get an understanding who is getting abortions and determine if your views still hold true.

A total of 652,639 abortions were reported to CDC for 2014. Of these abortions, 98.4% were from the 48 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2005–2014. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2013 to 2014, the total number and rate of reported abortions decreased 2%, and the ratio decreased 7%. From 2005 to 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 21%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. In 2014, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2005–2014).

In 2014 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women in their 30s and older accounted for a much smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2014, women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for 32.2% and 26.7% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 21.3 and 18.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30–34, 35–39, and ≥40 years accounted for 17.1%, 9.7%, and 3.6% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.9, 7.2, and 2.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30–34 years, 35–39 years, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the abortion rate decreased among women aged 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and 35–39 years by 27%, 16%, 12%, and 5%, respectively, but increased 4% among women aged ≥40 years.

In 2014, adolescents aged <15 and 15–19 years accounted for 0.3% and 10.4% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.5 and 7.5 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged <15 and 15–19 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15–19 years decreased 38%, and their abortion rate decreased 49%. These decreases were greater than the decreases for women in any older age group.

In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abortion rates by age, abortion ratios in 2014 and throughout the entire period of analysis were highest among adolescents and lowest among women aged 30–39 years. Abortion ratios decreased from 2005 to 2014 for women in all age groups.

In 2014, the majority (67.0%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.5%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Few abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks’ gestation (7.2%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%). During 2005–2014, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently high (≥91.4%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, there was a shift toward earlier gestational ages, as the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation increased 21%, and the percentage of all other gestational ages at ≤13 weeks’ gestation decreased 7%–20%.

In 2014, among reporting areas that included medical (nonsurgical) abortion on their reporting form, 22.6% of all abortions were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation), 67.4% were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, and 8.6% were performed by surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation; all other methods were uncommon (<2%). Among abortions performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation that were eligible for early medical abortion on the basis of gestational age, 32.2% were completed by this method.

In 2014, women with one or more previous live births accounted for 59.5% of abortions, and women with no previous live births accounted for 40.4%. Women with one or more previous induced abortions accounted for 44.9% of abortions, and women with no previous abortion accounted for 55.1%. Women with three or more previous births accounted for 13.8% of abortions, and women with three or more previous abortions accounted for 8.6% of abortions.

Deaths of women associated with complications from abortion for 2014 are being assessed as part of CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2013, the most recent year for which data were available, four women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ ... ss6624a1_w

[89Hen]

Flaggy gets it.

[∞∞∞]

You're a dunce Trip. My pro-life stance is driven by logic and compassion.

Logic and compassion?

If you think it's logical to be more compassionate to an assortment of cells instead of a young girl which breathes, has memories, developed consciousness, laughs, loves, gets scared, brings joy to people, has a history and an entire future ahead of her...you don't know what logic and compassion is.

I can at least understand a strong religious foundation behind the reasoning.

But don't play the charade of science, logic, and compassion when you think this...



...is more important than this:



(white girls used on purpose)

[AZGrizFan]

You're a dunce Trip. My pro-life stance is driven by logic and compassion.

Logic and compassion?

If you think it's logical to be more compassionate to an assortment of cells instead of a young girl which breathes, has memories, developed consciousness, laughs, loves, gets scared, brings joy to people, has a history and an entire future ahead of her...you don't know what logic and compassion is.

I can at least understand a strong religious foundation behind the reasoning.

But don't play the charade of science, logic, and compassion when you think this...



...is more important than this:



(white girls used on purpose)

It's not either/or, dipshit.

[∞∞∞]

It's not either/or, dipshit.

"Actions have consequences." - 89

So yes, it is either/or. I don't consider punishing woman for abortions as an acceptable anything.

Want to have an abortion? Have an abortion. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have an abortion.

[AZGrizFan]

It's not either/or, dipshit.

"Actions have consequences." - 89

So yes, it is either/or. I don't consider dragging woman through the mud as an acceptable consequence.

Want to have an abortion? Have an abortion. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have an abortion.

Want to cross the border illegally? Get arrested.

Don't want to get arrested and have your child taken away? don't cross the border illegally.

[∞∞∞]

"Actions have consequences." - 89

So yes, it is either/or. I don't consider dragging woman through the mud as an acceptable consequence.

Want to have an abortion? Have an abortion. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have an abortion.

Want to cross the border illegally? Get arrested.

Don't want to get arrested and have your child taken away? don't cross the border illegally.

Detain them? Sure. Send them back? With due process.

Take children away from mothers and fathers? You've lost your humanity.

Compassion is in low supply on this board.

[Silenoz]

It's not either/or, dipshit.

"Actions have consequences." - 89

So yes, it is either/or. I don't consider dragging woman through the mud as an acceptable consequence.

Funny, I don't consider having your brain vacuumed out of your skull an acceptable consequence. But totally potato potatoh!

[AZGrizFan]

Want to cross the border illegally? Get arrested.

Don't want to get arrested and have your child taken away? don't cross the border illegally.

Detain them? Sure. Send them back? With due process.

Take children away from mothers and fathers? You've lost your humanity.

Compassion is in low supply on this board.

I see. So taking children away from mothers and fathers who committed a crime = lost your humanity.
KILLING children without a chance at a life = A-OK with you

Again, you've gone full retard.

do you weep for all the American children who's parents are locked up for crimes they've committed? Or just the illegal ones?

[∞∞∞]

Detain them? Sure. Send them back? With due process.

Take children away from mothers and fathers? You've lost your humanity.

Compassion is in low supply on this board.

I see. So taking children away from mothers and fathers who committed a crime = lost your humanity.
KILLING children without a chance at a life = A-OK with you

Again, you've gone full retard.

do you weep for all the American children who's parents are locked up for crimes they've committed? Or just the illegal ones?

All of them. I can't even fathom the devestation of losing your parent as a young child, whether to death or the legal system. But reforming the legal system is for another debate.

As to your first point, I don't consider an assortment of human cells a child. I don't argue it's not life, but we terminate various life all the time that are significantly more developed and arguably more important than a fetus. Cells throughout the human body continue to live even after death; no one considers that precious.

[CAA Flagship]

From a political standpoint, let's see who is likely to benefit from abortion.
(Assuming that the child would fall into the current voting demographics, and using the Race/Ethnicity stats in the CDC link above...)


For all reported abortions in 2014:
38% were White
36% were Black
18.3% were Hispanic
7.7% were Other

I'll let JSO fine tune the numbers, but let's say 50% of Whites are Donks, 90% of Blacks are Donks, and 50% of the remainder are Donks. That would mean that more potential Donks (64%) are being aborted.

[89Hen]

You're a dunce Trip. My pro-life stance is driven by logic and compassion.

Logic and compassion?

If you think it's logical to be more compassionate to an assortment of cells instead of a young girl which breathes, has memories, developed consciousness, laughs, loves, gets scared, brings joy to people, has a history and an entire future ahead of her...you don't know what logic and compassion is.

I can at least understand a strong religious foundation behind the reasoning.

But don't play the charade of science, logic, and compassion when you think this...


...is more important than this:


(white girls used on purpose)

No, I just think this:



... is worse than this:




And for the last time, go pound sand on YOUR religious debate. YOU'RE the one trying to bring religion into this.

[89Hen]

I see. So taking children away from mothers and fathers who committed a crime = lost your humanity.
KILLING children without a chance at a life = A-OK with you

Again, you've gone full retard.

do you weep for all the American children who's parents are locked up for crimes they've committed? Or just the illegal ones?

All of them. I can't even fathom the devestation of losing your parent as a young child, whether to death or the legal system. But reforming the legal system is for another debate.

As to your first point, I don't consider an assortment of human cells a child. I don't argue it's not life, but we terminate various life all the time that are significantly more developed and arguably more important than a fetus. Cells throughout the human body continue to live even after death; no one considers that precious.

You're in over your head. I'd be shocked if any of the rational pro-choicers even chimed in any more.

[∞∞∞]

This is not a person.

It is medical waste.

[GannonFan]

This is not a person.

It is medical waste.

That before it was aborted was a human life. Let's not lose the focus on the science part of this.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is that an abortion or miscarriage?

Going to need to call in homicide, conduct an autopsy, seal off the crime scene, bring the woman in for questioning, etc.

[∞∞∞]

This is not a person.

It is medical waste.

That before it was aborted was a human life. Let's not lose the focus on the science part of this.

It certainly is life; it certainly is cells specific to humans. In that respect, it is "human life."

But it is not a person. It's simply a bunch of human cells trying to complete their programming.

[UNI88]

This is not a person.

It is medical waste.

Trip, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. 89 has a different opinion and he is just as entitled to it. 89 makes a simple and logical argument that we don't really know where to draw the line on the timing of when the developing child becomes a person so let's protect the developing child's interest and rights and not allow abortions. You argue for protecting the mother's interests and rights. To believe that your opinion is absolutely right and others aren't is extremely myopic.

89's religious upbringing might have informed his opinions but they do not define them (as evidenced by his position on birth control and priest's marrying).

[GannonFan]

That before it was aborted was a human life. Let's not lose the focus on the science part of this.

It certainly is life; it certainly is cells specific to humans. In that respect, it is "human life."

But it is not a person. It's simply a bunch of human cells trying to complete their programming.

You're moving from science to philosophy. It is a person, it is human life. To reject that is to turn away from science and embrace unfounded dogma. From conception to death, our bodies are, to use your own words, "trying to complete their programming". To insist that, at some arbitrary point during that process, that it is or isn't a human life is just that, arbitrary, and not at all scientific.

As I've said, we as a society have come up with a temporary mile-marker of what we'll protect and what we won't, but that's based on our medical skill and capabilities at this time. Those will improve as they always have. The fundamental, scientific reality that life begins at conception is not in question. Those cells are what human life looks like at that point. Please leave your dogma and superstitions out of this.

[∞∞∞]

Trip, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. 89 has a different opinion and he is just as entitled to it. 89 makes a simple and logical argument that we don't really know where to draw the line on the timing of when the developing child becomes a person so let's protect the developing child's interest and rights and not allow abortions. You argue for protecting the mother's interests and rights. To believe that your opinion is absolutely right and others aren't is extremely myopic.

89's religious upbringing might have informed his opinions but they do not define them (as evidenced by his position on birth control and priest's marrying).

When an opinion is as extreme as his is trying to masquerade as logic, it's absolutely wrong. I'm not playing niceties with people if their bullshit opinions end up trampling actual logic and compassion.

89's opinion is frankly disgusting. And apathetic. And borderline sadistic.