Safe & Legal... Lets Be Honest Posted: 07-05-04 04:53am
I have been thinking about what was said
by patty about how we need abortion to be
legal to keep abortion safe.
Lets be honest that is a poor argument,
why should we care if women who k ill
children survive or not. If abortion were
illegal it would be homicide. Ok yes I
dont want to see them die, so give them
confidential medical help if they are
injured but dont help them to k ill the
child so she can be safe that just isnt
moral
i mean, it sounds harsh but as an argument
of making paedophilia legal would lets
make paedophilia legal so its safe for
the paedophile be a good enough reason
to legalise it? .
No because it would be immoral, why?
Because we have forgotten about the child
who is the victim, so too in the argument
about the safety of abortion . You may
say if it is illegal women will still have
abortions so we should at least make it
safe for them. But peadophilia is illegal
and it still happens why dont you just
legalise it because it happens at least
then it would be safe.
Am I saying abortion is as bad as
peadophilia .No!
I am saying its worse!
Those who advocate it. I.E. Pro choice
are worse than pedophiles in my opinion
the mother is usually the victim as I was!
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-05-04 13:58pm
Once again, fool.
Hey everyone, remember other posts where
samie claims to "care about everyone
involved" but she just mainly cares about
the fetus? Well, here is proof of what
we already knew! She only cares about
the fetus.
So, women who become pregnant and find out
that carrying/delivering their child will
kill them should just give birth and die?
Because if they didn't then they would be
criminals? Whatever samie. I almost
wish that you would become pregnant and
the pregnancy would be killing you and the
baby so that you knew what it was like.
I don't wish that on anyone, but you
really do need to step into the real
world.
You are just plain ignorant! Prochoice
has nothing to do with molesting children.
Once again, irrelevant.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 14:02pm
Pro choice has nothing to do with
molesting chidren...Perhaps not but it
certainly is the leading reason for it and
abortion is the biggest offender of child
abuse and the only one legal. I will come
back and prove my point about the leading
reason behind child molestation
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-05-04 14:06pm
You aren't going to prove anything, so
don't bother.
Don't you realize that you are just making
a fool of yourself? Making idiotic
claims like that?
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 14:08pm
By jove you sure do like calling people
fool fool etc
i am a foooooooooooooooool
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Connection Between Abortion & Child Abuse Posted: 07-05-04 15:09pm
In search of a quick and easy solution to
the ugly reality of child abuse, a great
many people have come up with glib
answers. Abortion is the favorite theme
of the moment. It is unfair, uninformed
and, I believe, dangerous.
Vincent j. Fontana, m.D.
Anti-life philosophy.
A policy that makes contraception and
abortion freely available will greatly
reduce the number of unwanted children,
and thereby curb the tragic rise of child
abuse in our country ... Legal abortion
will decrease the number of unwanted
children, battered children, child abuse
cases, and possibly subsequent
delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of
social ills believed to be associated with
neglectful parenthood.
National abortion rights action league
types of child abuse.
According to the national committee for
the prevention of child abuse, more than
1,000 children are being killed by abusive
adults each year. Dr. Richard krugman of
denver's kempe national center for the
prevention of child abuse and neglect,
sets the figure much higher at from 2,000
to 5,000 deaths per year.
Most of these deaths are therefore
apparently 'covered up' by attributing
them to other causes.
The four major types of child abuse and
their percentages are;
neglect (deprivation of necessities), 55
percent;
physical injury, 17 percent;
sexual maltreatment, 12 percent; and
emotional and other maltreatment, 16
percent.
Neofeminists like to trot out their
standard stereotype of a brutal male
abusing helpless women and children, but
the plain fact is that women commit most
of the serious cases of child abuse (58%),
in part because they spend much more time
with their children than their fathers
do.
51 percent of the victims of child abuse
are girl children, and the average age of
the victimized child is seven.
In cases of fatal child abuse, the average
age of the victim is three years old, the
victim is male in 54 percent of the cases,
the perpetrator is a parent in 76 percent
of the cases and female in 56 percent of
the cases.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
the Child Abuse-abortion Connection. Posted: 07-05-04 15:15pm
Lousy predictors.
Pro-abortionists are perhaps even worse
forecasters of social trends than the
well-known mediums who grace the covers of
those sensational supermarket tabloids.
This is because the pro-aborts have a
vested interest in painting a rosy picture
of the future for public consumption.
Their predictions are not based upon any
studies or facts, but are instead pure
unsupported propaganda that is intended to
prop up their position.
Abortion as child abuse.
The irony in pro-abortionists claiming
that abortion will decrease child abuse is
glaringly obvious. After all, abortion
itself is the greatest child abuse. Every
day in this country, we burn, cut to
pieces, and decapitate a living preborn
child every five seconds during working
hours.
The pro-aborts, of course, do not really
put the abuse of born children very high
on their agenda. Their phony
hand-wringing and histrionics have one
purpose and one purpose only to keep their
precious abortion 'right' freely and
easily available.
Pro-aborts insist that abortion is a good
thing for society, because it will simply
eliminate any children that might, at some
point in the future, suffer at the hands
of abusive adults. The increasing numbers
of tiny broken and battered bodies in this
country are mute and powerful evidence to
the contrary.
Abortion and child abuse first cousins.
The impact of the abortion revolution may
be too vast to assess immediately. It
should usher in an era when every child
will be wanted, loved, and properly cared
for; when the incidence of infanticides
and battered children should be sharply
reduced.
Abortion propagandist larry lader.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 15:18pm
Nowhere is the contrast of pro-life and
anti-life philosophies more vivid as in
the debate over child abuse.
People with an anti-life mindset will
neuter themselves, perforate their uteri
with twisted pieces of metal, and employ
all manner of 'rubber goods,' foams, jams
and jellies in their desperate attempts to
avoid the most natural consequence of sex
pregnancy.
When anti-life women do get pregnant, the
child is not looked upon as a gift from
god or as a unique miracle, but instead as
a mere 'contraceptive failure.' pregnancy
is not viewed with healthy joy, but with
loathing and dread.
Naturally, the anti-life philosophy
dictates that such 'failures' must
logically end in abortion. The appalling
slaughter in the abortion mills, combined
with society's relentless emphasis on the
'good life' (always sans children),
naturally leads to a contempt for the most
helpless humans of all born and unborn
children. And so, the little ones
continue to die in their thousands and
millions.
The direct connection between the abuse of
unborn children and born children could
not be clearer. Children are now viewed
as 'acquisitions,' not miracles; as
things, not intrinsically valuable fellow
human beings. The widespread parental
abuse and institutionalized infanticide of
born children naturally follows the
wholesale abuse of unborn children as
inevitably as the night follows the day.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 15:22pm
The mechanisms of child abuse.
Abortion leads directly to child abuse by
one or more of several very clear
psychological mechanisms, as outlined by
psychiatrist Dr. Philip g. Ney at a
symposium on the psychological effects of
abortion. These mechanisms are listed
psychological mechanisms by which abortion
leads to child abuse
mechanism #1:
"abortion decreases an individual's
instinctual restraint against the
occasional rage felt toward those
dependent on his or her care." an aborting
woman, having brutally repressed her
maternal instinct already, may have
difficulty in restraining herself as she
deals with a 'difficult' child.
Mechanism #2:
"permissive abortion diminishes the taboo
against aggressing [against] the
defenseless." what is the significant
psychological difference between chopping
up a child before it is born and 'knocking
it around' after it is born? After all,
it is not the child that has intrinsic
worth: as the hideous pro-abortion slogan
asserts, "it's a choice, not a child."
mechanism #3:
"abortion increases the hostility between
the generations." children of mothers who
have aborted their own brothers and/or
sisters may feel guilt and anger as
abortion 'survivors,' and therefore
display resentful, aggressive, or surly
behavior towards parents, which in turn
can trigger the adult's abusive
behavior.
Mechanism #4:
"abortion has devalued children, thus
diminishing the value of caring for
children." fifty years ago, parents were
willing to (and very often did) undergo
great deprivation for their children.
Sometimes, parents would even willingly
give their very lives to save their
children. Now, children are seen as
deprivation. Our society, by its laws and
attitudes, has given the green light to
child abuse. Society is now beginning to
hold that defective newborns are unworthy
of life. As society does, individuals do;
they are deciding that their children are
somehow 'defective,' and therefore less
worthy of life.
Mechanism #5:
"abortion increases guilt and self-hatred,
which the parent takes out on the child."
guilt is an extremely common cause of
child battering and abuse. Many women
have been shown to harbor strong guilt
feelings over their abortions. In fact,
guilt is the primary motivator of the
entire anti-life philosophy, as described
in detail in chapter 2 of volume i, "the
anti-life mentality."
mechanism #6:
"abortion increases hostile frustration,
intensifying the battle of the sexes, for
which children are scapegoated." many men
directly or indirectly pressure women to
have abortions, causing resentment and
anger in the women. Many women abort
against their husband's or boyfriends's
wishes, thereby causing guilt and anger in
them. This 'battle of the sexes' is many
times directed towards the most helpless
of bystanders their other children. These
findings have been buttressed by
schoenfeld's and barker's separate
studies, which show that women who have
aborted have much higher incidences of
child abuse.
Mechanism #7:
"abortion truncates the developing
mother-infant bond, thereby diminishing
her future mothering capability." if a
woman holds a 'pro-choice' philosophy, she
has already artificially distanced herself
from her child before birth even if the
child is 'wanted.' when the mother/preborn
infant bond is stunted in this manner, it
is unreasonable to expect some kind of
instant healing at birth. The
'pro-choice' attitude is destructive well
beyond the prenatal period.
References: (1) philip g. Ney, m.D.
"abortion and child abuse: which is cause,
which is effect?" david mall and walter f.
Watts, m.D. (editors). Proceedings of
the conference "psychological aspects of
abortion." sponsored on october 31 and
november 1, 1978, by the stritch school of
medicine, loyola university, chicago,
illinois. Published by university
publications of america. (2) philip g.
Ney, m.D. "clinician's view: relationship
between abortion and child abuse."
canadian journal of psychiatry, july 1979,
pages 610 to 620.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Wanted Child Posted: 07-05-04 15:25pm
Fundamental flaws in the 'wanted child'
slogan.
Overview.
Pro-abortionists will frequently translate
their allegations regarding child abuse
into a handy slogan: "every child a wanted
child!" to a thinking person, however, the
"wanted child" argument is fundamentally
flawed in four ways, as described in the
following paragraphs.
(1) it lowers the dignity of children.
The mere act of asserting that there are
such persons as 'unwanted children' is
supremely arrogant, and detracts from the
innate and intrinsic good of all children.
A person who thinks like these terms
lowers the inborn dignity of the child.
No human being should have to attribute
his or her 'goodness' or 'wantedness' to
the mere selfish whim of another human
being. This, in essence, makes the child
an object the mere property of the adult.
There is absolutely no difference between
this attitude and that of the american
slavers of the early 1800s.
Pro-life debaters often make presentations
before high school or grade school
audiences, and the "unwanted child" slogan
seems to be a favorite among young
pro-aborts who are products of a
virulently anti-life school system.
One way to highlight the despicable nature
of the "wanted child" slogan is to ask the
members of the school audience to raise
their hands if their parents describe
themselves as "pro-choice." all of the
kids who want to seem 'politically
correct' (i.E., the vast majority) will
raise their hands, even if they have no
idea of where their parents stand on the
abortion issue.
The pro-lifer might then point out that
all of the kids in the audience whose
parents describe themselves as
"pro-choice" are literally abortion
survivors. The only reason they are alive
today is because their parents merely
wanted them when they were preborn
children not because they had any
intrinsic worth whatsoever, but because
someone else decided that they were
worthy.
The pro-lifer could elaborate by saying
that this is truly the heart of all
oppression. By contrast, he could state
that the kids whose parents are pro-life
treasured them before they were born and
would have loved them unconditionally,
even if they had been handicapped.
In other words, "pro-choice" parents say
to their kids "i will love you, but only
if you are physically and mentally perfect
and only if you are convenient." in other
words, the crippled and strained 'love'
that pro-aborts offer their children is
riddled with conditions.
He might continue by noting that the kids
with their hands up have only one sibling
(or none), and he might ask them to think
about how many brothers and sisters they
do not have because they were aborted.
He could conclude by telling them to be
thankful that they did not happen to come
along when it was inconvenient, or the
very system that their parents support
would have chewed them into bloody
hamburger just as it has done to so many
tens of millions of their generation.
By the time the pro-life debater has
finished leading the kids through this
psychological minefield, there are
generally very few hands remaining in the
air.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 15:30pm
(2) there are no accurate predictors.
No human being has (or will ever have) the
godlike ability to predict which children
will be abused and which will not be
abused. Similarly, nobody can predict
which children will grow up to be geniuses
or criminals. Figure 41-2 conclusively
proves this point. The only way we could
eliminate child abuse through abortion is
by aborting all children!
Comparison of the environments of abused
and non-abused children
demographic parameter abused
children non-abused children
parental parameters
and demography
average age of abusing father
30.2 years 31.6 years
average age of abusing mother
26.8 years 28.6 years
parents high school graduates
30% 22%
parents college graduates
9% 7%
parents' marital status
96.7% married 54.2% married
parents expressed religious
preference
80.1% 61.5%
parents exposed to pets as
children
3.7%
86.1%
parents exposed to domestic
violence as children
65.0% 43.4%
children's prenatal and birthing
parameters
parents expressed desire for pregnancy
(i.E., child was "wanted").
91.0% 63.3%
parents married at birth of
child
93.0%
60.0%
mean date mother began wearing
maternity clothes
114 days 171 days
baby born prematurely
22.0% 10.0%
complications at delivery
9.0% 4.2%
delivery by cesarean section
30.0% 3.2%
child named after parent
24.0% 4.0%
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 15:34pm
Notes.
[a] factors suggesting that "wanted"
children are not at reduced risk of
abuse.
[b] factors suggesting that "bonding"
problems at birth, in addition to the
abortion mentality, may be a root cause of
child abuse.
Reference. Edward lenoski, m.D.,
professor of pediatrics and emergency
medicine at the university of southern
california school of medicine. "a
research study on child abuse." heartbeat,
winter 1980, pages 16-17. The total
number of children studied were 674 for
the abuse cases and 500 'controls'
selected by random from the pediatric
emergency room population at the
university of southern california medical
center.
Even if there were some reliable method by
which we could accurately predict the
problems that preborn children would have
after birth, there is no way that anyone
but the most crass utilitarian could
justify exterminating any children with
specific problems.
After all, once we kill those who will
have a certain class of problems, what is
to prevent us from going after all of the
others?
Believe it or not, the government is
sponsoring (to the tune of $2 billion),
the genome project, by which scientists
hope to map every gene in the human
chromosome. The results of this project
will eventually allow parents to take a
simple prenatal test that will accurately
predict all of their preborn child's
characteristics including future health
and psychological trends!
It is frightening indeed that the genome
project is directed by nobel prize winner
Dr. James watson, who has stated candidly
that no child should be declared human
until three days after birth, so that
those newborns who fail an intensive
battery of physical and psychological
tests may be killed before the deadline.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Abortion = No Chance At All! Posted: 07-05-04 15:50pm
(3) abortion = no chance at all!
Even if a child is unwanted and battered
and lives a miserable life, at least he or
she has a chance to improve his or her
life after leaving home. Anyone who
asserts that the battered child would
rather die than be abused is supremely
arrogant.
After all, everyone knows the stories of
people who have overcome the most extreme
adversity to find happiness. Those who
believe that children would rather be
aborted than abused have obviously never
spoken to adults who were abused as
children.
This can be a good point for a pro-life
debater to make before an audience. The
pro-lifer might ask those people in the
audience who were abused to raise their
hands, and then ask those who would rather
have died at the hands of an abortionist
to stand up and explain why.
There never seem to be any takers for this
offer.
If a child's life is snuffed out before
birth, he or she has no chance at all. Is
this not the essence of hope the
opportunity to improve one's lot in
life?
(4) abortion leads to infanticide.
Since our society now holds that there is
such a thing as an 'unwanted child' in the
womb, this attitude has inevitably spread
to born children. Witness the 2,000 cases
of infanticide committed every year in our
country, with the full approval of the
state. And, now that parents have been
infected with the 'unwanted child'
attitude, it is absolutely inevitable that
child abuse will continue to escalate out
of control.
Child abuse: accelerating out of
control.
Figures 41-3 and 41-4 show both the annual
number of children killed by abuse and the
annual number of reported cases of child
abuse in this country. These cases are
increasing dramatically each year, and
this trend shows no indication of slowing
down.
This data is conclusive proof that freely
available abortion has not cut down on the
rate of child abuse at all; the effect has
been precisely the opposite.
The increase of child abuse in the united
states, 1972-1990
(1) the rate of reported child abuse in
the united states, adjusted for
population, has increased by an average of
10 percent each year since 1972 six times
faster than population growth.
(2) the child abuse rate in the united
states is now almost six times higher than
it was in 1972, the year before the
supreme court's roe v. Wade decision.
(3) more than four times as many children
die of child abuse annually now in this
country than did in 1972, the year before
roe v. Wade.
Reference.
United states department of commerce,
bureau of the census. Reference data book
and guide to sources, statistical abstract
of the united states. Washington, dc:
united states government printing office.
1990 (110th edition). Table 296,
"reported child neglect and abuse cases,
by division: 1980 to 1987." table 297,
"child maltreatment cases reported
summary: 1976 to 1988."
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 15:54pm
The increase of child abuse in the united
states, 1972-1990
annual millions of abused children
[graph not available]
reference. United states department of
commerce, bureau of the census. Reference
data book and guide to sources,
statistical abstract of the united states.
Washington, dc: united states government
printing office. 1990 (110th edition).
Table 296, "reported child neglect and
abuse cases, by division: 1980 to 1987."
table 297, "child maltreatment cases
reported summary: 1976 to 1988."
these figures show that there is a delay
of several years from the time abortion
was legalized in 1973 to the time that the
rate of child abuse really began to rise
steeply in the year 1979.
There are two reasons for this time lag:
(1) it took a few years for the "abortion
mentality" to be accepted and internalized
by the public at large, and
(2) the ages of most abused children are
in 5- to 10-year old range. Beginning in
1979, many parents obviously recognized
that they could have aborted their
children when they were preborn, and were
taking their frustrations out on kids that
society had implicitly deemed 'expendable'
at one time (see mechanisms #2 and #4 )
three primary conclusions may be drawn
from figures 41-3 and 41-4;
(1) the rate of actual child abuse in the
united states, adjusted for population,
has increased by an average of 11 percent
each year since 1972, the year before roe
v. Wade.
(2) the child abuse rate in the united
states is now almost five times higher
than it was in 1972, the year before roe
v. Wade.
(3) more than four times as many children
die now in this country at the hands of
abusive adults than did in 1972, the year
before roe v. Wade.
It is important to note that not all of
reported cases of child abuse are
substantiated with proof or confirmed with
followup investigations.
The american association for protecting
children estimates that about 40 percent
of all reported cases of nonfatal child
abuse are substantiated.
60 percent cannot be substantiated due to
inadequate information, movement of the
family, or peculiarities in local or state
law.
However, many of the unsubstantiated cases
do involved child abuse.
The important point to remember is this:
that the ratio of substantiated cases of
child abuse has held steady at about 40
percent for more than ten years.
Therefore, the actual cases of nonfatal
child abuse have risen steadily at the
same rates as the reported cases, as noted
above. Additionally, we must remember
that all cases of fatal child abuse are
substantiated and proven with autopsy or
further investigation, and, in fact, the
prevalence of fatal child abuse is
probably grossly underestimated in this
country.
The pervasive relationships between
abortion and child abuse are not
restricted to this country. For example,
the canadian provinces with the highest
rates of abortion also have the highest
rates of child abuse (british columbia and
ontario).
**the provinces with the lowest abortion
rates also have the lowest rates of child
abuse (newfoundland, new brunswick, and
prince edward island).
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-05-04 16:00pm
Rising child abuse: merely a product of
increasing population?
Better reporting?
When faced with the data shown in figures
41-3 and 41-4, pro-abortionists will
invariably insist that child abuse rates
are not increasing that it is merely the
reporting that is progressively becoming
more complete and comprehensive.
This is obviously not the case. The
diagnosis of severe physical or sexual
abuse cannot be mistaken; a child who has
been burned with cigarettes, whipped till
his skin is tattered, or half-drowned has
always been identified as abused by trauma
personnel and emergency-room physicians.
David liederman is executive director of
the child welfare league of america, an
organization representing 380 child and
family service agencies and 1,200
affiliates in the united states and
canada.
Mr. Liederman has shown that the
documented cases of child abuse have held
steady ratios at about 46% for simple
(physical) abuse and 54% for sexual abuse
for more than thirty years.
This finding refutes the flawed claim that
only the number of reported cases of child
abuse is going up, because it would
otherwise be expected that these ratios of
reported child abuse would change
significantly immediately after a change
in reporting procedures.
Severe and fatal instances of child abuse
have been documented, reported and
analyzed according to law for more than
twenty years. And medical guidebooks
featuring startlingly realistic drawings
of examples of physical and sexual child
abuse have been available to emergency
room and family practice physicians for
many years.
Larger population?
Our country's population has grown
steadily, and the rates of child abuse
(cases per thousand population) have risen
steadily as well but at a much greater
rate.
In 1972, the year before roe v. Wade, the
child abuse rate was 2.01 per 1,000 total
population. In 1988, the child abuse rate
was 9.80 per 1,000 total population an
increase of 388 percent, or 11 percent per
year! This incredibly large and sustained
increase could only be caused by the
progressive cheapening of children's lives
in the eyes of society in general.
There are many possible causes of this
phenomenon, but three stand out as the
most probable:
(1) the vast numbers of mothers entering
the work force and placing their children
in full-time day care, thereby reducing
bonding;
(2) the maturing of the first generation
of children brought up on a diet of
extremely violent video games, television,
and movies, who are now becoming parents
themselves; and
(3) the sudden legalization of abortion
followed by a widespread desensitization
of people to mass prenatal killing.
State correlation.
Pro-abortionists will naturally argue that
abortion is not a root cause of child
abuse. But the most damning evidence of
all comes from states that legalized
abortion before the supreme court's 1973
roe v. Wade decision.
As each state legalized abortion, its
child abuse rate accelerated tremendously,
while the rate in neighboring states and
in the rest of the country remained stable
or climbed gradually, consonant with
trends that had been established for
decades.
New york state was the first state to
experience this phenomenon when it
legalized abortion in 1968. Its child
abuse caseload immediately rocketed from
fewer than 8,000 in 1967 to more than
100,000 in 1974, a phenomenal rise of 44
percent per year, while reporting
procedures remained unchanged.
The state of washington legalized abortion
in 1970. In a period of just 28 months,
the incidents of child abuse in seattle,
the state's largest city, rose 379
percent.
This is a rise of 177 percent per year!
It is significant that the child abuse
rate in seattle is still much higher than
in the rest of the state and that seattle
is one of 14 united states cities with the
dubious distinction of aborting more
children than it delivers.
This linkage between permissive abortion
and child abuse is not restricted to this
country:
it is a worldwide phenomenon. John
linklater, medical correspondent of the
british journal spectator, notes that the
number of battered children increased
tenfold from 1964 to 1974 in great
britain, paralleling a tenfold increase in
the abortion rate.
****he stated that "the increase in the
incidence of battering babies closely
parallels the rising abortion rate."****
denied abortion: the final proof.
The very foundation of the "wanted child"
and "child abuse" slogans rests on two
false assumptions:
(1) that if a woman does not want a child,
she will inevitably abuse it after it is
born, and
(2) that any child that is 'unwanted' is
better off dead.
Some states have judicial bypass
provisions that allow adolescent girls to
petition a judge for an abortion in lieu
of getting their parents' permission.
Although these are now merely "rubber
stamp" procedures, with disapprovals
almost unheard of, there were many
disapprovals registered before 1973.
Additionally, many european countries have
medical boards that examine each case of
abortion and allow or deny the procedure
based upon various criteria.
These judicial and medical processes have
yielded data on the outcome of pregnancies
to women who were denied abortion. As
detailed in the following paragraphs,
denied abortion does not lead to an
increase in child abuse. These findings
decisively undercut the pro-abortion
"wanted child" and "child abuse" slogans.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Results of the Medical Studies. Posted: 07-05-04 16:03pm
Results of the medical studies.
The results of six major medical studies
regarding the impacts of denied abortion
on mothers and babies have been published
in the medical literature over the last 30
years.
A combination of the results of the six
studies showed that 71 percent of the
6,298 american, swedish, and new zealand
women who had been denied abortions
completed their pregnancies, and only 13
percent felt desperate enough about their
situation to journey elsewhere to have a
legal or illegal abortion.
The remaining 14 percent of the women
could not be traced and were therefore not
accounted for.
The only truly comprehensive study on the
effects of denied abortion on resulting
children followed 249 children of swedish
women denied abortion for 7 to 10 years.
The study found that 73% of these women
were satisfied with the way everything had
turned out (exactly the same percentage as
women who had never even considered
abortion), and 12% had given their
children up for adoption.
The study also found no difference between
the number of new pregnancies among those
women who had been denied an abortion and
those who had not.
Unwanted pregnancy = unwanted child?
In summary, pro-abortionists play heavily
upon the theme of the "unwanted child" in
their propaganda. Pro-lifers must ask the
question: how can preborn children be
simultaneously a "worthless blob of
tissue" and a "child?"
preborn cannot be both, of course. The
pro-aborts would have use believe that an
unwanted pregnancy will automatically
translate into an unwanted newborn
child.
This strange belief has been repeatedly
debunked in medical studies as described
above, and the rationale behind the
studies and the hard data has been
explained by a number of prominent
psychologists.
In a canadian study, Dr. Carlos del
campos generally summarized the outcomes
of most unwanted pregnancies; "thus, the
literature shows a generally comparable
outcome of pregnancy, delivery and
puerperium [period immediately following
childbirth] between women who were denied
abortion and controls;
no evidence that a continued unwanted
pregnancy will endanger the mother's
mental health; good acceptance of the
infant by the mother, especially if she
has the father's support; and minimal to
moderate psychosocial disadvantages for
the child."
dr. Joseph lidz of planned parenthood
said nearly four decades ago that "there
are a great many originally unwanted
children in this world who have become
very deeply wanted after birth, and I
don't think this is simply reaction
formation.
There are women who do not realize how
gratifying it can be to mother a baby
until they actually have it in their arms,
and maternal feelings are aroused by the
tangible situation."
finally, charles and leslie westoff
explain the individual thinking that
allows an "unwanted pregnancy" to develop
into a child that is loved and wanted;
"many if not most of them [unwanted
children] are no doubt rationalized and
adjusted to by the time the woman's
nine-month pregnancy term has ended ...
There is, fortunately, a progression of
attitude for many couples by which an
unplanned pregnancy becomes a wanted and
loved child. It is just as false to infer
that an unwanted birth remains an unwanted
child as it is to assume that all
unplanned pregnancies result in unwanted
births.
There are not many women who can turn
their backs on and close their hearts to
their own newborn babies even though a new
child may alter their plans and change
their lives. Most of the unwanted
children are probably loved and happily
raised
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-06-04 00:51am
Blah blah blah. Once again you are
filling this forum with your precious
quotes which you consider fact.
And I do not like calling people idiots
and fools, only you because you usually
act like one.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-06-04 03:32am
I am not the one who is unwilling to
accpet biological fact, government
statistics, medical statistics, womens
testimonies, abortionists testimonies,
clinic workers testimonies and logical
conclusions that pertain to these.
You may call me a fool if you wish!
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 07-06-04 17:23pm
Once again, samie, someones quote is not
fact! Someone's opinion is not fact!
Just because one group of "scientists"
feel one way does not make it fact! If
it were fact it would be in agreement.
Of course, most would agree not everyone
ever agrees on anything.
Just because one woman has an abortion and
then later decides it is not what she
should have done, does not mean that every
other woman will have the same experience.
It also does not mean that someone
pushed her to decide. (it does happen,
but not all of the time)
you need to take action (and blame if you
will) for your own mistake. You made the
wrong decision for you and I am sorry, but
stop blaming the world and just realize
that you made a mistake. It doesn't make
you a bad person, samie. Just human.
|
samie
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Apr 2004 Posts: 665
Posted: 07-07-04 01:57am
How many times do you have to keep bring
the whole "you had an abortion" argument
into it, it is not what its about....
I couldnt give a to$$ about my baby the
poor little mite is dead I ordered the k
illing but I dont give a to$$, there are
140,000 babies going to die today I give a
to$$ about them, 1,000's of women are
going to be left scared emotionaly and
physicaly those I give a to$$ about.
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author, and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made.
Schizophreniahealth
This page was last updated on June 11, 2008
