Guest Mike Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2kt2t$76h$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> Even if I posted the survey >>> results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the >>> survey has no credibility. >> If it's a valid survey, it will have credibility. How about providing a >> cite to a VALID survey? > > Update: I found this study in a medical journal: No, you didn't. You found some news website's interpretation of that study (and probably written by someone with very little training in medicine.) > For Release 1/18/02 > > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > unintended first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides > with anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973 > Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Update: An article (reviewed by someone who actually has a medical degree) about a different study of the same data and published in the same medical journal 3-1/2 years later. Now what do these tell you? If you have any sense, they tell you that the jury is still out on the issue and also that even if there is a definite link between abortion and depression, there's no cause-and-effect proved (do those who have abortions tend to have depression caused BY the abortion or is their tendency to have an abortion triggered by some pre-existing mental problems that also causes depression and would they tend to have depression even if they did NOT have an abortion?) Also I have added some notes that appear in [] below. Abortion and Depression: Is There a Link? Researchers Challenge View That Abortion Increases Risk of Depression By Salynn Boyles WebMD Medical News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD Oct. 31, 2005 -- New research challenges the idea that having an abortion raises a woman's long-term risk of depression. Abortion opponents have long argued that women often suffer depression and other mental health problems as a result of having abortions; those on the other side of the debate say there is little clinical evidence to back up the claim. Much of the research has involved data from an ongoing study of women who were between the ages of 14 and 21 at recruitment in 1979. The findings have differed depending on who was doing the investigating. Back and Forth Debate In a 1992 study, Arizona State University researcher Nancy Felipe Russo, PhD, analyzed the study population and concluded that most women suffer no long-term mental health repercussions when they abort an unintended first pregnancy. A decade later, David C. Reardon, PhD, looked at the data in a different way and concluded that abortion is linked to later depression. Reardon found that an average of eight years after having an abortion, married women were 138% more likely to be at risk for depression than married women who chose to carry unintended first pregnancies to term. The association was not seen among unmarried women. At the time, Reardon told WebMD that his research was intended to challenge Russo's earlier findings. Reardon is director of The Elliot Institute, a research group with what he acknowledges to be an anti-abortion agenda. [Note: the person doing the study that you cited had a definite anti-abortion bias even BEFORE doing the study.] In the new study, published in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal, Russo and colleague Sarah Schmiege challenge Reardon's challenge of her original research. Russo tells WebMD that Reardon's work was flawed because it misidentified women who had unwanted pregnancies and excluded teens. [Note: great way to get the results you want. Simply eliminate particular groups from your data.] "Younger women tend to have the least support and the fewest financial resources," she says. "All of these things combine to make the consequences of having a child early in life much greater than having a child later on." The New Analysis A total of 1,247 women in the ongoing study who aborted or delivered an unwanted first pregnancy between 1970 and 1992 were included in the latest analysis. The women were interviewed over several years. Russo and colleagues found that, for the most part, women who aborted a first pregnancy had the same risk for later depression as women who chose to give birth. The one exception was women who gave birth prior to 1980, when they were still teenagers. These women were found to have a significantly higher risk of depression than women who had abortions and women who gave birth in their 20s. [Note: when you add in this eliminated group, you find the women who gave birth had a HIGHER rate of depression.] The researchers conclude that, "under the present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy." According to the figures from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the CDC, half of all abortions in the U.S. each year are performed on women under the age of 25, and one in five involves teenagers. Reardon acknowledges that his research says nothing about the impact of abortion or giving birth on teens. But he contends that the evidence linking abortion with later depression and other adverse events in older women is strong. "Nothing in the new analysis refutes our original contention that women who have abortions after adolescence are at greater risk of depression," he says. Roe v. Wade Revisited? But Stanley Henshaw, PhD, of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, says none of the research is conclusive because teasing out the impact of abortion on later mental health is almost impossible. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis, and public education. Its mission statement says the organization has the aim of protecting "the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Henshaw says Reardon and colleagues are intent on showing that abortion is linked to adverse psychological outcomes in large part to provide a legal foot in the door for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. "They are trying to make the argument that when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade they didn't know all of the harms that abortion would cause women," he tells WebMD. "They have published a dozen studies purporting to show that abortion is associated with negative mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and suicide. But if you read the fine print, all of them say that the link hasn't been proven." SOURCES: Schmiege, S. and Russo, N. British Medical Journal, Oct. 28, 2005 online edition. Nancy Felipe Russo, PhD, regent's professor, Arizona State University. WebMD Medical News: "Abortion Linked to Depression." Stanley Henshaw, PhD, senior fellow, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York City. David C. Reardon, PhD, director, Elliot Institute. Alan Guttmacher Institute, CDC. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:42:24 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > No, because 1) late term abortions are no longer a simple procedure > and the woman herself is at significant risk Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of _abortion_, but, rather, with the moral issues of _any_ procedure involving risk; hence, in the scope of the discussion at hand, the point would seem to be irrelevant. > and 2) within a couple of > months you would have a viable, if premature, baby Well, hell, add a few months more, the same can be said of the egg that got fertilized tonight. I'm sure you had a point there somewhere but it isn't clear what it was. >> > giving women access to early term abortions would reduce the need for >> > late term abortions. >> >> Reduce? Fine, so what? > > So giving women access to abortions helps everybody in the long run. Are > you arguing against this now? Nope, I think giving them access to early term abortions is great, but it has no bearing on the question of late term abortions, and so far you haven't had much bearing on the matter either. Could you, perhaps, make your argument? -- Ok, you win. You proved that your god it the best there ever was at hid n' seek. Now, trot him out here so that we can give him his reward. - Dan Ceppa Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > unintended first pregnancy to term. [snip a lot of irrelevant crap about married/unmarried] > Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are > all associated with greater post-abortion depression Shame, secrecy and thought-suppression? Well, sure, in a society where the fundamentalist fascist jackasses are constantly inundating us with their "abortion is murder" bullshit. In a society where it's simply a medical procedure, no such items should attach. Aha. The depression isn't because of the abortion, but because of the "pro-life" liars and frauds. Just goes to support my contention that they are an actual danger to society. However, we'll continue examining this... Hmm... I haven't read the study itself, nor their analysis of it. However, I note a few things missing in what was reported here. For example, I don't see any mention of the emotional impact of giving up a child for adoption, nor of caring for and supporting an unwanted child for the duration of its childhood. I also don't see the reports of the emotional effects on the child of discovering it was unwanted and living in an environment where its very existence is at best begrudgingly tolerated. What you presented here focused solely on a singular act and its consequences, yet seems to have totally ignored the consequences of not performing the act. This, obviously, is going to lead to wildly biased findings. Of course the report also overlooks another issue. It examines the effects of abortion, but it doesn't seem to even mention the effects of being forced to carry an unwanted fetus - of being told "Shut up, woman, you have no rights, just do what you're told". Seriously, if you're going to bring up the emotional impacts of abortion as somehow relevant, you also have to show the effects of not aborting - and that means for all involved, for the long haul. -- If only earthquakes would hit every major city at the same time, the world would be a nice place for a couple days - Shawn Swanner Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote: > Jason wrote: > >> My sister told me that my >> parents did not want to have any more children when she became pregnant >> with me. > > ?????????????? Yeah, that would explain a lot about Jason. But upon reading the rest of that paragraph, I think he meant "My sister told me that my parents did not want to have any more children when MY MOM became pregnant with me." Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause - the religious nutjobs. > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS > that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just fine to promote those very conditions. > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > abortion experiences. Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were examined and reported on? > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to > term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part > of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in love with the little squirts. I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. > That's the > reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and > if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first > trimester. Hey, they want to have it first trimester, great - but you haven't given a single reason not to allow second or third trimester abortion. > not discuss this issue. Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related > to this issue? Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. -- Any lie is better than none. - Raoul Newton (fundi) Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <csb3i4-eh7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > > I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. > > > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > > unintended first pregnancy to term. > > [snip a lot of irrelevant crap about married/unmarried] > > > Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are > > all associated with greater post-abortion depression > > Shame, secrecy and thought-suppression? Well, sure, in a society where > the fundamentalist fascist jackasses are constantly inundating us with > their "abortion is murder" bullshit. In a society where it's simply a > medical procedure, no such items should attach. > > Aha. The depression isn't because of the abortion, but because of the > "pro-life" liars and frauds. Just goes to support my contention that they > are an actual danger to society. However, we'll continue examining this... That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. After an abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. The end result is a feeling of GUILT and that (in my opinion) is the major reason that many women that have had abortions suffer from severe depression. This research study indicates that women that have had abortions suffer more depression than women that carried their babies to term. > Hmm... > > I haven't read the study itself, nor their analysis of it. However, I > note a few things missing in what was reported here. For example, I don't > see any mention of the emotional impact of giving up a child for adoption, > nor of caring for and supporting an unwanted child for the duration of its > childhood. I also don't see the reports of the emotional effects on the > child of discovering it was unwanted and living in an environment where > its very existence is at best begrudgingly tolerated. That's true--they only focused on abortion as a cause for depression in this study. It's my guess that those women would also have depression. > > What you presented here focused solely on a singular act and its > consequences, yet seems to have totally ignored the consequences of not > performing the act. This, obviously, is going to lead to wildly biased > findings. > > Of course the report also overlooks another issue. It examines the > effects of abortion, but it doesn't seem to even mention the effects of > being forced to carry an unwanted fetus - of being told "Shut up, woman, > you have no rights, just do what you're told". > > Seriously, if you're going to bring up the emotional impacts of abortion > as somehow relevant, you also have to show the effects of not aborting - > and that means for all involved, for the long haul. Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their abortion experiences. Those people pointed out that I should also visit a Planned Parenthood office and talk to women that were pleased that they don't have to deal with the problems of raising an unwanted baby. I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. That's the reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first trimester. The person that wrote this article (unless I missed it) did not discuss this issue. Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related to this issue? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <f2n19h$fe6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > >> My sister told me that my > >> parents did not want to have any more children when she became pregnant > >> with me. > > > > ?????????????? > > Yeah, that would explain a lot about Jason. > > But upon reading the rest of that paragraph, I think he meant "My sister > told me that my parents did not want to have any more children when MY > MOM became pregnant with me." Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article that listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. If they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably would have been aborted. It was difficult being an unwanted child. It's also difficult for those people that were adopted. The alternative was much worse. I had not thought of it until I saw your post but perhaps that is one of the reasons that I am an advocate for the Pro-Life cause. I want to save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a LIFE--Not a CHOICE. Jason Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article that > listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. If > they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably would > have been aborted. Yeah? So what? If abortion had been legal back in 1960, I would have been aborted. So? It was difficult being an unwanted child. It's also > difficult for those people that were adopted. Gee, really? Do tell. I could just imagine what you'd have to say about that. BTW, I'm an adoptee. The alternative was much > worse. How so? I mean, it's not like you'd be aware that you'd been aborted. I had not thought of it until I saw your post but perhaps that is > one of the reasons that I am an advocate for the Pro-Life cause. I want to > save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: > Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a > LIFE--Not a CHOICE. But it IS a choice. Deal. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <1179554130.308224.90900@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 19, 1:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179462808.818943.73...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 18, 9:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions > > > > > > > are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one? > > > > > > > > If you have ever studied the history of Indians and various isolated > > > > > > groups of people in Africa, you would know that they believed in a > > God or > > > > > > Gods. The reason is because they knew (without ever being told) > > that when > > > > > > they died --that is was the beginning of a new life in heaven. That led > > > > > > them to believe that God or Gods were watching over them. My > > parents were > > > > > > Christians and most all of my friends were Christians. I was > > raised in the > > > > > > mountains of Virginia which is part of the Bible Belt. Just like the > > > > > > Indians and Africans that lived in the 1600's, I feel the same way they > > > > > > felt--That God is watching over me and that I will have a better life in > > > > > > heaven. Back to your question: No--it has never occurred to me that none > > > > > > of the religions are true. I picked the best one that I could find and I > > > > > > do not regret my decision. > > > > > > > Let me rephrase my question. Did it ever occur to you that atheists > > > > > might be more enlightened than those who believe on the superstitions > > > > > passed down from centuries ago? > > > > > > No, I know that is what most atheists believe but I believe they are > > > > wrong. There are lots of Christian college professors; Christian medical > > > > doctors and Christians involved in many other professions. They are just > > > > as enlightened as any of the atheists involved in any of those > > > > professions. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence > > > > > "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine > > > in > > > 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and > > > intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found > > > that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that > > > "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is > > > likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey > > > published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or > > > afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National > > > Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as > > > compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" > > > > > <a lot of stuff snipped> > > > > > What you don't seem to understand, Jason, is that the idea of late > > > term abortion sickens me (and in fact most people) on many levels but > > > the question is what does one do about it? Outlaw all abortions or > > > encourage women to have abortions earlier so that it becomes a > > > painless procedure for EVERYONE involved? Need I remind you again > > > that I was adopted and that I could have been aborted myself? > > > It would be very easy for the professors at a Christian college to conduct > > a survey that indicated that Christians were more intelligent than > > atheists. > > Of course, Jason, because unlike scientists, Christians have no qualms > whatsoever about lying. > > Martin Martin, Have you had time to figure out how much money that Planned Parenthood earned from abortion (national figures)? Most people that conduct research reports--even if they are printed in a peer reviewed publication--have some sort of bias. For example, if they had the opinion that atheists were more intelligent than Christians--guess what--the conclusion of their research study will show that atheists are more intelligent than Christians. It would be easy for you to figure it out if you read a research study that was done by CHRISTIAN professors that indicated that Christians were more intelligent than atheists. However, you would have a hard time figuring it out if you read an article in a journal indicated that Atheists were smarter than Christians. The reason is because of your own bias. I challenge you to keep this in mind when you read articles in science journals related to issues related to Evolution. As you read the articles, note the word evolution and variations of that word. In many of the articles, the person that wrote the article will try to match up the data to evolution theory. The reason is because of their bias in favor of evolution. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <5b8uc7F2s00lcU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article that > > listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. If > > they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably would > > have been aborted. > > Yeah? So what? If abortion had been legal back in 1960, I would have been > aborted. So? > > It was difficult being an unwanted child. It's also > > difficult for those people that were adopted. > > Gee, really? Do tell. I could just imagine what you'd have to say about > that. BTW, I'm an adoptee. > > The alternative was much > > worse. > > How so? I mean, it's not like you'd be aware that you'd been aborted. > > I had not thought of it until I saw your post but perhaps that is > > one of the reasons that I am an advocate for the Pro-Life cause. I want to > > save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: > > Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a > > LIFE--Not a CHOICE. > > But it IS a choice. Deal. That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. One of the reasons we started that war was to keep Hitler from killing even more Jews. Over six million babies have been killed. The people involved in the Pro-Life movement are much like the people that wanted to stop the killing of Jews. We want to stop abortion before six million more babies are murdered. Back in the days of Hitler, there were lots of people in America that wanted us to stay out of that war--those people didn't care about the Jews that were being killed. Those people remind me of the members of Pro-Choice organizations; employees of Planned Parenthood and abortion doctors. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <9iq3i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > > What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole > purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like > crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause > - the religious nutjobs. > > > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. > > So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are required to get counseling after they have killed someone. Many members of the military that have killed lots of people suffer severe depression problem. When a woman conspires with a doctor to have her fetus killed--it's my opinion that many of those women develop guilt feelings and the end result is severe depression. You may not think that a fetus is an unborn baby but it's true. Ask any pregnant woman whether or not she is carrying a baby in her womb and she will tell you that is carrying a baby. I know that doctors that work in abortion clinics use terms like "POC" (product of conception) instead of "fetus" or "unborn baby". They do this so as to avoid believing that they are actully killing unborn babies. It's easier for them to think: "I'm aborting a POC" than to think: "I'm murdering an unborn baby". Anyone that has taken Psychology 101 knows about "depersonalization"--that's the way that abortion doctors are able to kill unborn babies and still sleep at night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. > > > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS > > that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. > > To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric > which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes > riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just > fine to promote those very conditions. A fetus is an unborn baby. There are no major differences between a baby that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a mother's womb that is also 7 months old. > > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > > abortion experiences. > > Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were > examined and reported on? > > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to > > term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part > > of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. > > Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going > to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that > point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in > love with the little squirts. Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. They even send out birth announcements that include pictures of their babies. > I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, > again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is > surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. > > > That's the > > reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and > > if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first > > trimester. > > Hey, they want to have it first trimester, great - but you haven't given a > single reason not to allow second or third trimester abortion. They are legal in America. Since second and third term abortions are legal, I would not force any woman to not have an abortion. I comply with the law. I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be done in the first trimester. > > > Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related > > to this issue? > > Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously not. > Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be surrounded with > needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary depression in women who > have one? Again, obviously not. Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. The primary reason is because they have been taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. Abortion doctors and members of the Pro Choice organizations can call it a fetus or a POC (product of conception). However, most women that are pregnant know that it's an unborn baby. Would you prefer that parents NOT teach their children to view murder and killing as taboo? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:01:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <22fs43d6i1i28ci0j1os4qli1v45qv7m9l@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:49:35 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now showing >> >Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came home from >> >school and was crying. She said that the planet would be destroyed by the >> >time she was an adult and was worried that she would not be able to have a >> >normal life. >> >> That's been a possibility since the mid 40s - over 60 years now. >> >> > This real world is a crazy world. We were worried about >> >Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. >> >> Now we have to worry about the American government destroying America. > >We have much more to fear from Muslims. Since very few Muslims have the means to destroy, or even greatly inconvenience, America, and the administration has the power to totally destroy the country (and has done a great job of destroying it over the past 6 years), we have FAR MORE to dear from our own leaders than from any foreigners. >Since the border with Mexico is open It's not, but whose fault is it that it's as tight as a sieve? And who wants to allow it to become even more open? After all, if the Republicans let more Mexicans in, we'll have more people voting Republican out of gratitude. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:05:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <hves43l5bfdcl5pof28kdvsl8f9gb5dedp@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:07:33 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >Things have sure changed. When I was in college, we had to take notes in >> >class and read the chapters. The tests only had one correct answer for >> >each question. >> >> Test like that are designed with students who can't learn much in >> mind. For instance, what was the cause of WWII? Simplistic answer - >> Hitler. Wrong, but simple. > >I seen some of those college students on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show". They >could not answer even simple questions that almost all of college students >from prior generations could answer. Most Americans aren't that well-educated - from any generation. How many, for example, know that Australia's broken into states, just like the US? Let alone being able to identify a few of them on an unmarked map. Or even locate the largest cities on another continent. High school graduates can't put simple sentences together - they confuse cases and numbers, and have no idea what "parse a sentence" means. And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if Usenet and the web are any example, the subject isn't taught any longer. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On May 19, 9:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:42:24 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote: > > No, because 1) late term abortions are no longer a simple procedure > > and the woman herself is at significant risk > > Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of _abortion_, but, > rather, with the moral issues of _any_ procedure involving risk; hence, in > the scope of the discussion at hand, the point would seem to be irrelevant. The higher risk of performing an abortion at a later date is irrelevent??? > > and 2) within a couple of > > months you would have a viable, if premature, baby > > Well, hell, add a few months more, the same can be said of the egg that got > fertilized tonight. I'm sure you had a point there somewhere but it isn't > clear what it was. Perhaps you should try thinking. It makes things clearer. > >> > giving women access to early term abortions would reduce the need for > >> > late term abortions. > > >> Reduce? Fine, so what? > > > So giving women access to abortions helps everybody in the long run. Are > > you arguing against this now? > > Nope, I think giving them access to early term abortions is great, but it > has no bearing on the question of late term abortions, and so far you > haven't had much bearing on the matter either. > > Could you, perhaps, make your argument? Could you perhaps get a clue? If 100% of women who faced an unwanted pregnancy got an abortion within the first trimester then late term abortions would only be performed in emergency circumstances and the whole question of their morality would be irrelevent. Now tell me the truth: are you really this dense or are you just trying to piss me off? Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Jason wrote: >> So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty >> much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > > Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are > required to get counseling after they have killed someone. I think you missed the gist of the point I was making; it was, I'll admit, a tad subtle. Here, you use the phrase "killing someone". Above, you simply used the term "killing". See the difference? One is about killing _people_; the other is a more generalized term, which applies also to, say, killing bacteria, fungus, viruses and the like, all things we very much need to do in order to survive. The point is that, like so much "pro-life" and pro-religion rhetoric, the terminology is sloppy. In many cases this is intentional, such as that of a certain boneheaded woman I've been discussing abortion with who persists in using "murder" where no such thing occurs. She does this intentionally, so as to gain emotional appeal for an argument she knows she cannot support any other way. You yourself have fallen into the trap of using sloppy terminology, such as "baby" where it is correct to use "fetus", and above you use "killing" when it should be restricted to "killing people" or perhaps somewhat extended, if you like pets and animals and rare trees, etc, to "killing valued life" or some such. I'm happy to agree that killing _people_ (or "valued life") can be cause for depression; somewhat less inclined to agree that killing, period, is cause for distress: if it's me or the bacteria, trust me, I'm not going to lose any sleep over wiping them out by the millions. > night or suffer from severe depression. That's why most doctors refuse > to do abortions because they never want to depersonalize > anyone--including unborn babies. No such thing. A baby, by definition, is born. Well, delivered - by birth, C-section or, in a couple of odd plays and the like, by simply gutting the woman and having the results pour forth. > A fetus is an unborn baby. No, a fetus is a fetus. After birth, it is a baby. You see, a baby is a person, with the rights of a person; a fetus isn't. Your use of "unborn baby" thus confuses the issue; an unfertilized egg is also - by your usage - an unborn baby; do we grant it the full rights of a person? Obviously not. So you must mean this the other way around, that a baby does not have the rights of a person. Nope, neither of those positions make much sense, so something has to give. In this case, the obvious solution is to use correct terminology: fetus while inside the womb, baby after delivery. > There are no major differences between a baby > that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a > mother's womb that is also 7 months old. Yes, there is; the one delivered after 7 months has a chance to live; the other is dead. It would suffocate. Of course, a fetus at 7 months has no such risk, as it has oxygen supplied by the host. > Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. Of course. They, however, are not the ones under consideration here. If they want kids, they're not going to be lining up to have abortions, now are they? The subject here is abortions, so women who, pretty much by definition aren't going to have abortions really have no relevance to the discussion. > I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be > done in the first trimester. Yes, but no reasons why they should not be done later; that is, no reason to try to ban second and third trimester abortions. >> Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously >> not. Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be >> surrounded with needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary >> depression in women who have one? Again, obviously not. > Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when > they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. "Conspired". You just cannot help yourself, can you? Any woman who dares retain control of her own body is evil and must be shunned. They are supposed to be slaves to whatever views you have on reproduction; anything else makes them evil. And you wonder why there might be an environment of shame involved, where none should be. -- Saul was a liar, he said so. (Romans 3:7.) - Simon Ewins Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On May 20, 2:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <csb3i4-eh7....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > > > I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. > > > > Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal > > > reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of > > > subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an > > > unintended first pregnancy to term. > > > [snip a lot of irrelevant crap about married/unmarried] > > > > Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are > > > all associated with greater post-abortion depression > > > Shame, secrecy and thought-suppression? Well, sure, in a society where > > the fundamentalist fascist jackasses are constantly inundating us with > > their "abortion is murder" bullshit. In a society where it's simply a > > medical procedure, no such items should attach. > > > Aha. The depression isn't because of the abortion, but because of the > > "pro-life" liars and frauds. Just goes to support my contention that they > > are an actual danger to society. However, we'll continue examining this... > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. After an > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS that > she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. Speculation. The article does not go in detail as to WHY women felt ashamed or even if shame was the reason for the depression in the first place. > The end result is > a feeling of GUILT and that (in my opinion) is the major reason that many > women that have had abortions suffer from severe depression. This research > study indicates that women that have had abortions suffer more depression > than women that carried their babies to term. The big question is how they choose women for the study and if the women knew in advance what sort of study was to be done. > > Hmm... > > > I haven't read the study itself, nor their analysis of it. However, I > > note a few things missing in what was reported here. For example, I don't > > see any mention of the emotional impact of giving up a child for adoption, > > nor of caring for and supporting an unwanted child for the duration of its > > childhood. I also don't see the reports of the emotional effects on the > > child of discovering it was unwanted and living in an environment where > > its very existence is at best begrudgingly tolerated. > > That's true--they only focused on abortion as a cause for depression in > this study. It's my guess that those women would also have depression. The article failed to establish cause and effect. They claimed that "significantly" more women who had abortions were depressed than women who had carried unwanted babies to term but they failed to establish what, if any, were the reasons for this depression. They may, for example, regret the opportunity they missed in not having a baby when they could have without actually believing that what they did was morally wrong. > > What you presented here focused solely on a singular act and its > > consequences, yet seems to have totally ignored the consequences of not > > performing the act. This, obviously, is going to lead to wildly biased > > findings. > > > Of course the report also overlooks another issue. It examines the > > effects of abortion, but it doesn't seem to even mention the effects of > > being forced to carry an unwanted fetus - of being told "Shut up, woman, > > you have no rights, just do what you're told". > > > Seriously, if you're going to bring up the emotional impacts of abortion > > as somehow relevant, you also have to show the effects of not aborting - > > and that means for all involved, for the long haul. > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > abortion experiences. Those people pointed out that I should also visit a > Planned Parenthood office and talk to women that were pleased that they > don't have to deal with the problems of raising an unwanted baby. > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to term. > They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part of the > second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. That's the reason > that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and if that > was not done--the abortion should occur during the first trimester. The > person that wrote this article (unless I missed it) did not discuss this > issue. Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related to this issue? Women who literally use the morning after pill the morning after having sex would not even have known they were pregnant. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On May 20, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179554130.308224.90...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 19, 1:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179462808.818943.73...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 18, 9:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's > religions > > > > > > > > are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one? > > > > > > > > If you have ever studied the history of Indians and various isolated > > > > > > > groups of people in Africa, you would know that they believed in a > > > God or > > > > > > > Gods. The reason is because they knew (without ever being told) > > > that when > > > > > > > they died --that is was the beginning of a new life in heaven. > That led > > > > > > > them to believe that God or Gods were watching over them. My > > > parents were > > > > > > > Christians and most all of my friends were Christians. I was > > > raised in the > > > > > > > mountains of Virginia which is part of the Bible Belt. Just like the > > > > > > > Indians and Africans that lived in the 1600's, I feel the same > way they > > > > > > > felt--That God is watching over me and that I will have a > better life in > > > > > > > heaven. Back to your question: No--it has never occurred to me > that none > > > > > > > of the religions are true. I picked the best one that I could > find and I > > > > > > > do not regret my decision. > > > > > > > Let me rephrase my question. Did it ever occur to you that atheists > > > > > > might be more enlightened than those who believe on the superstitions > > > > > > passed down from centuries ago? > > > > > > No, I know that is what most atheists believe but I believe they are > > > > > wrong. There are lots of Christian college professors; Christian medical > > > > > doctors and Christians involved in many other professions. They are just > > > > > as enlightened as any of the atheists involved in any of those > > > > > professions. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence > > > > > "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine > > > > in > > > > 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and > > > > intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found > > > > that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that > > > > "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is > > > > likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey > > > > published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or > > > > afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National > > > > Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as > > > > compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" > > > > > <a lot of stuff snipped> > > > > > What you don't seem to understand, Jason, is that the idea of late > > > > term abortion sickens me (and in fact most people) on many levels but > > > > the question is what does one do about it? Outlaw all abortions or > > > > encourage women to have abortions earlier so that it becomes a > > > > painless procedure for EVERYONE involved? Need I remind you again > > > > that I was adopted and that I could have been aborted myself? > > > > It would be very easy for the professors at a Christian college to conduct > > > a survey that indicated that Christians were more intelligent than > > > atheists. > > > Of course, Jason, because unlike scientists, Christians have no qualms > > whatsoever about lying. > > Have you had time to figure out how much money that Planned Parenthood > earned from abortion (national figures)? I already posted about that. If Planned Parenthood (nationally) makes about ten million dollars from abortions every year then there's no way that even after thirty years they would make "over one billion dollars" especially when they have to pay the doctors involved. Your preacher was lying. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 On May 20, 2:08 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > > What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole > purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like > crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause > - the religious nutjobs. > > > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. > > So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. I hope you are refering to chickens, cows and pigs and specifically for food. > > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS > > that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. > > To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric > which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes > riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just > fine to promote those very conditions. > > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > > abortion experiences. > > Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were > examined and reported on? > > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to > > term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part > > of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. > > Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going > to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that > point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in > love with the little squirts. > > I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, > again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is > surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. "Fetus" is a medical term. I've never heard a married couple proudly announce "We're having a fetus!" Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 In article <v8pu43pldl7qbf28jjnj4bneasgqcpugqt@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:01:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <22fs43d6i1i28ci0j1os4qli1v45qv7m9l@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:49:35 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now showing > >> >Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came home from > >> >school and was crying. She said that the planet would be destroyed by the > >> >time she was an adult and was worried that she would not be able to have a > >> >normal life. > >> > >> That's been a possibility since the mid 40s - over 60 years now. > >> > >> > This real world is a crazy world. We were worried about > >> >Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. > >> > >> Now we have to worry about the American government destroying America. > > > >We have much more to fear from Muslims. > > Since very few Muslims have the means to destroy, or even greatly > inconvenience, America, and the administration has the power to > totally destroy the country (and has done a great job of destroying it > over the past 6 years), we have FAR MORE to dear from our own leaders > than from any foreigners. For the last several years, Iran has been trying to figure out how to build nuclear bombs. Once they figure it out and start producing several bombs per year, what do you think they plan to do with those nuclear bombs and nuclear materials? You are living in a dream world if you think their major objective is not to destroy Israel (the little Satan) and evetually America (the big Satan). The president of Iran has even stated that is his goal. The Iranian president actually stated, "Israel must me wipped of from the map of the world." Source: "Jerusalem Countdown--A Warning to the World" by John Hagee > > >Since the border with Mexico is open > > It's not, but whose fault is it that it's as tight as a sieve? And > who wants to allow it to become even more open? After all, if the > Republicans let more Mexicans in, we'll have more people voting > Republican out of gratitude. Both the Repulicans and the Democrats are to blame for the open border we have with Mexico. The Democrats want their votes and the rich Republicans that own factories want the cheap labor. The Republicans in both houses of Congress know that those rich Repubicans will stop sending them campaign contributions if they close the border. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 In article <nfpu435h2vamcof73bp15il6jjo6q0g1no@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:05:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <hves43l5bfdcl5pof28kdvsl8f9gb5dedp@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:07:33 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >Things have sure changed. When I was in college, we had to take notes in > >> >class and read the chapters. The tests only had one correct answer for > >> >each question. > >> > >> Test like that are designed with students who can't learn much in > >> mind. For instance, what was the cause of WWII? Simplistic answer - > >> Hitler. Wrong, but simple. > > > >I seen some of those college students on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show". They > >could not answer even simple questions that almost all of college students > >from prior generations could answer. > > Most Americans aren't that well-educated - from any generation. How > many, for example, know that Australia's broken into states, just like > the US? Let alone being able to identify a few of them on an unmarked > map. Or even locate the largest cities on another continent. > > High school graduates can't put simple sentences together - they > confuse cases and numbers, and have no idea what "parse a sentence" > means. And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if > Usenet and the web are any example, the subject isn't taught any > longer. That is true. I heard about a MacDonald's Restaurant that had a power failure in the middle of the day. None of the employees were able to figure out how to make change. The manager was the only one that could do it and he needed a battery powered calculator. I doubt that people that graduated from high school in the year 1940 to 1980 would have had any problems giving change. Many colleges have to teach non-credit remedial classes in math and english to get the students ready for the regular math 101 and english 101 classes. Many rich people have given up on public schools and send their children to expensive college prep private schools. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On May 20, 4:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5b8uc7F2s00l...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > > I want to > > > save the lives of unwanted babies. I liked the bumper sticker that says: > > > Adoption--Not Abortion. I also like the other one that says: It's a > > > LIFE--Not a CHOICE. > > > But it IS a choice. Deal. > > That's your way of looking at it. Other people (including myself) look at > these issues a different way. Hitler killed six million Jews. One of the > reasons we started that war was to keep Hitler from killing even more > Jews. Over six million babies have been killed. The people involved in the > Pro-Life movement are much like the people that wanted to stop the killing > of Jews. Actually, no. It is the people who are pro-life who are like Hitler: in your ideal world, women would have had the same rights as Jews in Nazi Germany and the only reason they are being kept alive is for breeding purposes. > We want to stop abortion before six million more babies are > murdered. Back in the days of Hitler, there were lots of people in America > that wanted us to stay out of that war--those people didn't care about the > Jews that were being killed. Those people remind me of the members of > Pro-Choice organizations; employees of Planned Parenthood and abortion > doctors. You have a funny way of showing how you "care" about people: forcing them to undergo nine months of pregnancy when they might not have wanted to get pregnant in the first place. Get a clue: 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester. If women had easy access to abortions then MORE abortions would take place in the first trimester and FEWER late term abortions would take place. You claimed that "over six million babies have been killed" but the truth is that the vast majority of them were not alive in any sense of the term. As long as you are thinking of the mother as an object and not as a human being, you can think of the mother as a walking life support system, except the "baby" doesn't even have a brain yet. How can it be "murder" to cut off life support when the "baby" clearly isn't alive at this point? Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: - Refer: <nfpu435h2vamcof73bp15il6jjo6q0g1no@4ax.com> >On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:05:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>In article <hves43l5bfdcl5pof28kdvsl8f9gb5dedp@4ax.com>, Al Klein >><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:07:33 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>> >Things have sure changed. When I was in college, we had to take notes in >>> >class and read the chapters. The tests only had one correct answer for >>> >each question. >>> >>> Test like that are designed with students who can't learn much in >>> mind. For instance, what was the cause of WWII? Simplistic answer - >>> Hitler. Wrong, but simple. >> >>I seen some of those college students on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show". They >>could not answer even simple questions that almost all of college students >>from prior generations could answer. > >Most Americans aren't that well-educated - from any generation. How >many, for example, know that Australia's broken into states, just like >the US? Let alone being able to identify a few of them on an unmarked >map. Or even locate the largest cities on another continent. > >High school graduates can't put simple sentences together - they >confuse cases and numbers, and have no idea what "parse a sentence" >means. And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? >Usenet and the web are any example, the subject isn't taught any >longer. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:08:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <csb3i4-eh7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion > >I'd probably be depressed if I was unintentionally pregnant, too. Aren't you male? Depression would be the last thing on your mind! -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On May 20, 4:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <9iq3i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > That's your judgement call. Yes, I will conceed that shame, secrecy, > > > thought-suppression and being inudated with what you refer to as "abortion > > > is murder bullshit" contributes to the severe depression. However, you > > > seem to be missing the most important CAUSE of the severe depression. > > > What, you mean the religious nutjobs telling women that a) their sole > > purpose in life is to be breeding machines, and b) making them feel like > > crap for daring to control their own bodies? No, I pointed out the cause > > - the religious nutjobs. > > > > Women are taught from birth that killing and murder are taboo. > > > So are most people. However, murder doesn't apply, and killing is pretty > > much a requirement for staying alive, so not sure what your point here is. > > Many police officers that have killed someone--suffer depression and are > required to get counseling after they have killed someone. Many members of > the military that have killed lots of people suffer severe depression > problem. When a woman conspires with a doctor to have her fetus > killed--it's my opinion that many of those women develop guilt feelings > and the end result is severe depression. You may not think that a fetus is > an unborn baby but it's true. Ask any pregnant woman whether or not she is > carrying a baby in her womb and she will tell you that is carrying a baby. It's true that Kelsey can't relate to how a woman would actually feel being pregnant but neither can you. I have to wonder if either of you have ever had a child. Kelsey, do you understand the joy of fatherhood? Jason, do you understand how much a woman has to go through just to have a baby, let alone raise it? I think a big reason for depression might not be a feeling of guilt but a feeling of missed opportunity, but that doesn't mean that the woman didn't make the right decision. Even if a woman would have been happier having the baby (and Jason can't prove that this would be the case) it is still HER decision to make and nobody else's. > I know that doctors that work in abortion clinics use terms like "POC" > (product of conception) instead of "fetus" or "unborn baby". They do this > so as to avoid believing that they are actully killing unborn babies. It's > easier for them to think: "I'm aborting a POC" than to think: "I'm > murdering an unborn baby". Anyone that has taken Psychology 101 knows > about "depersonalization"--that's the way that abortion doctors are able > to kill unborn babies and still sleep at night or suffer from severe > depression. That's why most doctors refuse to do abortions because they > never want to depersonalize anyone--including unborn babies. And yet the doctors themselves would have a better perspective than you as to just what is being aborted, wouldn't they? > > > abortion--esp. a second or third trimester abortion--the woman KNOWS > > > that she conspired with that doctor to have her baby killed. > > > To have a fetus killed. Not a baby. It is just that sort of rhetoric > > which continues the conditions in which a simple medical procedure becomes > > riddled with pointless guilt. I see, however, you seem to think it's just > > fine to promote those very conditions. > > A fetus is an unborn baby. There are no major differences between a baby > that is that is born after 7 months and a baby that is still in a mother's > womb that is also 7 months old. Which is why most doctors would not want to perform abortions in the third trimester. http://www.doctorndtv.com/Children/detailtopics.asp?id=27 > > > Good points. Several people have pointed out that I have only heard > > > testimonies from women that had severe depression as a result of their > > > abortion experiences. > > > Indeed. How many women who had little or no depressive effects were > > examined and reported on? > > > > I have talked to several pregnant women that carried their babies to > > > term. They told me that did not "bond" with the baby until the last part > > > of the second trimester and esp. during the third trimester. > > > Bully for them. How many of them were told "Shut up, woman, you're going > > to do as you're told" and effectively forced to host these fetuses to that > > point? I'm sure all the ones in those conditions just fell madly in > > love with the little squirts. > > Have you ever considered that some women want to have babies. They even > send out birth announcements that include pictures of their babies. Have you considered that some women _don't_ want to have babies? > > I also notice you again use "baby" where "fetus" is the correct term, > > again continuing the environment in which a simple medical procedure is > > surrounded by pointless guilt and shame. > > > > That's the > > > reason that I believe that women should use the morning after pill and > > > if that was not done--the abortion should occur during the first > > > trimester. > > > Hey, they want to have it first trimester, great - but you haven't given a > > single reason not to allow second or third trimester abortion. > > They are legal in America. Since second and third term abortions are > legal, I would not force any woman to not have an abortion. I comply with > the law. > I have already stated the reasons that I believe abortions should be done > in the first trimester. Few doctors would perform third trimester abortions. http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0819.html "Third trimester abortions are extremely rare in this country, and are performed only for the preservation of the life or health of the pregnant woman." (Of course, all abortions are performed for the purpose of saving the "life or health of the pregnant women" as "health" could mean "mental health".) > > > Do you agree or disagree with my opinion related > > > to this issue? > > > Which opinion, that post-first-trimester abortion is bad? Obviously not. > > Your opinion that even first trimester abortion should be surrounded with > > needless guilt, thus instilling much unnecessary depression in women who > > have one? Again, obviously not. > > Even if I had never been born, many women would still suffer GUILT when > they conspired with a doctor to have their fetus killed. "Conspire" is a loaded term. You should say that teh doctor "assisted" the woman in carrying out the abortion. > The primary > reason is because they have been taught from birth that killing and murder > are taboo. But abortion isn't murder. More likely women are depressed because they instinctively want to have children and may subconsciously regret their missed opportunity. > Abortion doctors and members of the Pro Choice organizations can call it a > fetus or a POC (product of conception). However, most women that are > pregnant know that it's an unborn baby. > Would you prefer that parents NOT teach their children to view murder and > killing as taboo? If killing is taboo then I won't ever have chicken, pork, beef, eggs or fish again. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 20, 2007 Posted May 20, 2007 On May 20, 5:06 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > High school graduates can't put simple sentences together - they > confuse cases and numbers, and have no idea what "parse a sentence" > means. And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if > Usenet and the web are any example, the subject isn't taught any > longer. Watt due ewe mene? Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.