Comments about ‘The living and real paradox of America's unborn’

"No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

------------------------

So frequently, and easily destroyed.

As we have so often and long demonstrated, from crucifixion in the Roman empire to mass slaughter in same nation that produced Goethe and Beethoven, it seems there is no depth below which we humans cannot sink.

But, in the case of abortion, the victim is someone who could not possibly be any more innocent or, normally, more the object of the typical killer's (parents, doctors, nurses, etc.) intentions to protect.

So, if there is a bottom to humanities depravity, I can think of nothing more apt than the deliberate, clinical act of killing an unborn child, followed by the equally deliberate and clinical act of defining that child as simply a clump of cells for the express purpose of saving one's self the unpleasant complications posed to a conscience trying to cope with an awful truth.

The debate over abortion rights is ugly, the gap between pro-choice and pro-life too vast for meaningful dialogue, the differences too fundamental for compromise. Which means, of course, that it's a perfect issue to be exploited by politicians on both sides of the aisle. This tempts all of us to tune out the abortion rights debate, but behind all this noise of religious and political maneuvering is the very real and very important issue of balancing personal rights of the already born person with those of a potential new life.

At this point in the United States, abortion is perfectly legal. But how did it get that way, and what is the legal rationale behind a woman's right to choose?

The Roe majority ruling of 1973 holds that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life, but that this does not become a "compelling" state interest--overriding the woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, and her subsequent right to terminate her pregnancy until the point of viability.

There is, however, one common point both sides share whether you agree or not....they both have a common concern for human life.

If pro-choice advocates have a concern for human life, what about the life of the unborn child? Youtube shows a video of a woman who survived abortion. She asks in that clip, where are her rightts, or maybe who will uphold them? Her birth, though traumatic, was miraculous since she survived it, so maybe she didn't need as much "right to life" as other aborted fetuses. But due to that attempt to take her life, she is disabled. Where is her, or who will pursue her right to be born untortured and whole? When will someone be tried for her attempted murder?
Or is this and all the other survivors of abortion, a subject to be swepted under the rug of a "woman's right to privacy"?

First, MOST women who have abortions are not doing it on a whim, or because they don't value life. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die.

That is concern for human_life!

"If pro-choice advocates have a concern for human life, what about the life of the unborn child? "

As someone who is pro-life I endorse mostly pro-choice policies. No really I do. The lowest abortion rates in the world are not nations where it is illegal, it's western Europe which is really pro-choice and frequently referred to as "godless". So what are they doing? They're reducing abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. Comprehensive sex education and a high availability of birth control. If you prevent pregnancies from happening then abortion isn't a question. Banning abortion doesn't eliminate it. Nations where it's banned... women just seek illegal means at greater risk to the mother. If it were banned in the US women who were wealthy would go to Canada to get one. Women less so would do more desperate things. Heck, it's legal and some women already do desperate things like the one who paid a guy to beat her up to try and induce a miscarriage. I imagine she was so concerned about something like say... the parental notification requirement, that she took desperate measures.

Lack of reverence for life is the root of the problem. Thinking that acts don't have consequences, or that those consequences can be mitigated through abortion is one of the most demonic lies ever told.

Abortion results in two deaths; the death of the unborn baby and the death of the spirit within the mother. No mother could order someone to kill her own baby and expect to still have the ability to love, to care, to nurture someone that she had before ordering that act.

At least two years ago, the count for abortions was greater than 50,000,000 deaths since Roe v Wade. With 40% of all pregnancies ending in abortion in New York City alone, that count is climbing faster than ever.

Is it just a 'count', a 'number', or is it the destruction of a life? The same people who wail for the convicted killers sentenced to death think nothing of having multiple abortions where they kill the most innocent.

For every abortion performed to save the life of a mother, there must be more than a million performed for convenience.

Human beings cannot kill their unborn babies without loosing all humanity.

@Joggle - where do you get your statistics? In all my searching I could find nothing to support your claim that "70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth"

I found: "Some health statisticians note the total number of maternal deaths still fewer than 600 each year is small." That is in the United States including all ages, not just teens.

In reality a well-documented records based study in Finland found that "Compared to women who carry to term, women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year."

Abortion causes other risk factors including (from UNICEF studies):

1. the existence of a significant association between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy in France.

2. Aborted women appear to require more and more sophisticated grief counseling than those who suffer other types of pregnancy loss.

3. Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy.

4. previous elective pregnancy terminations should be considered a risk factor for premature birth in subsequent pregnancies.

The world's lowest maternal death rate is in Ireland where abortion is a crime.

@MC

My statistics come from UNICEF as well. I assume when people debate abortion they are not just including the women in the U.S. except where noted. If a person is pro or con concerning abortion...I assume they mean ALL abortions around the world.

UNICEF also says "globally, about 10 million women have died since 1990 due to complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth (an average of 1,500 each day), while about 4 million newborns die each year within 28 days of their birth...a rate 14 times higher than those of industrialized countries". The Abortion Surveillance Branch of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) maintains that induced abortion is safer than childbirth and that the serious complication rate is less than one percent.

We can throw statistics around all we want, but the best solution as described above is comprehensive sex education and a high availability of birth control to reduce the need for abortion so that it is rare.

@Mike_Richards

Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant and are clueless. Your argument and condemnations reflect your lack of knowedge concerning the whole subject and can be disregarded as hyperbole.

Unsafe abortions are not a solution. Each puts 2 lives at risk.

I love how people the same people who they the United States is a primitive society are those same people who support abortion.

one thing I'd like to see addressed here is a definition of "abortion", since that term is not universally agreed upon. do you who oppose abortion define abortion as "any medication or procedure that terminates a pregnancy at any moment after conception"? in your opinion, is any pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb an abortion that should be outlawed? abortion is a classic case where the extreme views tend to drive the debate while beliefs of a majority of Americans probably follow a Bell curve, with most being somewhere in the middle. the extreme pro-lifers would outlaw any kind of pregnancy termination after the point of conception. the pro-choicers would allow any choice of abortion up to the point of a fetus being 100% removed from the womb. I don't support 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother. but other than religious reasons, what support can there be to outlaw 1st trimester abortions, especially those pills that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. why should your religious beliefs about a fertilized egg outweigh a woman's freedom of choice?

I agree that Mike Richards is clueless. So am I and probably everyone who is pro-life is clueless to wants of a healthy pregnant person. Another life now needs to be considered.
I agree that birth control should help reduce abortion.

atl134... excellent points. we have a war on drugs. we could outlaw abortions and create a war on abortions. abortions would still occur, they would just be unsafe, back-alley abortions. the real solution to abortions is to eliminate the need, not to make criminals out of those who find themselves in an unwanted situation.

I think what really causes the abortion problem in the first place is the lack of personal responsibility and self control. Sure, it would be best if there was enough self-control to just abstain until you're ready to get married and have a child. But the reality is that sexual drives will likely take us elsewhere. So personal responsibility SHOULD dictate that if you are having sex, you should be responsible enough to take birth control pills, or use condoms or some form of birth control. If we could just instill more personal responsibility in ourselves, the need for abortions would decrease dramatically.
I know...easy answer, but not easy solution to implement...

@Linda Rae

In a perfect world everybody wants a healthy pregnant woman with the outcome being a healthy, wanted, and well cared for baby with two parents that love it, but reality tells us that OFTEN women's situations aren't that way. The decision to have an abortion is rarely simple and most often the decision to abort considers both the life of the mother and the unborn.

Once a women has been forced to give birth, what would pro-life advocates do to ensure the woman/girl or system does the best job possible for the child given that there are so many unwanted children and so many situations where children are living horrible lives without love, food, water and shelter now around the world? How can one justify forcing more unwanted children into the world while this is happening to children that are currently alive? Shouldn't the focus be on saving children who are already here?

Be it birth control, abortion, keeping an unwanted child, or adoption....none of these are perfect solutions....however taking CHOICE away leaves only FORCED pregnancies or UNSAFE abortions! How would pro-life advocates like being forced to have an abortion?

gmak... agreed. here's to personal responsibility and self-control first and foremost. and to some degree of choice when those two do not prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

I have long found it interesting that abortion remains the singular medical procedure not routinely made available for viewing by the general public. From medical documentaries to medical reality shows to just entertainment, most every other medical procedure is regularly portrayed with fairly high accuracy. But not abortion.

I think society would be well served by being better informed. And a little more access to see what actually happens would help with that.

Most of us are uncomfortable with allowing government too much control over private decisions. But so too are most of us very uncomfortable with the notion of ending an innocent life without overwhelming, compelling need.

Abortion is not merely another medical procedure. And it is not merely a private decision as there is another life being affected, indeed terminated.

But all politics aside, we ought to at least be informed about what the procedure really entails both immediately as well as following patients longer term.

Considering... although I imagine the main motivation of showing a graphic abortion procedure would be to shock or guilt pregnant women out of choosing an abortion, I'd still support such a showing as I think fully informed decisions are better than uninformed decisions. I'd also support showing during that same show, another woman who gets a different, less graphic abortion. she has sex with her husband or boyfriend. they use a condom and the condom breaks. the next day (or next week) she goes to a clinic and gets a prescription, which quickly and safely terminates her pregnancy. that way, women can better understand the procedures involved and potential physical and emotional consequences of choosing an abortion at varying stages of a pregnancy. I don't believe a woman choosing to get a "morning after" pill should be required to watch a 3rd trimester abortion.

Mike, you make some interesting points, but some of what you say is a bit off, particularly the numbers. Abortion is fortunately on the decline, but just not fast enough.

You also say "Abortion results in two deaths; the death of the unborn baby and the death of the spirit within the mother. No mother could order someone to kill her own baby and expect to still have the ability to love, to care, to nurture someone that she had before ordering that act."

No mother.... common. What a scared 18-22 year old college girl does in a panic is hardly the same feelings the same person would have at 28 years old and married. It is true that leopards don't change their spots, but the age group hardly has all their spots yet.

If we could only just stop these girls from getting themselves in this situation. And if we could stop the young men from getting these girls in to these situations. And so it goes.....

How long will those who can't control their sexual urges take refuge in knowing that they can destroy the result of their sexual 'pleasure'?

How long will men be accessories to abortion as they tell those that they supposedly 'love' that the best course of action is to kill the result of their 'love making'?

How long will a woman believe that a man who will not commit to marriage has any interest in her well-being?

How long will it be before men who encourage women to abort their babies will be known as what they really are - accessories to abortion?

No matter how the pro-abortion crowd tries to cover their actions, they have taken away the life of an innocent baby, a baby who was selected to die.

They, the living, decided that the baby was not worthy of life, that the baby was too much of a bother, too much of an inconvenience to allow to live.

They who lived, and walked and talked and enjoyed intercourse, had the power over life and death for the product of their sexual pleasure.

They who had life decided to destroy the result of their intimacy.