Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

Where do these numbers come from?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

And now democrats in Virginia are proposing the same thing as NY. Our country is sick.

---

A woman is never going to abort their baby the day before delivery...which is why we need a law to allow it.

---

The law only allows 3rd trimester abortions for non-viable (dead) fetuses or specifically in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

That's what the law says.

---

From Snopes
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

riflebear said:

---

NY: Lets murder babies in their 3rd trimester
VA: Hold my beer - we're going to murder them during birth

---

Rhode Island: Don't leave us out!

tommie said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

Where do these numbers come from?

---

Sorry I couldn't just paste the article, most come from the Guttmacher Institiute. At least abortion percentage numbers.

Globally, 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion in 20102014. Between 19901994 and 20102014, the proportion of pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 39% to 27% in developed countries, while it rose from 21% to 24% in developing countries.1

This is also from Guttmacher. Abortions are actually going down in developed countries. From 1990-1994 in developed Countries it was 39% overall ending in induced Abortions. From 2010-2014 it was down to 27%.

ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES
via Guttmacher Institute (last updated January 2017)

• An estimated 59.1 million babies in the U.S. have been aborted since 1973

• Approximately 21% of all U.S. pregnancies end in induced abortion
  (Guttmacher Institute, March 2016)

CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN HAVING ABORTIONS
via Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (last updated November 2015)

• 58% of all women having abortions are in their 20's.

• Black non-Hispanic women have the highest abortion ratio. Black women's abortion ratio has reached 444 abortions per 1,000 live births, while non-Hispanic white women's abortion ratio is 124 abortions per 1,000 live births.

• 37% of women having abortions are white, 37% are black, 19% are Hispanic, and 7% other races.

• According to the Guttmacher Institute, "Women who obtain abortions are predominantly poor or low-income, in their 20s and unmarried; black women and Hispanic women continue to be disproportionately represented among abortion patients."

Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that abortion kills, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that abortion is necessary to save the mother's life (and he even goes so far as to say that abortion would be unlikely to prolong the mother's life even in these every extreme cases).
Dr. Landrum Shettles says that: [url=https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8#2][2][/url]

Quote:

---

Less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother's life.



Here is the cut and paste version.

---

Not sure if this is readable, but 47 saying none are out of convenience is simply not accurate.

Enjoy!

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

And now democrats in Virginia are proposing the same thing as NY. Our country is sick.

---

A woman is never going to abort their baby the day before delivery...which is why we need a law to allow it.

---

The law only allows 3rd trimester abortions for non-viable (dead) fetuses or specifically in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

That's what the law says.

---

Your first example is a stillbirth (after 28 weeks) whether they choose to deliver the baby naturally or a doctor has to induce a situation to get the baby out it's not an abortion
The second example can 100% of the time be solved by early delivery removal of the baby and put it in neonatal ICU. There is no situation where an abortion killing the baby will save the life of the mother. Early birth accomplishes the same goal and the baby has a chance at survival

---

Sounds like you accidentally made a point.

---

bump

Canada2017 said:

---

New York Dems are merely giving their constituents what they want.

Next to be sanctioned will be the murder of the old.

---

Now now, let's use the approved terminology:

The Disposable Senior Reconditioning Act of 2020

(cf 'Logan's Run', politicians exempt of course)

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

New York Dems are merely giving their constituents what they want.

Next to be sanctioned will be the murder of the old.

---

Now now, let's use the approved terminology:

The Disposable Senior Reconditioning Act of 2020

(cf 'Logan's Run', politicians exempt of course)

---

In Europe the 'tone' is........" You don't want to be a BURDEN to your family....do you ?"

Jack Bauer said:

---

This is some sick ****

---

Yeah. That's fulkin' sick.

Jack Bauer said:

---

This is some sick ****

---

I guess it's good they are making the baby comfortable before they stick a blender to the baby's brain.

Anyone that supports this is fcking sick and are as bad as the democrats that supported slavery and racism for over a century.

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

Silliness. Sophistry

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

Nobody but nobody is an "abortion proponent." That's your silly fantasy and binary narrative. I just happen to come down on the side of women having the right to their own decisions. It's none of your business. You would want the same right, right?

---

Sorry Mr. 47 you are wrong here. "You" are calling "me" binary. That is silliness and a straw man, I have as well rounded a variety of views as anybody on this board, you good sir are a binary thinker.

I even voted for Bill Clinton once, because his message was basically identical to the one I just mentioned about the hope abortion becomes rare and the exception, he even talked about the change of heart needed for them to become rare. Unfortunately he wasn't serious, just as the rank and file Republican is not serious about reducing abortion, but use it as an election plank.

---

Point taken. You are not binary. My apologies. However the thrust of my comment was - 1) there are abortion proponents
2) Women get to make their own medical and health decisions without government interference

Baylor Okie said "You are unbelievably naive to think that abortion isn't used as birth control. I don't actually think you believe it. There's just no way.

Right now I'm sitting next to my 11 year old daughter. She was a couple hours away from being aborted for convenience - as a method of birth control. Her birth mother told me this directly. God bless her for coming to her senses and giving my daughter life. At the 11th hour she chose not to abort, but women do it EVERY DAY. They abort their babies because they don't want them, can't afford them, don't want anyone to know they are pregnant, etc. This happens whether you admit it or not. My daughter was almost aborted because her birth parents didn't want the expense of another child. (((((((((((((How are any of those reasons your business))))))))))

2. You think I am operating under a "misguided moral standard", so there's no reason to continue this discussion. It's why I almost always stay away from abortion debates."
Okie I did not say say nor has anyone abortion is ok as a birth control. Of course, some women use it as birth control.

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

Waco1947 said:

---

Point taken. You are not binary. My apologies. However the thrust of my comment was - 1) there are abortion proponents
2) Women get to make their own medical and health decisions without government interference

---

I'm confused
You've been posting that nobody is an abortion proponent

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco will make damn sure a woman can kill a kid if she feels that's what she needs to do.

---

Even if the baby is physically removed from the woman's body via delivery, she still has a choice to let them live or die. It's a "reproductive health decision".

Waco1947 said:

---

Nobody but nobody is an "abortion proponent." That's your silly fantasy and binary narrative. I just happen to come down on the side of women having the right to their own decisions. It's none of your business. You would want the same right, right?

---

Reconcile your conflicting posts.

You tell us nobody is an abortion proponent and that there are abortion proponents

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Yep.

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

When does a fully delivered baby's right to life exceed a woman's "medical decision" rights? 5 minutes, 10 minutes? At what point are they safe to start living in this world?

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

This is the strawman stuff you use when you have no answer and try to defend the un-defendable.

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

You're conflating two things.

This law, for the 1,000,000th time, only allows late term abortion when the fetus is no longer viable, or the life of the mother is in danger.

If you want to talk about abortion in general, okay. But your seeming inability to separate the two is why pro-life people get a bad name. Your entire argument relies on the existence of some noetic form of liberal femi-nazi out helping young women get pregnant just so they can abort the baby the day before its due date.

That's not the reality of the issue.

If you TRULY can't see how a woman would want control over her own body and what happens to it, if you won't even IMAGINE the point of view that a woman would want control over her own body, then you will truly never find common ground with anyone whose beliefs and point of view aren't completely congruent with your own. And in that case, you're dooming us all to an endless back-and-forth over this issue.

There HAS to be common ground. You won't even cede that we should invest into birth control and comprehensive sex education. From other posts of yours, I'm drawing conclusions on your feelings about welfare and public aid.

You're not pro-life. You're pro-birth.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

---

He thinks he's holier than thou.

Points the finger, slow to understand.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

The German people did nothing to advocate the killing of Jews. It just kind of happened. Oh, well.