PA abortionist, and barbarian, may face death penalty.

[goaliegirl]

I really don't think the debate is about pro-life vs. pro-choice. As a lot of pro-choice people have already stated, even to them, sucking the brain out of and dismembering a nearly or already viable child is just too far. The only reason partial birth abortions are done the way they are, is because of a legal issue. According to the law, until the entire body of the baby, is fully exposed, or until the baby has taken a breath of air, they are still not considered a human being with rights. It is the abuse of a technicality in the worst possible way. I can see the lawyers drawing it up ,"Well, IF the head is still in the vagina, I guess it TECHNICALLY can't breath, and is still TECHNICALLY not born yet."

The thing is partial birth abortions are rarely done anymore, and seriously almost every single one of the women who obtain one have an incompatibilty with life fetus or a maternal health risk. I have spoken to women who have had late term abortions, they did not make the decision with light heart and grieve for their babies that could of been every single day.

If you really want to educate yourself you should check out this group on a parenting forum and read about real women who have to make this choice everyday.

http://community.babycenter.com/grou...l_reasons?pg=2

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

Lets say all of the 100,000 women who have an abortion every year in Canada decided to carry to term, lets say half of those decided to give up for adoption, do you really think there would be 50,000 adoptive parents out there every year who would be looking to adopt an infant? Eventually supply would exceed demand and you would start to see orphanages popping up to house all these unwanted children.

I really don't think it would work out like that. Before abortions were legal women were a lot more careful about the choices they made. Now I realize not all pregnancies can be traced back to irresponsible behavour; Condoms do brake and there is rape. But I bet if you looked the majority of unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices. I contend that if she knew that a pregnancy meant morning sickness, getting fat, followed by a painful delivery less unwanted pregnancies would occur.

Moreover, when they did occur you would see his or her parents or extended family often step foreward to raise the child. Most babies would never see an orphanage. This is what commonly happened during our grandparents day.

Finally, I've know people raised in an orphanage and they didn't appear any less happy about being alive than you or I am.

[pylon]

I just want to say, that it is nice to see that this stayed civil. I was very worried when I started this thread, it was going to get ugly, and almost didn't do it. It's nice to see for once, such a polarizing topic being discussed rationally.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really don't think it would work out like that. Before abortions were legal women were a lot more careful about the choices they made. Now I realize not all pregnancies can be traced back to irresponsible behavour; Condoms do brake and there is rape. But I bet if you looked the majority of unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices. I contend that if she knew that a pregnancy meant morning sickness, getting fat, followed by a painful delivery less unwanted pregnancies would occur.

Moreover, when they did occur you would see his or her parents or extended family often step foreward to raise the child. Most babies would never see an orphanage. This is what commonly happened during our grandparents day.

Finally, I've know people raised in an orphanage and they didn't appear any less happy about being alive than you or I am.

You are actually very wrong, abortions happened with great regularity back in the day, and the harm women faced procuring them was great, especially the poor ones who had limited choices. So not only did you have future babies dying but you also had women dying. I am pro choice because all babies should be wanted, not be a punishment and not be foisted upon women who don't want them or can not have them for a specific reason.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

You are actually very wrong, abortions happened with great regularity back in the day, and the harm women faced procuring them was great, especially the poor ones who had limited choices. So not only did you have future babies dying but you also had women dying. I am pro choice because all babies should be wanted, not be a punishment and not be foisted upon women who don't want them or can not have them for a specific reason.

I really don't believe abortions occured with any frequency back in the day. I think the frequency is hyped in order to benefit the argument. It is very easy to find stories of a girl's parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles raising a child if the mother is unable. I myself have an Aunt who married young because she had a baby coming. This seems more likely to be the norm.

If you want stories about back alley abortions you really have to look to the sex trade. In those cases there is often a question of whether either the pregnancy or the abortion was the mother's choice.

My ex-wife's grandparents were both raised in different orphanages and as adults found each other and started a family. The reason they were orphaned is unknown but, probably related to war. My point is that their lack of a loving home didn't keep them from finding love or making a home of their own. Their lives were worth the trouble.

[CGY_GUY]

pro choice is the way

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really don't believe abortions occured with any frequency back in the day. I think the frequency is hyped in order to benefit the argument. It is very easy to find stories of a girl's parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles raising a child if the mother is unable. I myself have an Aunt who married young because she had a baby coming. This seems more likely to be the norm.

If you want stories about back alley abortions you really have to look to the sex trade. In those cases there is often a question of whether either the pregnancy or the abortion was the mother's choice.

My ex-wife's grandparents were both raised in different orphanages and as adults found each other and started a family. The reason they were orphaned is unknown but, probably related to war. My point is that their lack of a loving home didn't keep them from finding love or making a home of their own. Their lives were worth the trouble.

Either that, or you know, removing your head from your puritanical sand.

[HOZ]

One question I REALLY want to have answered....

How many abortions are "life saving" ?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

Ok here are the abortion numbers for Canada.
http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

International adoption Canada:
http://www.adoption.ca/031212cicstats.htm

Domestic adoption per year:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Adoption_in_Canada.aspx

So if 100,000 women abort yearly, and only 3800 children are adopted(both internationally and domestically), can you not see where the discrepancy is? I mean even if you tripled the adoption number you would still have a whole lot of babies without homes.

However, those numbers do not support your position. Your adoption numbers do not show how many prospective parents were waiting for adoption. Additionally, the fact that international adoptions are included is misleading as one of the reasons is the availability of infants from overseas is higher than domestically. I would suggest these numbers support the fact that there is a dearth of infants available for adoption in Canada. The discrepancy is opposite to what you suggest.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by zuluking

However, those numbers do not support your position. Your adoption numbers do not show how many prospective parents were waiting for adoption. Additionally, the fact that international adoptions are included is misleading as one of the reasons is the availability of infants from overseas is higher than domestically. I would suggest these numbers support the fact that there is a dearth of infants available for adoption in Canada. The discrepancy is opposite to what you suggest.

I tried to look for potential adopter stats, and found nothing, and until you do you can not really claim that there are 50-100,000 people looking to adopt yearly in Canada(yes yearly). Especially with the invent of IVF, surrogates and other medical treatments to help infertile couples, those things also diminish the amount of people who want to adopt.

This is a pointless discussion anyway because thankfully abortion is legal in Canada, and hopefully it always will be.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really don't believe abortions occured with any frequency back in the day. I think the frequency is hyped in order to benefit the argument. It is very easy to find stories of a girl's parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles raising a child if the mother is unable. I myself have an Aunt who married young because she had a baby coming. This seems more likely to be the norm.

Also life span was a HUGE issue for familes, this is why 100 years ago an average family was 7-10 children, simply because of the death rate of children.

If you want stories about back alley abortions you really have to look to the sex trade. In those cases there is often a question of whether either the pregnancy or the abortion was the mother's choice.

Thankfully Abstinence education fixes that issue, right?

My ex-wife's grandparents were both raised in different orphanages and as adults found each other and started a family. The reason they were orphaned is unknown but, probably related to war. My point is that their lack of a loving home didn't keep them from finding love or making a home of their own. Their lives were worth the trouble.

That's super, so you want to see the real statistics on adoption today, orphanages which have incredibly low adoption rates?

Its neat you support pro life, yet you probably want planned parenthood to lose its funding because less than 5% of its funding goes towards abortions.

Whats even more pathetic, is that you are a christian. Before modern science which is behind the dictation of when a life is truly a life, your average lifespan was 40 yrs if that, and mothers were expected to lose 1/3 of their children, IF NOT MORE.

So obviously your god wants children to die, because without modern science natural abortions would vastly outnumber real abortions in our modern societies.

[Thor]

I'd love to hear what CalgaryBorn and others who are against legal abortions, to state what they would like to see in regards to our laws.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by HOZ

One question I REALLY want to have answered....

How many abortions are "life saving" ?

Of all abortions or just for late-terms abortions?

I only ask because I think the number for non-late-term abortions is irrelevant to any pro/cons argument. Obviously you could just be curious.

Based on this thread I was under the impression that late-term abortions require "life saving" reasons.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

I tried to look for potential adopter stats, and found nothing, and until you do you can not really claim that there are 50-100,000 people looking to adopt yearly in Canada(yes yearly). Especially with the invent of IVF, surrogates and other medical treatments to help infertile couples, those things also diminish the amount of people who want to adopt.

This is a pointless discussion anyway because thankfully abortion is legal in Canada, and hopefully it always will be.

I had found a comment from a research paper in the US which I mentioned earlier in the thread which did make reference to numbers of women waiting for adoption.

I thought this was a very interesting and thoughtful discussion (even though the adoption / abortion angle is quite different from the original thread topic.) Nice way to railroad it and, through a thoroughly opinionated comment, attempt to emotionalize it.

[pylon]

Bump on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/us/pen...tml?hpt=hp_bn1

The babies were born alive in the sixth, seventh and eighth months of pregnancy, but their spinal cords were severed with scissors, Williams said.

Williams described one of the alleged infant deaths.

"The baby had been born and was on a cold steel table and murdered by using -- there's no medical basis for snipping or taking scissors and putting them into the neck and cutting, severing the spinal cord. It's just homicide. It's just murder," Williams told CNN.

There isn't a hell horrific enough for this monster. As someone who has had the misfortune to have to mercy kill an animal by snapping it's neck, I cannot even fathom how sick and cold blooded you would have to be to do that to a living, breathing, viable infant...with scissors. I couldn't sleep for a week after putting down a half squished cat in agony on the side of the road. This man made a career out of it. If there is any god, this man will be sentenced to die.

I am sure the pro-choicers will jump all over this, and find some angle to defend this butcher, but reading that, made me physically ill.

[You Need a Thneed]

Perhaps they can convict him to the death penalty by having his spine severed with scissors. Seems fitting anyway.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Very few kids get adopted compared to the long list of kids waiting to be adopted

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...ars/trends.htm

Do they allow same sex adoption?

Totally didn't see this was a bump!

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm pro choice and I think this is awesome.

I dont care what side of the debate you are on, claiming what may be the murder of newborn children is anything but awesome.

It is fuc-ing disgusting you two bit hack.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by pylon

I am sure the pro-lifers will jump all over this, and find some angle to defend this butcher, but reading that, made me physically ill.

You meant "pro-choicers" right?

Otherwise, I'm very confused.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

You meant "pro-choicers" right?

Otherwise, I'm very confused.

Yes, thank you.