I'll Not Yield

PostmodernProphet said:
we did in the US, prior to 1972.....
Click to expand...

Um, no.

A paper published in 1870 on the abortion services to be found in Syracuse, New York, concluded that the method most often practiced there during this time was to flush inside of the uterus with injected water. The article's author, Ely Van de Warkle, claimed this procedure was affordable even to a maid, as a man in town offered it for $10 on an installment plan.[58] Other prices which 19th-century abortion providers are reported to have charged were much more steep. In Great Britain, it could cost from 10 to 50 guineas, or 5% of the yearly income of a lower middle class household.[7]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
 
more from Howie's source....

Table 12.
IMMIGRANT ORPHANS ADOPTED BY U.S. CITIZENS BY GENDER, AGE, AND REGION AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH: FISCAL YEAR 2010

Gender Age
Region and country of birth Total Male Female Under 1 year 1 to 4 years 5 years and over
REGION
Total 11,100 4,864 6,236 2,312 5,874 2,914
Africa 3,156 1,605 1,551 937 1,345 874
Asia 5,409 1,984 3,425 1,246 3,267 896
Europe 1,721 895 826 53 1,007 661
North America 433 203 230 9 133 291
Oceania 28 14 14 17 6 5
South America 335 154 181 48 108 179
Unknown 18 9 9 2 8 8
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You DID just say that 20 weeks is the same as Soc's kids...you JUST said a life = a life.
Click to expand...

A life is equal to a life in terms of it needs to be protected. He was saying I meant they were equal in terms of developmental standards. Which I am not. Try reading the entire post I make, it will help to clear things up for you in the future.
 
tekkychick said:
I assume SF is one of those people who think all the leftover eggs from IVF will also somehow be implanted...

If a million children were up for adoption every year, we do not have enough couples to adopt them. And we don't have enough women for all the eggs in storage.

Unless, of course, you're into forcing other people to be pregnant.

Sad, SF, very sad.
Click to expand...

Show us where you got that information from. Because that is contrary to everything I have seen with regards to newborns and adoption.
 
blackascoal said:
Perhaps this might come as a surprise to you but women got them anyway, legal or not.
Click to expand...

stupid response given that my statement is in direct reply to this....
They are not and almost no society has EVER viewed them as such.
Click to expand...

not a reply to "did women ever kill their children before".....now are you going to sit there with a straight face and agree with Soc that no society ever viewed the unborn as the equivalent of a birthed child?......if so, go away until you rediscover your honesty......
 
Superfreak said:
A life is equal to a life in terms of it needs to be protected. He was saying I meant they were equal in terms of developmental standards. Which I am not. Try reading the entire post I make, it will help to clear things up for you in the future.
Click to expand...

Your pompous argument is damn-near childish. You don't give a rats ass about other life if it costs you a nickel.

Your argument is completely pro-unborn-life, not pro-life.

An argument for social safety-nets is a pro-life argument.

An argument for women's rights is a pro-life argument.

An argument for healthcare for all Americans is a pro-life argument .. and if memory serves, you're on the wrong side of those pro-life arguments .. yet you pompously declare yourself as someone who cares about children .. until they are born.

The good news .. no one has to care what you think about abortions. Those who want an abortion has access to that, and people in this country who actually care about the lives of the born are never going to let people like you end access to a women's right to choose.

This discussion is simply academic.

That's the bottom line brother. It ain't your decision to make.
 
blackascoal said:
Your pompous argument is damn-near childish. You don't give a rats ass about other life if it costs you a nickel.

Your argument is completely pro-unborn-life, not pro-life.

An argument for social safety-nets is a pro-life argument.

An argument for women's rights is a pro-life argument.

An argument for healthcare for all Americans is a pro-life argument .. and if memory serves, you're on the wrong side of those pro-life arguments .. yet you pompously declare yourself as someone who cares about children .. until they are born.

The good news .. no one has to care what you think about abortions. Those who want an abortion has access to that, and people in this country who actually care about the lives of the born are never going to let people like you end access to a women's right to choose.

This discussion is simply academic.

That's the bottom line brother. It ain't your decision to make.
Click to expand...

I find it easy to proclaim and have high ideals about what I would do when there is the possibility of it never happening to me ;)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
stupid response given that my statement is in direct reply to this....


not a reply to "did women ever kill their children before".....now are you going to sit there with a straight face and agree with Soc that no society ever viewed the unborn as the equivalent of a birthed child?......if so, go away until you rediscover your honesty......
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn what your reply was to.

Women are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not.

But then again, they're just women and of course you know better about their situation than they do.

Over a million abortions EVERY YEAR compared to 12 -18,000 adoptions.

To suggest that every child could be adopted is simply brainless and laughable.
 
blackascoal said:
I don't give a damn what your reply was to.

Women are going to get abortions whether they are legal or not.

But then again, they're just women and of course you know better about their situation than they do.

Over a million abortions EVERY YEAR compared to 12 -18,000 adoptions.

To suggest that every child could be adopted is simply brainless and laughable.
Click to expand...

except links suggesting you are wrong have been posted, whereas you simply continue repeating the same unsubstantiated BS.

Why are adoptions down in the US BAC? The numbers you are posting are domestic... what changed to lower domestic adoptions from the 40-50k of the early 70's?
 
Rana said:
I find it easy to proclaim and have high ideals about what I would do when there is the possibility of it never happening to me ;)
Click to expand...

I find it easy to proclaim it because I value life. What is odd is how easy it is for you to proclaim that life is not worth saving. What is odd is your ability to dehumanize the unborn child so that you can use convenience as an excuse to kill it.

You are an intelligent woman, yet you cannot fathom personal responsibility. You know what causes pregnancy. You know how you can prevent it. If you choose not to do so, that should not entitle you to end a human life because you would be inconvenienced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top