Report: Abortion is not a threat to women’s mental health.
By on Aug 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Report: Abortion is not a threat to women’s mental health.
A new two-year study by the American Psychological Association (APA) finds that women “who choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy may experience feelings of grief and loss, but there is no evidence that a single abortion causes significant mental health problems.” From the APA’s press release:
“The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,” said Brenda Major, PhD, chair of the task force. “The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
That whole meme (abortion is a threat to a woman’s mental health) is just propaganda from the extremist “Christian” right.
In other words: bullshit.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:10 amthe somewhat ingested sandwich is not going to be pleased…
August 13th, 2008 at 11:24 amToo ripe for the picking with chimpy, I’m not going near that one.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:26 amWhen the anti-abortion crew start talking about viable alternatives to deal with the children once they are on the ground then I will begin to take them seriously, not before.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:34 amThis clearly won’t matter to the anti-choice crowd. They continue to put out propaganda that abortions cause breast and cervical cancer. They will continue to lie about this issue as well. The end justifies the means. Science be damned.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:38 amYou expect the forced pregnancy movement to pay attention to a scientific “study”?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:45 amDefending ‘abortion rights’ is a deliberate form of sabotage of working-class politics, hence its extreme popularity with the so-called ‘democratic party’.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:48 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Cue Daryll in 5…4…3…2…1….
—-
August 13th, 2008 at 11:52 amI am gonna put my money on the partially consumed sandwich arriving first….
Rowan Berkeley Says:
right out of the playbook fool?
You don’t fool anyone with that tripe.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:54 amAsk Andrea Yates if abortion is a threat to women’s mental health.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:57 amWhy should I ask a woman suffering extreme postpartum depression about the mental impact of not having another baby?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:59 amdbadass Says:
The trolls are weak today aren’t they?
August 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI will never be convinced that what mental stress IS evidenced post abortion is not caused by the attitudes of the anti choice crowd. Being called a murderer and being referred to as an evil hellbound child killer has to have some effect on even the most balanced woman. Imagine what it would do to those who are more fragilefor whatever reason. Of course the anti-choice crowd will attribute any post abortion stress to a causal relationship between abortion and mental health. It would never occur to them to see a causal relationship between their own actions and post abortion stress.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pmone more clue Says:
Terrific point……yay for truth.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pmI don’t get the point. Wouldn’t this be true of any murderer of anyone regardless of the age of the victim or the gender of the killer? I thought this was about abortion.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pmY’know, Fred, I often think that too. but then I cast my mind back over past sessions and I can’t come up with a time when they were anything but weak.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pmGeez, let’s face it – if you find yourself pregnant and you are not able to deal with it for whatever reason all of your choices are difficult and can negatively affect your mental health.
You either have to face the guilt of terminating it (and potentially have to walk the gauntlet of right-wing religious maniaces at the clinic screaming at you) or you have to give the child up and face THAT guilt (not to mention always wondering if the kid will turn up some day) or keep it and have the stress of trying to cope when you really don’t have the means!
It’s so much fun to be female sometimes…
August 13th, 2008 at 12:44 pmDo we have to discuss relationships between variables again. Smokers are more likely to be drinkers. Does smoking cause drinking? Relationships in datasets does not mean they are causal.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm“Report: Abortion is not a threat to women’s mental health.”
__________________________________________________________
Unless, of course, it’s performed in a back alley somewhere under scary conditions…
August 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pmcreusa1 Says
August 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
If a child killer shows no signs of remorse, she is still a murderer.
_________________________________________________________
So you regard abortion as a capital crime? Do you advocate the death penalty for these “child killers”?
August 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pmStupid anti-choice people – I wish they cared as much about the kids that are born half as much as they claim to care about the unborn.
As soon as you have the baby you’re on your own!
August 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pmcreusa1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Whether you kill a baby in a back alley or kill a baby in a “clinic,” you have still killed a baby.
—
August 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pmdefine baby as the law of the land does not equate things the way you wish. I am sorry but that is as it is. A cellular mass and a baby are not the same as evidenced by the acknowledgment of the courts with regard to the legality of abortion. Might your concerns for children be better served by aiding the children in need
creusa1 Says:
Other studies have shown women who have abortions have higher levels of addictions to drugs or alcohol and higher suicide rates.
Where’s the causality you nitwit?
Maybe their extreme emotional/substance dependence problems are what prompted them to abort in the first place. Unless of course you advocate placing living children in harm’s way.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI saw an interview with a nun (a nun!) who said that the so-called pro-life people are actually pro-birth!
The same people who call themselves ‘pro-life’ tend to be the same people who rant about the cost of social programs. Unless it’s our tax money funding one of their ‘faith-based’ groups of course.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pmcreusa1 Says:
How long did your Mother breastfeed you when you were a zygote?
August 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pmdbadass Says:
Do we have to discuss relationships between variables again. Smokers are more likely to be drinkers. Does smoking cause drinking? Relationships in datasets does not mean they are causal.
NO! NO!!! You cannot hope to win over trolls by introducing logic!!! Especially if it isn’t that “easy” logic that requires thought outside of their framing of the issue.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pmAh the myth of the welfare mom. That one never gets old…
August 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pmTweedster Says:
Maybe their extreme emotional/substance dependence problems are what prompted them to abort in the first place.
Good point! Not to mention that if the pregnant woman has substance abuse problems how will that affect her unborn? Will the child be born healthy? Or addicted to something? What if the child is sickly as a result of the mother not taking care of herself during her pregnancy? Will the government provide for the extra needs of that child? Will the government take care of that child when the mother cannot deal with him/her anymore? How well-adjusted will that child be? What are the odds that the child will grow up to be a productive member of society?
August 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm# 17 creusa1 Says: If a child killer shows no signs of remorse, she is still a murderer.
If a poster speaks only in slogans, it is still a troll.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pmdbadass Says:
Ah the myth of the welfare mom. That one never gets old…
And they would seem to be one of the “damned-if-they-do” types – like gays and immigrants – to the Cons. Either they have children for the benefit of piling up welfare cash (how insane is that notion?) or the abort a pregnancy they cannot handle and are labeled murderers by idiots that provide no solid system to take care of children born into bad situations.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm#
mary Says:
Tweedster Says:
Maybe their extreme emotional/substance dependence problems are what prompted them to abort in the first place.
Good point! Not to mention that if the pregnant woman has substance abuse problems how will that affect her unborn? Will the child be born healthy? Or addicted to something? What if the child is sickly as a result of the mother not taking care of herself during her pregnancy? Will the government provide for the extra needs of that child? Will the government take care of that child when the mother cannot deal with him/her anymore? How well-adjusted will that child be? What are the odds that the child will grow up to be a productive member of society?
It is questions like these that the “pro-life” crowd don’t seem all that concerned with. Another reason why they are so idiotic – they don’t even have a complete plan, just one issue and one issue only.
Oh, and abstinence education works!
August 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pmRHF –
I like that.
Creusa1 = pro-rapist advocate
August 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pmcreusa1, the pro-rapist advocate, seems to have left…probably to plot a domestic terror attack on an abortion clinic.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pmcreusa1 Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
creusa1, if a fetus is a baby, then you’re killing babies every time you get a cut. A clump of cells does not make a human being, but under the right conditions they can become one. Until they are a baby (independent thought, independent developed brain, etc.,) they are a not a baby.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
_______________________________________
… and yet there are patents on such things as fetal brain monitors. Go figure.
For use in the third trimester. Go figure.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pmWow. One wonders why this particular troll would have chosen to post such a lame reply, when it surely would have looked better by simply remaining silent.
Could it have possibly thought it had a good rejoinder?
Nah, couldn’t be. Must be getting paid per post.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pmcreusa,
How many children do you currently have? How many more would you be willing to adopt? If you are really devoted to your “cause” I’m sure you have a comprehensive approach that will address what happens if you overturn Roe v. Wade and there are still unwanted pregnancies in the country. Are you willing to step up to the plate on this one? It will be a huge responsibility, but I’m sure someone with the depth of thought and emotion that you possess will be up to the task.
Let’s here your plan!
August 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pmHeeheehee… today’s early favorite for the Irony Award: a troll telling others to “check their facts”.
Classic.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pmCreusa
Absolutely wrong. Fetal brain monitors are used well within the first trimester. Check your facts.
No they aren’t.
First problem, there isn’t a brain there to monitor. Cite your sources.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Flag Tangy for racism.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pmHow can a troll have a plan when he can’t even dress him/her self in the morning?
Anyone else think this Rowan whoever is Wilkes?
take care
tony andlido
Check your sources Creusa (Daughter of Apollo you are NOT)
Linky Link!
August 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pmcreusa1:
August 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pmI respect your concerns about the delicate nature of the topic. Might you share with use the conditions under which you do not see abortion as “child killing”? Most people are wise enough to recognize conditions and circumstances which exist which is why this is already a decided legal matter.
Oops…I think I messed up…Apollo raped Creusa and had a child. I guess that explains Creusa’s pro-rapist stance on abortion.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:21 pm#51
Here, hear…troll ignorance effects my typing/grammar ability when I get in close proximity to one…
August 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pmCreusa1:
non-violent means of birth control
Please define…
Also, still waiting for your source detailing the use of a fetal brain monitor in the first trimester.
Thanks!
August 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pmWhat the heck is non-violent birth control? If you are remotely suggesting that people use abortion for birth control, I’ll have to cut you lose as that is just crazy talk. Abstinence has a very poor track record. The age of first sexual contact has changed very little through time Adoption is a fine idea.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pmcreusa1 Says:
I lied about the use of fetal brain monitors in the first trimester.
I know you can say Creusa…I’m waiting…
August 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pmcreusa1
Please offer some evidences to support your claim at #64. I have seen no evidence to support this. All the woman I know who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy did so for reasons which had nothing to do with “birth control”.
Also why do you continue to employ the term “killing”. The law disagrees with you on this. How do you explain this?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pmMy god, you people are stupid. good thing you’re too broke to follow your wind up toy obama into an invasion of pakistan, eh?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pmRowan Berkeley Says:
——————————————————————————–
My god, you people are stupid. good thing you’re too broke to follow your wind up toy obama into an invasion of pakistan, eh?
–
August 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pmThis is interesting. Would you like to explain how I or anyone else here is stupid and how Mr Obama or Pakistan has anything to do with this discussion? Otherwise I will just write you off as another tool/fool…
creusa1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Laws are not stagnant db.
If a killer shoots a pregnant woman and neither the mother nor the baby survives, the killer is charged with double homicide. How do you explain this if it is just a “mass of cells”?
–
August 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pmI don’t try to explain it. It is usually the result of knee jerk laws which are ill advised and driven by zealots. It also has to do with the timeframe of the gestation. It doesn’t change the fact that an undifferentiated mass of cells is not the same as a person.
So about those evidences in support of the use of abortion as birth control? Just another myth I presume…
August 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pmLet’s compromise, Creusa1:
I’ll agree that abortion should be illegal, if you’ll agree that rape should be legal.
I mean, as long as you’re forcing a woman to bear children against her will, you might as well force her to have sex against her will. And nobody’s being killed. The woman doesn’t really matter at all – just that very precious baby. A baby so precious it would be a crime not to force the woman to have it.
That is your point, right? Whaddya say – we got a deal?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm#70 creusa1 Says:
Thanks for answering my question. Unfortunately, it’s been debunked:
Have you heard the common claim that “fetal brain waves” have been measured very early in pregnancy? Ever wondered how exactly that was done, and if it’s true?
Good question, and no, it’s not true. Instead, as with many “pro-life” assertions, it’s based on very old research that has been taken out of context or misreported. It also depends on an incorrect, misleading definition of “brain waves,” which is a nontechnical term anyway. Here’s the real story.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pmcreusa1, please address the fact that your cited “fact” about brain wave activity in the first trimester is wrong.
Thanks!
August 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pmThe assertion is made over and over again that “fetal brain activity” has been observed or “fetal brain waves” have been measured at 40, 43, or 45 days, or at 6 weeks after fertilization. You can find the claim in “pro-life” and sometimes even nonmedical pro-choice literature. Sometimes a reference is cited, but most often not. This false information has passed into the general understanding about fetal development and is simply stated as fact. It is however a factoid instead, which is the name for a statment repeated often enough that people accept it as truth, though it’s not.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pmAs is typical of “pro-life” writings and websites, however, it’s doubtful whether “Jack Dean” or anyone else has actually read Hamlin’s speech, which makes citing it dishonest. Rather, the claim is coming from “Dr. Jack” Willke’s Abortion: Questions and Answers:
When is the brain functioning?
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).
H. Hamlin, “Life or Death by EEG,” JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
What does the speech really say? I’ve looked it up in an actual 1964 JAMA, and it’s amazing that this antiquated document is still being used in ways that must have Hannibal Hamlin turning in his grave. For one thing, it’s misleading and deceptive for people to quote it as if it were original research rather than a personal essay or opinion piece from one physician, and for another, the research Hamlin cited is ancient and long superseded.
Not surprisingly for 1964, Dr. Hamlin had nothing to say about abortion. Instead, the speech is a plea that “competent application and interpretation of the EEG should gain medical approval for legal pronouncement of human death.” This was not medical or legal practice in 1964, when only the lack of a heartbeat and breathing determined death.
As part of the speech, which is largely a consideration of the brain and not the heart in defining human life and which includes quotes from Pope Pius XII and the poet Pindar, Hamlin said:
The electrophysiologic rhythm of the brain develops early. Detailed EEG tracings have been taken directly from the headend of 16 mm (crown-rump) human embryos at 40-odd days gestation, recovered from termination of pregnancies (Japan) 6 which revealed irregular slow waves, 0.2-2.0 per second at 10-90 mv with superimposed fine waves of 30-40 per second at 1-5mv. Recordings from embryos of 45 to 120 days gestation through surface and depth electrodes have shown reponses to sedative and stimulant drugs, normal sleep spindles, and the effect of lack of oxygen by paroxysmal high voltage slow waves and ultimate electrical silence.7 The intra-uterine fetal brain responds to biochemical changes associated with oxygen deprivation by abnormal EEG activity similar to that produced in the adult brain.7 Thus at an early prenatal stage of life, the EEG reflects a distinctly individual pattern that soon becomes truly personalized. This is not so the ECG in producing its various types of records at all ages, many specimens of each type being identical and lacking any individual quality.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pmI am not sure those data indicate clear evidences. I think they would need to be teased out further. As to where/when a life begins, well that is a very complex issue which is why I feel it best left to the decisions of mothers in consultation with their families when appropriate and their medical providers. I think those like yourself whom have other thoughts should just stay the hell out of the private complexities of others whose circumstances you know not nor seem inclined to want to support.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pmAt 17 weeks of pregnancy (119 days after fertilization) R.M. Bergstrom also reported finding “primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus” in the midbrain, according to Electroencephalography. Even the oldest fetuses that were studied, however, had no “brain waves” or other kind of signal from the cortex up to 150 or so days.
So all that this research showed, and reported, about the brain development of 56-to-70-day embryos and fetuses is that they have live nerve cells present in their brainstems. This is not the same as “brain waves” (Willke), or “electrical waves as measured by the EEG, indicating brain functioning” (”The Pro-Life Advocate”), or “coordinating and individuating brain function” (Goldenring).
August 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pmCreusa, please do your homework before telling other to do theirs…
Thanks again!
August 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pmMatt, I already addressed this above, with cittions to authority. Of the abortions reported in 1999 to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions.
Add those figures up, and it tells you that 45% of women who have abortions have multiple abortions. 19% have three or more. That is pretty clearly using abortion as a method of birth control.
If women were using abortion as birth control, they’d clearly be having lots more abortions. And why is that wrong anyway? I wouldn’t choose it; it’s expensive and painful. But who is to say that using abortion as birth control is “wrong?” Isn’t it up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong for themselves?
And according to your own post, it’s only 7.5% that have reported more than two abortions, not 19%. The 19% number would be for women who have had two abortions.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pman EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record “brain waves” prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story. Scientists do not attempt to find electrocortical activity in embryos and fetuses because they know more about the physical structure of the developing human brain than they did in 1963.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pmMatt, I already addressed this above, with cittions to authority. Of the abortions reported in 1999 to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions.
Add those figures up, and it tells you that 45% of women who have abortions have multiple abortions. 19% have three or more. That is pretty clearly using abortion as a method of birth control.
No, you can’t add those figures up and come up with 45% of women having multiple abortions. 26.2% of that 45% reported only ONE abortion.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pmcreusa1 Says:
Tweedster. Even the article you cite admits that human life begins half way through pregnancy, which would negate abortion on demand, and partial birth abortion. Are you willing to make that same admission?
I didn’t catch that part, but nonetheless, your evasive question-answering-a-question technique in nonsensical.
Abortion on demand? What is that?
I’ve never advocated, nor do I believe the medical community or pro-choice advocates, the utilization of partial birth abortion unless it is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Don’t put words in my mouth, while at the same time distorting things with your falsehoods.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pmcreusa1:
August 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pmThe rigidity of your thought process and biases agenda shines too through in # 102. I regret that you seem to lack the flexibility of thought to see the shades of any hue. Would it follow that miscarriages are “baby killings”? When you use such clearly slanted tones it makes any argument you try to make suspect.
creusa1 Says:
hmmm, someday I do need to learn how to code underlining though.
It’s called a link, stupid. You click on it and it loads a web page with information that might make you smarter.
Or not, in your case.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pmcreusa1 Says:
Tweedster, this is not a contest of who can use the most underlined and bolded text. Obviously, we can find sources to cite on both sides of the issue. The side that values human life, and the side that thinks a baby is just a mass of inconvenient cells fit for the garbage can up to the very moment of birth.
Actually, the only source you cited was debunked. So, no, you can’t find a source to support the use of fetal brain monitors in the first trimester OR even the EXISTENCE of brain waves in the first trimester.
YOU ARE WRONG.
That was the issue, and I had to drive it home because you are SO WRONG and you had the gall to tell me to do MY homework?
Thanks!
August 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm#
creusa1 Says:
So Tweedster, are you against abortion once brain waves can be detected?
Really, I think you owe me an apology here. Maybe you were duped by your sources, but you calling me out for not doing my homework and then trying to turn the tables with your line of questioning is kind of insulting.
I support women’s reproductive rights. My personal moral views shouldn’t be forced on the general population and neither should yours.
Since brain wave function happens much much much later in pregnancy then you claimed, I’m sure the vast minority of abortions performed occur once brain function can be established. Please cite contradictory evidence if you can, I’ll gladly debunk that as well.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm#
creusa1 Says:
Tweedster. There are hundreds of websites that reference fetal brain waves at 6 to 8 weeks of gestation. Not just one. Try “the Google.”
And they ALL cite the same couple of sources that have been debunked. Try reading footnotes and citations.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pmCreusa,
If pro-lifers are so honorable, why is it that they have to lie and distort to make their case?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pmCreusa,
Taking non-peer reviewed letters to medical journals and taking quotes wholly out of context a fact does not make.
Sorry to burst your lie-bubble.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pmI am still just trying to figure out the conditions under which Creusa1 would find the termination of a pregnancy not the “killing” of a baby… Abortion is not a new concept. Cultures throughout time have recognized the complexities of the issues as evidenced by the use of indigenous peoples of aborticidial ethnobotanical pharmacological compounds
August 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pmdbadass Says:
I am still just trying to figure out the conditions under which Creusa1 would find the termination of a pregnancy not the “killing” of a baby… Abortion is not a new concept. Cultures throughout time have recognized the complexities of the issues as evidenced by the use of indigenous peoples of aborticidial ethnobotanical pharmacological compounds
dbadass, it seems symptomatic of people that will lie and distort to “prove” they are right that there can be no complexity of thought or argument. One is either “right” or “wrong” – there isn’t middle ground.
Anyway, since Creusa has apparently very little (real) knowledge of fetal development, I’m not sure she can handle that question honestly.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pmcreusa1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Matt, I already addressed this above, with cittions to authority. Of the abortions reported in 1999 to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions.
Add those figures up, and it tells you that 45% of women who have abortions have multiple abortions. 19% have three or more. That is pretty clearly using abortion as a method of birth control.
****
August 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pmAs someone who studied statistics in grad school I can tell you that you are wrong. There are only 2 ways those %s could have been meant.
First: 26.2 had (at least) one. of those 100 percent, 11.2 had (at least) 2 and of those 100%, 7.5 had 3+. Meaning that 26.2-11.2-7.5=7.5% of all the women polled had had one previous abortion.
Second:26.2 had (at least) one. Take that 26.2 percent and recalculate with it as 100% to get the 11.2 and 7.5 figures. Meaning that of the original 100%, .43% have had 2 previous and .29% have had 3+. (11.2/26.2 and 7.5/26.2)
I must say the first way would be the more accepted way of doing things because it allows for less “bs”ing of the numbers. If you know stats well, you can make the numbers look just about any way you want to get people to believe your conclusion. Many researchers are masters of this.
Hey creusa1!
Still thinking about that legalize rape deal?
Because it’s all about the babies, right? Babies so precious you don’t care how they’re conceived, right? Just as long as they aren’t aborted, right?
C’mon, you know you want to…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pmwell beyond when even Dr. Tweedster, Phd agrees that brain wave function can be measured.
It’s amazing you can level that muster of condescension when you were WRONG.
Listen, I asked you to cite your “fact” and you did.
I followed up on it, it was proven to be false, and you still tried to claim “the Google” held your answer as sacrosanct.
You’re totally lame. Admit you were wrong without having act all whiney about it.
Just because the facts contradict some points of your argument, you can recover gracefully.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pmlevel that muster baby…fire away
gosh, it’s draining trying to keep up with people who want to move the goal posts of the debate every-so-often…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pmThe women who have had 2 previous abortions have also had one previous abortion. So they count for towards the 26.2 and the 11.2 stat. So the women that have had 3+ have also had 2 and 1 previous abortion. So they count for all 3 statistics. That’s all there is to it.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pmcreusa1 Says:
maple. You are using fuzzy math. Let me break it down for you.
ROTFL…actually, your math is wrong. If some woman had 3 abortions, she would have also had more than one, making that percentage a subset of the overall percent of women who have had multiple abortions (or more than one).
11.2% had two previous abortions. 1 + 2 = 3 Thus, once they had this abortion, they had three.
This also means that they had two abortions. You know, to reach three, you go through two.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pmcreusa1 Says:
Tweedster, all you have cited to is an article by a pro-abortion advocate that is neither a doctor nor a scientist. That hardly proves the medical journals wrong.
Actually it does. Read the post. It contains full citations, including your original cite (which was the ONLY ONE YOU CAME UP WITH BTW). You are lying. It doesn’t surprise me.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pmI would venture that a miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) is much more devastating to the vast majority of women than the effects of loss experienced after a planned abortion. Sure as hell was for my partner (and for me, as the father, for that matter).
August 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pmcreusa1 Says:
Tweedster, all you have cited to is an article by a pro-abortion advocate that is neither a doctor nor a scientist. That hardly proves the medical journals wrong
Care to explain then why the only cite you came up with was from 1964? Also, the link you provided was from the Second Look Project – a pro-life site that doesn’t give the proper context to the Hamlin citation?
You’re being dishonest.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm“Abortion Mill”? I smell a lack of objective thought. Ignore those whose argument can not be made objectively…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pmyea, who’s to say the author of that article isn’t as big of a jackass as you? Most of this country doesn’t have a basic grasp of statistics and therefore can be lead around the room by the nose just cuz someone throws out a percentage. it’s dangerous and i take serious offense to “researchers” or “scientists” who “fib” their results by skewing the numbers.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pmcreusa1 Says:
Freep, what percentate of abortions do you contend result from rape?
That’s not the point. The point is:
Why stop at forcing women to bear children against their will, when you can legalize rape and also force women to have intercourse against their will? You can’t make ‘em push out those precious babies if they’re not pregnant, you know.
Please pay attention.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm“That hardly proves the medical journals wrong”
But I suppose that a medical professional in consultation with his patient deciding that a legal and safe abortion is appropriate under the conditions the patient is faced with is a “baby killer”. Come on my friend employ some consistency. You can’t play both sides and expect to be taken seriously
August 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm130 Creusa distorts:
Citing the Elliot Inst News, 19May03.
The Elliot Institute…pure science right there. I’m sure they’d never lie and distort medical science like Creusa does.
/snark
August 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pmmaple25 Says:
yea, who’s to say the author of that article isn’t as big of a jackass as you? Most of this country doesn’t have a basic grasp of statistics and therefore can be lead around the room by the nose just cuz someone throws out a percentage. it’s dangerous and i take serious offense to “researchers” or “scientists” who “fib” their results by skewing the numbers.
The “Elliot Institute” hosts the site afterabortion.org
Full of lies and distortions. Why can’t the pro-lifers stick to facts instead on manipulating pretty basic things…like the development of the brain’s cortex?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pmwhat gives?
August 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pmcreusa1 Says:
You cannot call an abortion “legal and safe” when a baby ends up dead. Death is not a safe result.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Yes, you can call abortion “legal and safe,” since abortion is legal, and a legal abortion is safer for the woman than an illegal abortion.
It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. And the fetus has no say in the matter. Period.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pmWhen it draws it’s first breath.
But don’t go down the mythical “partial birth” abortion road, dingleberry. We’re defining “baby,” not viability.
I’ve read your shit on this thread, so I already know you think you’ve got it all figured out. You’re wrong, but I’m not going to try to change your mind.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:43 pmcreusa1 Says:
“I refuse to answer anyone’s questions, but ANSWER MINE!”
At what point does a “fetus” become a baby in your view, Zooey?
You’re just trolling, jumping from topic to topic on this board, racking up posts, shooting for that John McCain campaign commemorative melon baller.
Flagged ab hinc.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:54 pmReading comprehension is not the troll’s strong suit, I see.
Dismissed.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pmIf we can at least agree to draw the line at where brain waves can be detected as the line that cannot be crossed, that will be a great start.
So if a fetus is delivered, with organs on the outside of it’s body, the fact that there are brainwaves makes it a baby?
It’s still going to die, no matter what you do to save it, so what does it really matter?
August 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pmSince when are fishmongers anything but learned?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pmClearly, the troll hangs out with the wrong fishmongers.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:45 pmShouldn’t you be out getting another partial birth abortion or something?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:51 pmMy appointment is tomorrow!
August 14th, 2008 at 12:12 am______
blackjackshellac Says:
I would venture that a miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) is much more devastating to the vast majority of women than the effects of loss experienced after a planned abortion. Sure as hell was for my partner (and for me, as the father, for that matter).
August 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
______
I’m sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, some here believe a miscarriage is no different than a paper cut or removing a mole.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:25 amWho feels that way, upwrong alley?
I didn’t know you could read others’ minds.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:28 am______
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Who feels that way, upwrong alley?
I didn’t know you could read others’ minds.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:28 am
hates facts has the cut comparison:
republicans hate facts Says:
creusa1, if a fetus is a baby, then you’re killing babies every time you get a cut. A clump of cells does not make a human being, but under the right conditions they can become one. Until they are a baby (independent thought, independent developed brain, etc.,) they are a not a baby.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
And I’m sure you remember previous abortion threads in which some people made comparisons between unborn babies and tumors.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:37 amupright left:
August 14th, 2008 at 12:37 amI take offense to you comment. Please identify and provide evidences to support your slander. If you can not please retrack your comment.
______
dbadass Says:
upright left:
I take offense to you comment. Please identify and provide evidences to support your slander. If you can not please retrack your comment.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:37 am
______
dbadass, I disagree with you on a number of issues, but I’ve never seen evidence of dishonesty in your posts. I will truly be surprised if you refuse to acknowledge having seen comments comparing unborn babies to clumps of cells.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:47 amThe unborn are not babies, they are fetuses.
If a woman becomes pregnant, by whatever circumstances, and does not want to have a child, her mental health will not suffer having had an abortion.
Everyone else, mind your own business. You control no one but yourself.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:50 amZygotes ARE clumps of cell, dumbass — not babies. Only potential babies.
Get over it.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:53 amupright left:
August 14th, 2008 at 12:54 amThank you for your kind suggestion of my character. I think the problem is that I understand what I mean as a cellular mass. On the other hand the expansive and ill defined “baby” term lacks reasonable dimensions. To move forward I feel you need hone your terms.
best-
______
Zooey Says:
The unborn are not babies, they are fetuses.
If a woman becomes pregnant, by whatever circumstances, and does not want to have a child, her mental health will not suffer having had an abortion.
Everyone else, mind your own business. You control no one but yourself.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
______
Remember the discussion about how people don’t ask pregnant women about their fetuses? Expectant parents don’t offer to show sonograms of their fetuses. If it’s a clump of cells when it’s unwanted, it’s a clump of cells if it’s wanted as well, and thus deserving of no more consideration.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:58 amYeah, I remember that stupid argument.
It was stupid then, and it’s just as stupid now. One person’s unwanted pregnancy does not diminish another person’s wanted pregnancy. Just as a wanted pregnancy does not enhance an unwanted pregnancy.
Things just don’t work that way in the real world — no matter how many times you try to argue that they do.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:02 amI sort of have to go with Zooey on that one…
August 14th, 2008 at 1:05 am______
dbadass Says:
upright left:
Thank you for your kind suggestion of my character. I think the problem is that I understand what I mean as a cellular mass. On the other hand the expansive and ill defined “baby” term lacks reasonable dimensions. To move forward I feel you need hone your terms.
best-
August 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
______
dbadass, I don’t pretend to have the solution to the abortion question. I certainly don’t want children to be raised by parents who don’t want them. And I would never presume to make a decision for a mother who knows her child will have a fatal deformity. I am not an outspoken opponent of abortion. I do think our society attempts to make the issue more palatable by saying the fetus isn’t alive, human, thinking etc. I have yet to meet anyone who can adquately explain the joy, anticipation, and love that expectant parents express for an unborn baby (fetus) that they want and the flippant disregard for a pregnancy of the same gestation that happens to be unwanted. If it’s unwanted, it’s nothing more than a clump of cells. If it’s wanted, it is valuable and worthy of grieving in case of loss.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:11 amDoes the mother hampster feel the same stresses prior to choosing to eat her young under harsh environmental conditions so to allow her the caloric energy needed to live to move on DNA another day?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:25 amIt’s easy to sit in your own house, in your own circumstances, with your own cozy little beliefs, and decide that someone else is bad, or making the wrong decision about their own life and circumstances. It’s easy to think that someone who makes the decision to have an abortion is cold and callus, and won’t grieve the necessity of having had to make that decision.
You simply can’t project your own emotions and beliefs onto other people’s lives.
You might thinks it’s “wrong” to terminate a pregnancy, but unless it’s your pregnancy, it’s none of your business. Someone else might think it’s “wrong” to have a child they do not want or cannot support. That’s their business.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am______
dbadass Says:
Does the mother hampster feel the same stresses prior to choosing to eat her young under harsh environmental conditions so to allow her the caloric energy needed to live to move on DNA another day?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:25 am
______
Sorry, I was under the impression that the discussion concerned human offspring. I’m glad to see you got over being offended though! ;)
August 14th, 2008 at 1:31 amAnimal behavior is all based on the same essentials. Given a series of images of the early developmental stages of let’s ay a ardwolf, a kohlrabi, a halibut, a minke whale, and maybe your sister’s potential kid do you think you could match “baby” to parent?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:37 amOnce again I stand with Zooey. It is a private matter!
August 14th, 2008 at 1:39 am______
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
It’s easy to sit in your own house, in your own circumstances, with your own cozy little beliefs, and decide that someone else is bad, or making the wrong decision about their own life and circumstances. It’s easy to think that someone who makes the decision to have an abortion is cold and callus, and won’t grieve the necessity of having had to make that decision.
You simply can’t project your own emotions and beliefs onto other people’s lives.
You might thinks it’s “wrong” to terminate a pregnancy, but unless it’s your pregnancy, it’s none of your business. Someone else might think it’s “wrong” to have a child they do not want or cannot support. That’s their business.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am
______
That’s fine with me, as long as those who feel that abortion is comparable to removing a tumor treat their own unborn babies/fetuses with the same disdain that they do unwanted babies/fetuses. Thus, there should be no reason to take offense to my first comment.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:41 amYou just haven’t figured out that how people feel about ANYTHING is out of your control, UL. It not up to you to decide.
That is totally offensive.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:45 am______
dbadass Says:
Animal behavior is all based on the same essentials. Given a series of images of the early developmental stages of let’s ay a ardwolf, a kohlrabi, a halibut, a minke whale, and maybe your sister’s potential kid do you think you could match “baby” to parent?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am
______
You’ll forgive me if I expect humans to have a little more consideration for their unborn babies than animals do. I guess a fundamental disagreement like that precludes us from coming anywhere near agreement on this issue.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:46 amPlease explain how the basis of human behavior is predicated on a differing set of rules and don’t give me that stupid white dude with a beard on a cloud shit.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:49 amBruce Almighty?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:51 am______
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
You just haven’t figured out that how people feel about ANYTHING is out of your control, UL. It not up to you to decide.
That is totally offensive.
______
No, I’m just trying to point out that you’re essentially saying the worth of an unborn baby/fetus is determined by the feelings of the parent. If they want it, it has value. If not, it doesn’t. If that’s how you feel, fine. It’s exactly how the value of goods and services are determined in our economy, why not human life as well?
Since you, and others, have stated that a baby doesn’t become a baby until it draws it’s first breath, what is there to grieve if it dies prior to birth?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:55 amNothing is ever as black and white as a troll would like it to be. I guess it’s easier for the simplest of minds to think that way.
If only they cared as much AFTER the fetus becomes a child.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:00 am______
dbadass Says:
Please explain how the basis of human behavior is predicated on a differing set of rules and don’t give me that stupid white dude with a beard on a cloud shit.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:49 am
______
You’re absolutely right. There is no difference between a human being and a halibut. It’s all so clear now. Thanks for helping me see the light. Now the whole pro-abortion thing makes perfect sense. ;)
August 14th, 2008 at 2:03 amFor interesting insights into behavior check out the work of Frans DeWaal…
August 14th, 2008 at 2:03 amIt’s not “pro-abortion,” it’s pro-choice.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 amI believe the earlier discussion revolved around the question of cellular mass versus “baby”.
It’s the C’s, G’s, A’s, and T’s ya wanna worry about
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 am______
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Nothing is ever as black and white as a troll would like it to be. I guess it’s easier for the simplest of minds to think that way.
If only they cared as much AFTER the fetus becomes a child.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:00 am
______
I believe I acknowledged previously that it isn’t black and white. I just think hypocrisy should be pointed out wherever it is, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. You can’t have it both ways regarding the unborn. Have all the abortions you want. It makes no difference to me. But unborn babies/fetuses either have intrinsic value or they don’t, regardless of the desires of their parents.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:12 amupright left sez:
But unborn babies/fetuses either have intrinsic value or they don’t, regardless of the desires of their parents.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:12 am
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Oh well, who cares?
Toooodles!
August 14th, 2008 at 2:16 amgems buried beneath the ground have intrinsic value. Digging them up corrupts their value. Leave these woman making private decisons alone. Hey can I get a little “smaller government” over here?
August 14th, 2008 at 2:18 am______
dbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
I believe the earlier discussion revolved around the question of cellular mass versus “baby”.
It’s the C’s, G’s, A’s, and T’s ya wanna worry about
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 am
______
If you considered your children to be cellular masses until they drew their first breath, then your position is at least consistent. Though I do wonder why you took offense at my first comment. Why is there any need to grieve for a mass of cells that you believe is not unlike a kohlrabi?
August 14th, 2008 at 2:25 am______
dbadass Says:
gems buried beneath the ground have intrinsic value. Digging them up corrupts their value. Leave these woman making private decisons alone. Hey can I get a little “smaller government” over here?
August 14th, 2008 at 2:18 am
______
I didn’t ask for a law against abortion, now did I? I didn’t suggest anything from the govt. Only consistency regarding the value placed on unborn babies/fetuses.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:31 amAs for the gems, how much money would you pay for a gem that is underground? Personally, I would expect to see a gem before I would pay for it.
What you miss is that I have passed no judgment. I accept that the union of gametes which yielded my children who I parent as best I can and who are magical beings is a terrific process. Still it is just basic bio 101
August 14th, 2008 at 2:33 amAs for the gems, how much money would you pay for a gem that is underground? Personally, I would expect to see a gem before I would pay for it.
—-
Knowing there is a bigger fish at sea which I did not catch is better than catching a fish the biggest fish I ever caught at sea…
August 14th, 2008 at 2:37 am______
dbadass Says:
What you miss is that I have passed no judgment. I accept that the union of gametes which yielded my children who I parent as best I can and who are magical beings is a terrific process. Still it is just basic bio 101
August 14th, 2008 at 2:33 am
______
I’m not judging either. I simply say that every potential human being either has value or every one doesn’t. And for those who say a baby isn’t a baby until it’s born, how many would say, upon miscarrying at 8 months, oh well, it wasn’t a baby yet anyway.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:45 am______
dbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
As for the gems, how much money would you pay for a gem that is underground? Personally, I would expect to see a gem before I would pay for it.
—-
Knowing there is a bigger fish at sea which I did not catch is better than catching a fish the biggest fish I ever caught at sea…
August 14th, 2008 at 2:37 am
______
A lovely sentiment, but not really relevant to the intrinsic value of unborn babies/fetuses.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:47 amWe’d be making a lot of assumptions if we did that. I still say for that reason alone we should leave each to make the decisions which best meet the unique challenges thwy face
August 14th, 2008 at 2:51 amStill no definition of “baby”
August 14th, 2008 at 2:52 am______
dbadass Says:
We’d be making a lot of assumptions if we did that. I still say for that reason alone we should leave each to make the decisions which best meet the unique challenges thwy face
August 14th, 2008 at 2:51 am
______
I have no problem with allowing everyone to make their own decisions. Create them just to abort them. Makes no difference to me. I do have a problem with people comparing fetuses to tumors when they want to make it palatable to abort them, but expecting others to place value on the ones they want. If your wanted child is a useless clump of cells until it is born and you expect no special consideration if it dies before birth, your position is sound. It’s not a matter of right or wrong. It’s a matter of consistency and hypocrisy.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:05 am______
dbadass Says:
Still no definition of “baby”
August 14th, 2008 at 2:52 am
______
A baby is a human child from the time of conception to age three.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:06 amWrong, wrong, wrong. Medically, it becomes a BABY when it draws it’s first breath — at birth. Until then, it’s in the womb, using the fetal circulation system, and does not use it’s lungs to breathe — it’s a fetus.
Now, you can go all emotional over the cute wittle babies, and no one wants them, and they have no value. Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!
Until you start treating all born children as if they have the same value, you argument about “consistency regarding the value placed on unborn babies/fetuses” is dead in the water.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:37 amfrom the time of conception? Shit I just aged 9 months…
August 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm______
Zooey Says:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Medically, it becomes a BABY when it draws it’s first breath — at birth. Until then, it’s in the womb, using the fetal circulation system, and does not use it’s lungs to breathe — it’s a fetus.
Now, you can go all emotional over the cute wittle babies, and no one wants them, and they have no value. Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!
Until you start treating all born children as if they have the same value, you argument about “consistency regarding the value placed on unborn babies/fetuses” is dead in the water.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
______
Show me where I’ve disparaged any existing child and I’ll take responsibility for it.
As for the babies, have fifty abortions if you like. Women can continue to kill their unborn children as they have for years. Makes no difference to me. But if an unwanted child is just a lifeless fetus, but you refer to a wanted one as “the baby” or “my baby”, then you are a hypocrite. I’m really glad you wouldn’t have had to grieve if you had had an accident and lost a fetus the day before it was to be born. That kind of thinking really takes care of a lot of unnecessary emotion. ;)
August 14th, 2008 at 3:52 pm______
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
do have a problem with people comparing fetuses to tumors when they want to make it palatable to abort them
Why would you have a problem with that? It’s none of your business what another person thinks or decides especially if it doesn’t effect you at all. Why are you anti-choice nuts so obsessed at controlling others and their decisions?
August 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
______
Abort all the babies you want. I have no desire to control anyone’s decisions. But have the courage of your convictions and call it what it is. As long as you never refer to an unborn baby as a baby and give it no more consideration than you would a tumor, you aren’t a hypocrite. If, like zooey, you feel a fetus at 8 months gestation is nothing more than a clump of cells because it hasn’t yet drawn a breath, your position is consistent. If you ever place any more value on an unborn baby than you would a mole, you are a hypocrite. We can’t have hypocrisy. ;)
August 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm“If, like zooey, you feel a fetus at 8 months gestation is nothing more than a clump of cells…”
Now you’re going to have to find where I ever said that, idiot, and prove somehow that I actually “feel” that way.
Even you must know there’s a difference between a zygote (literally a clump of cells) and a fetus.
No, you would never disparage an existing child — not you!! You just support the Republican ideal of of not funding things such as daycare, education (NCLB anyone?), S-CHIP, etc. That’s not disparaging — that’s obscene! But if you can live with yourself, it’s nothing to me.
So you can stop projecting your own weak-assed “standards” onto other people, it’s really juvenile. Grow up now, and understand that you’re not the center of the universe, and you don’t get to decide how other people think. M’kay?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm______
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
“If, like zooey, you feel a fetus at 8 months gestation is nothing more than a clump of cells…”
Now you’re going to have to find where I ever said that, idiot, and prove somehow that I actually “feel” that way.
Even you must know there’s a difference between a zygote (literally a clump of cells) and a fetus.
No, you would never disparage an existing child — not you!! You just support the Republican ideal of of not funding things such as daycare, education (NCLB anyone?), S-CHIP, etc. That’s not disparaging — that’s obscene! But if you can live with yourself, it’s nothing to me.
So you can stop projecting your own weak-assed “standards” onto other people, it’s really juvenile. Grow up now, and understand that you’re not the center of the universe, and you don’t get to decide how other people think. M’kay?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
______
It’s good to know that you do place some value on human life before it manages to “draw its first breath.” Perhaps my comment about the 8 month gestation baby/fetus wasn’t entirely correct. You still didn’t respond to the hypocrisy of not giving the same value to babies/fetuses of the same gestation, unless you consider “you don’t get to decide to decide how other people think” as having addressed it.
Of course, you have a link to show that I oppose daycare, education, S-CHIP etc. And I abhor the cowardly, hypocritical Congressional practice of passing legislation, but failing to fund it. I support funding all those things, but not a sudden influx of money to the same old programs with the same old rules, or lack of them, so more multi millions of dollars can be thrown away while politicians crow about how much they did for the nation’s children. I support funding those programs with strict accountability and stiff jail sentences for those who choose to feed at the public trough and waste the money that Americans work hard to earn. I choose to be realistic about govt and acknowledge that any politician of any party is likely to be getting something in return for any legislation he supports rather than blindly worshipping one party because they support more of the programs that I do.
If you’re going to call someone juvenile, it’s best not to end your post with a common teen cliche. ;)
August 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am