Pro Life Debate #1: “A Woman has the right to control her own body.”
By , Published January 19th, 2012

This is usually the first line you will hear out of the mouths of pro-choice activists. They demand to know who we think we are to tell a woman what to do with “her” body. There are three main arguments you can use against this line:

1.       If you have a “right” to control your body, then you have a responsibility to do so before you get pregnant.

According to the Planned Parenthood affiliated Guttmacher Institute, 93% of abortions are due to social reasons (child is too expensive; it would interfere with mother’s plans). If these women knew they did not want a child, then they have a responsibility to either chose not to have sex, or to at least use effective birth control. Abortion is not just “a simple medical procedure”: it results in death 100% of the time.  If you want to argue rights, you must first take responsibility for your own choices.

2.       An unborn child is not a part of the woman’s body.

A baby is not an organ, it is not a woman’s property, and it IS a life. Scientifically speaking, from the moment of conception a baby has its own DNA, making it a completely different being from a genetics stand point. If a baby is a part of a woman’s body, then pregnant women have two hearts, two brains, and a penis half of the time. An unborn child is IN a woman’s body, but it is not PART of the woman’s body. It is a completely separate human being. The uterus is designed to hold the child and protect it- nature is telling you what to do with your uterus, not pro-lifers.

3.       Every year abortion activists allow 650,000 women to be stripped of their most basic rights.

Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration that “all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The very first right, that of LIFE, is denied to 1.3 Million innocent humans every year and half of them are girls. If you truly care about the rights of women, you would be dedicated to preserving the right of all women to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Deanna Candler is a nationally ranked debate champion with the International Public Debate Association. She was adopted after her birth mother decided not to abort. To contact Deanna with ideas for more debates, email her at deannacandler@gmail.com.
Live Action on Facebook
  • Anonymous

    The third point doesn’t even include the increasing number of sex-selective abortions that target girls in Asia.

    • Hovish13

      It also doesn’t point out that there are actually a greater number of boys conceived compared to girls- about 120 in comparison to 100- but boys are more likely to be miscarried during pregnancy, which brings the ratio closer (in a non-aborted pregnancy) to 50/50 by birth.. 

      So really, the number of girls stated in the article would probably be less than half, but as you said, there is still sex-selective abortion widespread, especially in Asia, and increasingly in Asian communities in the U.S. , which would in turn increase the girl to boy ratio.

    • Anonymous

      it happens here as well.

  • notimportant

    The argument that follows up from point #1 is: What if the reliable birth control should happen to fail?

    It is true that no birth control is 100% effective, and while I do understand that isn’t the fault of the baby who is now on the way, other people will ask why should the mother have to pay with her life being altered forever? Even if she chooses to give the baby up for adoption, she still had to go through the misery of pregnancy and the agony of delivery- for nothing. And her life is still forever altered. Her health/body is still forever altered. She may miss career opportunities during her unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice people point out that this is why they view an unwanted baby as a punishment…..so what do I say to my pro-choice friends and family over all that, when even I can’t find an argument that I can believe in to refute those claims? A little help here, please?

    • Hovish13

      for nothing? No, giving a child a chance at life is not nothing, my friend! (Excuse my double negative, haha) In fact, I think it is a courageous, valiant act, to sacrifice 9 months of a life so that a child may live.. so not “nothing”.. but a heroic, selfless act that should be praised. 

      I encourage you to look up articles on this site and others that cite studies of how being pregnant improves the health of the mother- and those that state the ways that abortion alters the health (both physical and mental) of a woman.  :)

      • notimportant

        Okay, there’s one point I can use. It may be a hard sell though.

        The only pregnancies I’ve ever seen involved multiple hospitalizations throughout the entire course of each pregnancy for massive dehydration resulting from severe vomiting (some of the girls began to have bleeding gastric ulcers from all the ralphing). Every pregnant woman I’ve ever known only spoke of how ill, miserable and exhausted she was. All the girls looked like they were going through hell. And delivery?! One of them vomited throughout the entire labor/delivery because she was in so much pain. Then of course there’s the after effects of pregnancy that never leave a woman- hemorrhoids that may need surgery, vericose veins, stretch marks, cystocele/rectocele that will require surgical repair, the activation of autoimmune disorders (one gal I know developed psoriasis as a result of her pregnancy), and just even the fact that her body is permanently altered in ways she or society may not like (how many post-partum, uncomputer enhanced, or unsurgically repaired women are featured in Maxim, for example?) How do we sell this bag of goods as a good thing to a woman who is not interested in having a baby? That’s a really tough sell, you know.

        • notimportant

          I should probably add, I’m friends with a lot of models. I used to be a model myself. Your body is your vehicle for your income. I know the whole debate of “looks” sounds superficial here, however, I have found that men are absolutely ruthless in their judgement of women and their bodies. All you need to do is read what men say online, for example. I’ll never forget a comment I read online when Jessica Alba announced her first pregnancy, it said: “Oh no!!! Too hot to be preggo! Well, she’s ruined now”.

          This is the type of treatment women have to look forward to should they choose to have their baby. How do I put a positive spin on that? Help me out here, because this is a big part of the arguments that are thrown out against me…and again, I can’t find anything to dispute their points with! I don’t even want to agree with them, but I find myself so caught here!

          • Guest

            If a woman is having sex, she should be aware that there is always a chance for pregnancy. If her body is a vehicle for income and a pregnancy would ruin that career path for her, than having sex is risking that. And besides, it’s not the baby’s fault that society is completely screwed up and sees a woman’s stretch marks as a sign that her beauty is ruined. 

          • cemiller108

            If it’s that important to their carrer that they don’t have children, then they shouldn’t make the choice to have sex. That would be the only way to make sure they don’t get pregnant. Ask them if they’d shoot a newborn in the face if that baby would endanger their carrers. After all a gunshot is a lot faster and less painful then an abortion…

          • Kimberly Wedel

            Would you really want to be with a man that has that kind of mentality? Trust me their are millions of men in this world that don’t think that way. Some men consider a pregnant woman to be particularly beautiful. And if the pregnant woman happens to be someone he is in love with even more so. I personally would not want any man that would make such a degrading comment about Jessica Alba.

          • notimportant

            I have to say, with the exception of the people I’ve met here, I haven’t met anybody who doesn’t have that kind of mentality (the pregnancy/post partum body being attractive). I’m not thrilled about such nasty comments either, but that’s what we’re told or shown by society. When the cards are so stacked against us, what do you say to talk her in to keeping the baby? I realize aborting can ruin her life, but having the baby can ruin her life too- so she’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. What the heck can I say to that?

          • Kimberly Wedel

            I will agree with you that she may feel that she is damned if she does damned if she doesn’t. I wish I could make people feel compassion for their preborn child. I have questioned what must happen in a woman’s mind that allows her to consent to abortion. As the mother of two children I know from my own experience that I would give my life to my children if I had to. It wasn’t any different before they were born. All mothers that I know personally feel the same way. Thus is why abortion should be illegal. I don’t think it should even be an option. Not matter how pro-”choicers” want to word it no amount of language wrangling is going to change the fact that it is taking a life. Call the baby a fetus, call it what ever you want it is still a living being. A feeling being and scientifically proven to be a learning and thinking being even in the womb. No situation besides immenent death should override the babies life. I for one am never going to give up the fight and I know that I am in good company. In my opinion anybody willing to turn a blind eye to the murder is implicit in the crimes against humanity. I can have sympathy for a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy but I feel the life of the baby is far more important than the woman’s “feelings”. If and when abortion becomes illegal I think woman will start being a lot more careful. Before a woman gives into her sexual desires if she knows that she doesn’t have a “back-up plan” I know far more woman will use proper protection. If abortion doctors have admitted that the majority of abortions are for convience reasons. No baby should have to have it’s life taken in the most violent, painful and barbaric act because of “convience”. I don’t have all the answers. I can only tell you to try and appeal to your friends instincts. I can’t believe that so many women can really be that heartless. I think it takes a tremendous amount of denial and belief in the pro-abortion rhetoric to let these woman go against their inherent maternal instincts.

          • MomOf4

            I’ve had four babies. I was never hospitalized for anything other than delivery. I had uncomplicated, healthy pregnancies and enjoyed being pregnant every time. None of my labors resulted in surgeries, “lasting damage” or the other horrors you list. What I think you should use as your argument is a reality check on pregnancy. The arguments you say you’re coming up against all fall into the categories of vanity and inconvenience… point that out. What is some discomfort (yeah, having the baby kick your bladder isn’t the most fun you’ll ever have) versus a life allowed the chance to add something wonderful to the world?

        • Kimberly Wedel

          I would ask how many  “uncomputer enhanced, or unsurgically repaired women are featured in Maxim” that haven’t even had children. I would say none. They alter pictures of every woman regardless of whether she has had children or not.

          • notimportant

            That’s true, but I bet many of them have been pregnant….just didn’t carry him or her to term. I thought about that point- they alter the pictures regardless, but unless you are an established model (Heidi Klumm, for example), you will get no work once pregnant. Except for maternity clothing, and once you have the baby, you will have no more work…unless you plan to just be perpetually pregnant.

        • Hovish13

          Not every pregnancy is a risky one that results in multiple hospitalizations, etc. But unfortunately it does happen quite frequently:(

          As for the physical scars of pregnancy- how I hate, loathe, and abhor what this culture makes of them! People hate looking at their stretch marks, C-section scars, etc.. when really they are so, so beautiful.. It’s often said that every scar tells a story- and what a wonderful story that it is for a pregnant woman! A woman’s stretch marks and scars, I think, are nature’s memorial tattoos- they say, I carried you for 9 months, I put myself through misery, and pain so that you could live.. 

          To me, that is nearly as heroic as a veteran’s wounds- not pretty, always significant, and too often debilitating. But they serve as reminders of the sacrifice a warrior goes through to protect his family, his country– and her baby.

          And no, I don’t think any pro-choice person will see those things. Nor will a lot of pregnant women. But again, I think to do that we need to build a culture of life, more than anything else.

          • Hovish13

            And further, when debating/ informing/ talking to anyone who is pro-choice, always remember: Go back to the beginning. You’ll nearly always get them to concede some points. For example:

            Person: “But what about rape [or incest, or forced abortions, etc etc]? That can’t be right/fair.”

            You: “While those situations are very terrible, they do not address the crux of the matter: Is it ever okay to take life away from an innocent human being?” 

            Or something along those lines.

            You see, many pro-choicers refuse to debate the crux of the matter, which is “Is it okay to kill a human being, and when does an embryo/fetus become a human? and is that life worth less than, say, the mother’s stretch marks? Or scars?” – and instead rely on emotional arguments, like rape, etc.

            So you see, go back to the beginning: the baby’s life:)

            Does this help at all?

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            Hovish, the crux of your argument hinges on people accepting that a genetic blueprint is the same thing and carries as much merit as a human being (something that many people, myself included, reject). It also ignores the fact that by forcing a woman to carry to term her rapist’s child, you are forcing her to endanger her own life, against her will, by using her body as an unwilling incubator for a child she never wanted or tried to have. If that was legislated, the government would be culpable in what amounts, basically, to potential forced breeding for every woman of child bearing age; granted, the act of rape would still be illegal. But it would be the government forcing the woman to continue any pregnancy that resulted.
            I am aware that a lot of women do choose to continue those pregnancies, and I fully support their right to do so. I do not think, however, that the government should be legislating that women have to carry their rapist’s children against their will. The idea of a world in which any man can force a woman of child bearing age to produce his offspring, and the government will support him in that, is not the kind of world I want to live in. (As a balance to what I’ve said here…I do think that, if a woman chooses to let the fetus grow to a certain point, it’s too late to change your mind [as with any pregnancy] because there is now a second life involved; but I think that she should have the right to make the decision whether or not to let that pregnancy get to that point).

          • Djushi

            Aha, Rachel! Another of your posts I can reply to :D
            Awwwright *rubs hands together in anticipation*
            As one nice athiest pro-lifer pointed out to you on this same site, the genetic blueprint thing is important because if you destroy a few, or a percentage, of someone’s gentically-blueprinted cells, it’s called amputation, or scratching, or something like that. If you remove or cause the death of ALL the cells, you kill. Not amputate. Kill. If you cut off my arm, I would be armless. If you cut off my head, I would be dead. All my cells would die. The fetus has it’s OWN genetic blueprint – that means he/she is not part of the mother. Agreed? Often the child will even have a different blood type to the mother.
            So, the fetus/embryo/whatever-you-want-to-call-him is an individual ‘being’. Agreed?
            He is also alive. Agreed?
            He is also human. Agreed?

            Thus, this individual, living human who has never done anything wrong should die, because another individual living human did something wrong.

            That’s wrong.

            It’s also wrong that a girl should have to carry her rapist’s child. (BTW, why do we always call the child ‘the rapist’s child’, when he/she is just as much the girl’s? The child has half of her DNA too. Whether she wants him/her, she’s already got him/her …)

            The point is, the rapist’s crime has already been commited. It *can’t be undone*.

            Imagine rape as a crime like murder.

            Joe murdered his neighbour, Bill. Joe goes to jail. Bill’s wife hates Joe, and every day when she waked up, Bill-less, and sees Joe’s wife, she remembers Joe. So, to relieve her pain, she kills Joe’s wife, Kate.

            Whoa, whoa whoa. Kate was innocent. She brought pain to Bill’s wife. But she was innocent!

            Rewind a bit. So, Bill’s wife doesn’t kill Kate. She just suffers, for a year. Then Kate saves up enough money and moves away. Now Bill’s wife doens’t have to see Kate any more!

            In fact, let’s do another take on that …

            Bill’s wife doesn’t kill Kate. But Kate feels so sorry for her, and sorry for her husband’s crime, that she bakes cookies for Bill’s wife every day. In a year’s time, they are good friends. Joe rots in jail while Kate and Bill’s wife encourage each other. Bill’s wife gets remarried, and Kate is her bridesmaid.

            Howzat?

            The Government didn’t allow Bill’s wife to kill Kate. She would have been glad to see Kate dead! But it was WRONG to kill the innocent wife for her huband’s crime, just as it is wrong to kill an innocent child for her father’s crime. After nine months of suffering (if indeed it is suffering) the young mother can send her child away – or, she can keep him, and cuddle him, and find joy, as many rape victims have done.

            Forced breeding? The breeding was already done, and the government has outlawed it. The baby was made, and it’s too late. Now the choice s: kill the innocent, or let her live!

            Please reply :D

          • Ellen

            I like your analogy. :)

          • Djushi

            Thanks :) I spend a lot of time creating them!

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            Djushi, I appreciate what you’re saying, but respectfully disagree. In the beginning, there is a single cell: a blueprint. As time progresses, and the blueprint is realized, it becomes a human being. If you destroy a human being at that point, I absolutely agree that it is wrong. If you destroy a blueprint for an unwanted human being, I would not say that that is wrong. The blueprint is certainly unique, and could become a unique person if the mother’s body incubates, supports and nourishes it. I don’t think, though, that a woman should be forced to submit her body against her will to the work of building and incubating a baby from the genetic blueprint.
            I do believe that, if someone waits until a life is formed, it’s too late then. I just don’t think the blueprint for life is the same thing as life itself.

          • Djushi

            So at what point would you consider it ‘life’? At heartbeat stage, brainwaves stage, or breathing air stage?

            BTW, an infant can only become an adult if kept warm and nourished. The fact that a fetus needs care (however extreme that care level may be) doesn’t make him/her not a person …

        • Cheri

          Some of the things you listed that are unpleasant are normal, such as nausea and fatigue. There are simple, natural ways to care for oneself during pregnancy, such as eating properly (natural sugars found in fruit and high protein snacks) and resting more frequently (tough to accept especially for go-getter gals such as myself!) Vomiting during labor is not uncommon, in fact it helps to progress the labor even more quickly (gross but true). Stretch marks can be prevented/treated with cocoa butter, vitamin E, collagen, and elastin lotions (Palmer’s is my fave). Yes, there are women who are high risk and thank goodness we live in a time when we have the medical expertise and technology to SAVE these women and their babies instead of losing one or both of them during labor and delivery. Also look at the differences between natural childbirth and hospital births, natural often results in less post-partum damage. Yes, your hips will be a bit larger after having your baby, but ladies’ hip bones are wide and curvy for a reason (just compare male and female skeletons to see the difference) and it won’t kill you. As for society not liking the way a woman’s body is permanently altered during/after pregnancy…… well who gives a damn what “society” does/doesn’t like about our bodies?! If the issue is that her body is an investment, consider that overdosing on drugs and consuming too much alcohol will also risk alterations to her body, and if pregnancy is considered to be a “risk” to her “investment”, it would be wise to avoid doing the very thing (sex) that exposes her body to that “risk” (pregnancy). No human being should be killed by a woman just because she “risked” her “investment”. If discomfort alone is the issue (and this includes the hard case of pregnancy by rape), try comparing all the woes of pregnancy to what it must feel like to be the unfortunate soul being ripped to pieces in an abortion: being aborted is worse than being pregnant.

          What to say: You can’t change what others think about your body. You also don’t have to reduce yourself to their standards. If you’re being judged first and foremost by the way others perceive your body, then maybe it’s time to find some more substantial people to hang out/work with. ;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

        That’s not a convincing argument. It’s not really a “selfless, heroic” or “courageous, valiant” act when you’re forced to do something that you don’t want to do.

        • Djushi

          Some people are forced to go to war and perform many valiant acts on the battlefield. Not suggesting I support war here. Just noting :)
          Saving a life IS all of those things, especially when it’s something you don’t want to do. It’s not very all-those-things if I do my chores cause I want to. It is all-those-things if I do when I would rather watch TV.

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            I get your point, but we don’t generally regard people as heroic for going to war when they’re drafted. It generally takes something beyond the ordinary. Alvin York wasn’t a hero because he went to war when he was called; he was a hero for storming machine gun nests. I would consider it heroic for a mother who feels that life begins at conception to carry a fetus she didn’t want to term because she felt that it was the right choice; but it’s not heroic when somebody has the proverbial ‘gun to her head’. Then it’s just what she has no choice but to do.

          • Djushi

            I think they were talking about it in the former sense, but then I could be wrong …

    • SuperLogic

      If the unborn child is a human (which it is) is there really ANY excuse good enough to kill another human being??   Missed career opportunities? Altered body? Finances?  Would any of these excuses hold up if the baby was 1 month old? Or even a day old??

    • Laura

      As far as all the uncomfortable pregnancies you’ve seen, I’m kind of surprised. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have had a lot of friends and relatives have children in the past year and I can’t think of one that had those kind of problems. I’m actually kind of jealous of just how good of pregnancies they had! Haha! How a woman’s pregnancy goes is hereditary and based on how well she takes care of herself (before, during, and after). It also may depend on body type, but probably not as much. That’s actually why I started eating better and stuff when I got married though. My husband and I don’t plan on having kids yet, but should I get pregnant, I want to be in a healthy state, especially because my risk for miscarriage is high. Some women have a smooth ride and some have a really hard time; no pregnancy is alike. If a woman’s going to be engaging in sex though, she knows there’s a risk no matter what kind of birth control she’s on. She should be prepared for these things (even if she’s not planning on it), and talk to her doctor about what she can do to minimize risks, how to keep exercising (yes this is completely ok during pregnancy, even running), and the not-so-fun stuff like stretch marks (I hear cocoa butter works wonders). Also, let’s not forget that there are plenty of models who do shots for maternity clothing. That’s always an area they could get into, and it might help them to really enjoy their pregnancy more. A chance to show off the beautiful life growing inside of them! And it may also be a chance to show men just how beautiful women are because of the life growing in them – show men they’re wrong about how they judge pregnant women and teach them the value of it; don’t succumb to judgment or you’re saying they’re right. Besides, have you ever seen a maternity picture that wasn’t beautiful in some way? I also have to say that there are worse risks involved with abortion, not just health-wise, but mental-wise as well. Women have higher risks of suicide and destructive behavior afterwards, along with the risks of ruining their fertility completely, and even death. I would say 9 months of change and a few stretch marks is better than death. Not to mention there’s a beautiful new little person in the world afterwards to enjoy, knowing you made the right choice. Hope that helps. :)

      • notimportant

        The majority of girls I know/knew didn’t see it that way though, especially when they were sick, sick, sick. The one gal decided it was either abortion or she would commit suicide because she was so sick- she was starting to go into renal failure from dehydration because of all the vomiting. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I never knew a human could ralph so much. She couldn’t afford all the medical care, nor could she be away from the hospital without becoming sick. It was an awful thing to see, and I don’t think there would have been anyway to talk her in to going on with her pregnancy. I like to think the baby didn’t feel anything as she was only 22 days into it (she had the exact date, as it was the only time she had had sex in three months prior to the pregnancy).

        As far as maternity modeling- that’s very limited. Unless you plan on being perpetually pregnant, after the pregnancy you will not find work (either enough or paying enough) to support yourself again.

        I’m not saying I like any of this, but I feel I have nothing to offer to the girls who go through this type of situation. They’re painted in a corner, too sick to care about life, and I have no way I can help them. I certainly can’t deny the things they go through, but (as I’ve said before) it’s a very hard sell.

    • Kimberly Wedel

      Do you not understand that having an abortion does not magically “undo” a pregnancy as though it never ocurred in the first place? An abortin can have many affects on the body .Medically recognized induced abortion complications include shock, coma, intense pain, trauma, bleeding/hemorrhage, infection, cardiac embolism, cardiac arrest, cardiomyopathy, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary edema, cerebral embolism, permanent brain damage, sterility, uterine tears / perforations, retained fetal tissue, cervical damage, convulsions, endotoxic shock, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, gastrointestinal disturbances, Rh sensitization, damage to/loss of other vital, internal organs, pelvic inflammatory disease, endometritis, peritonitis*, septicemia, increased risk of future miscarriage; ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, infant handicap/premature birth; also increased risk of cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer. . . and much more.
      Emotional sequelae can include acute grief reaction, rage, depression, suicidal tendencies, substance abuse, insomnia, nightmares, self-hatred leading to self-destructive behavior, sexual dysfunction, post-traumatic stress disorder…to name just a few. 

      • Letscook1

         You do realize that miscarriage can lead to those same exact issues. And pregnancy is far more physically debilitating to a woman.

        • Kimberly Wedel

          I have never personally known any woman who was debillitated by a pregnancy. I’m not saying that there haven’t been women who have. I would think that the cases would be rare. Millions of women give birth every year and have no problems after. Some scientific research even suggests that carrying one or more pregnancies to term can have benefits to a womans health. Women who have had children have lower instances of breast cancer for instance. And breastfeeding cuts the risk even more. Like it or not our bodies were made for having babies.

        • Djushi

          Actually, some women enjoy pregnancy enormously.

          Whether or not pregnancy is uncomfortable …

          Put it this way. It’s pretty uncomfortable to change a baby’s nappy too.

          And physically debilitating to have to potty train a stubborn 3 year old.

      • notimportant

        I know that, but when the woman in question is so ill with the pregnancy, or her income rides on her body, or she simply can not afford the medical care, or a combination of all these….they don’t seem to care too much about the long-term effects.

        A good portion of the problem too, is the fact that many of the girls who go in for the abortion know someone (or several) who has had an abortion (or several) without any complications. So it is seen as the answer to all her problems. I’m not saying I agree, I’m just telling you what I’ve witnessed with my own eyes. This is what we’re up against, and we can’t deny what these women are going through, but how the heck do we offer them something more appealing?

    • Jordan

      There aren’t any good reasons for taking a child’s life. If it is indeed a separate human being in the womb as has already  been proven, that unique child has the right to a life. No one sane would sacrifice their child outside the womb because their body changed, they missed career opportunities or they decided the child was unwanted after all. A person who did that would be criminally insane, why is it any different? A child in the womb should have equal rights with a child inside the womb. Life isn’t fair. Sometimes accidents happen. I was an accident and my mother, although it changed her body, killed career opportunity and she wasn’t sure if she could handle having a baby as a single woman, gave me life anyway. She saw me as a unique separate human. I am glad she did. She didn’t have a right to take my life from me for personal comfort and neither does anyone else.

    • Anonymous

      it certainly wasnt for nothing. tell pro choicers to go ask an adopted child if their mom “gave up” 9 months of her life for nothing.

      if people arent ready to accept the consequences of their actions, they shouldnt have sex. if you arent ready to either parent a child or give it to a family who can.. dont have sex.

  • prolife

    Oh, but every unborn baby that’s sucked or ripped out of their mothers womb is just a simple gentle procedure :|

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1313404149 Greta Elisif Hoostal

    So Live Action DOES endorse contraception then? I am standing with the Church as it was from its inception until 1930 and as other orthodox Lutherans still stand, against all contraception, including against “Natural Family Planning,” by the way, because it still seeks to thwart at least some part of God’s plan to create life. The intent either way is not having a child which He desires to conceive, to as Calvin says of Onan’s deed (& I am not even a Calvinist, at all, but this is correct), try “as far as [one is] able, to wipe out a part of the human race.” God judges us on not only our outward actions, but also our intentions.

    Can we not just put our complete trust in God’s perfect wisdom rather than in man’s defective wisdom? If Live Action will not oppose contraception, I will have to leave it.

    • Jordan

      Contraception does not kill anything. If God wants someone born, they will be born, he knows who will be born and who will not. I was a birth control baby. Nothing happens outside of his sight. I don’t understand your issue with contraception if it does not kill a life. There are a lot of people out there who should not be parents, know they do not want to be parents and have the right to choose if they want get pregnant. After they are pregnant it is no longer their choice, there is a separate human growing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1313404149 Greta Elisif Hoostal

        Yes, it is true that nothing happens outside of His sight, & that he can overcome contraceptive efforts, but we are not to tempt Him (Luke 4:12). Such an act comes from a lack of faith; for example, those who don’t believe God can do miracles want proof of it, as Satan did. If I were to plot to break any other of God’s laws, would it be OK because He can stop me if He really “wants” to?

        I still don’t understand why anyone should not trust God’s wisdom on the matter. When someone actually “should not have children,” God always prevents it with infertility. Are we more wise than He is, to decide who is supposed to & not? Sometimes we think someone should not because we forget everything is for His glory & nothing happens by accident.

        The Bible repeatedly condemns the wasting of seed: Gen 19:4, 5, 24, 25; Gen 38:6–10; Lev 20:13, 15, 16, 18; I Cor 7:3-5; Heb 7:9–10.

        There is never any excuse for sinning. God has unequivocally forbidden contraception & we should no more go against that law than against any other.

        Some essays on the matter: 
        http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=471 , http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html , & some quotes:“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (That means not in any way!) —Clement of Alexandria“[O]n account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered.” (Drugs of sterility are contraceptive drugs.) —Hippolytus of Rome in Refutation of All Heresies“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [i.e. more contraceptives].” —St. Augustine in Marriage and Concupiscence
        “But the exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches, follows. [here Luther quotes Gen. 38:9-10] Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him.” —Martin Luther (Please note the word “Sodomic!”)
        “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” —John Calvin“Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” —John Wesley “[A]bsolutely…to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.” —Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae“Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means…for example, direct sterilization or contraception.” —Roman Catholic Church“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.” —Roman Catholic Church

        • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

          “Sometimes we think someone should not because we forget everything is for His glory & nothing happens by accident.”
          Really, Greta? Would you apply that, for instance, to that case recently about the little boy whose father kept him in a dog kennel and tortured him to death? You think that father should have been reproducing? You think that innocent child’s torturous demise was “for His glory”?

          Sorry, I don’t buy it. I support your right to believe that, but that is belief. It has no business in law. As long as no one is being hurt in the process, people have the right even to do things that some people consider “sin”; whether that’s uncover their hair, “waste their seed”, or anything else.

        • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

          Also, regarding your references (verses copied from Bible Gateway).
          Genesis 19:4-5 & 24:
          Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the
          house, both young and old, all the people [b]from every quarter; 5
          and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you
          tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [c]have relations with them.”

          24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah
          brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,

          What does this have to do with “wasted seed”?? This is a description
          of prowling gangs of rapists. You may as well attribute this to God forbidding men
          to walk around the city at night, because it has about as much to do with this
          scenario as ‘spilled seed’. But let’s look at your other references.

           

          Genesis 38:6-10:  6 Now
          Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the
          LORD, so the LORD took his life. 8 Then Judah said
          to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a
          brother-in-law to her, and raise up [d]offspring for your brother.” 9 Onan knew that the [e]offspring would not be his; so when he went
          in to his brother’s wife, he [f]wasted his seed on the ground in order not
          to give [g]offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the
          LORD; so He took his life also

           

          This refers to the illustrious commandment of God’s that a
          man must father offspring with his brother’s widow if no son came of their
          marriage; I won’t touch on the implications of what this same deity that you
          follow so unquestioningly thinks of women when they are forced to offer their
          bodies to another man (their husband’s brother) in order to breed a child to
          continue the deceased husband’s line. But this dude is punished for
          deliberately defying that magnanimous law; he doesn’t want to father a son with
          his brother’s wife. What he did (wasting the seed *“in order not to give
          offspring to his brother”*) “was displeasing in the sight of the Lord”. That
          is, refusing to father a son when ordered to. Let’s keep looking, though.

          Leviticus 20:13 – 18:

          13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie
          with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely
          be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14
          If there is a man who [g]marries a woman and her mother, it is
          immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be
          no immorality in your midst. 15 If there is a
          man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also
          kill the animal. 16 If there is a woman who
          approaches any animal to [h]mate with it, you shall kill the woman and
          the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon
          them.

           17 ‘If there is a man who takes his
          sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her
          nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut
          off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s
          nakedness; he bears his guilt. 18 If there is
          a man who lies with a [i]menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness,
          he has laid bare her flow, and she has [j]exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of
          them shall be cut off from among their people

          None of these verses, again, have to do with “wasting the seed”…or do you
          think that god also considers animal sperm sacred (verse 16)?  These (and many of the other verses in this
          chapter) are a description of what are considered sexual deviances. Consider
          the cases of incest – pregnancy can certainly result there, so those sacred
          sperm are not wasted. But it still forbidden; not because of the “wasted seed”,
          but because the act is deemed an “immorality”.

          1 Corinthians 7:3-5:

          3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise
          also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not
          have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise
          also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
          5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement
          for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not
          tempt you because of your lack of self-control

           

          Translation: have sex with your spouse. Often. Again, nothing about wasted
          seed.

          Hebrew 7:9-10:

          9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received
          tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the
          loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

          Or, “he hadn’t even been conceived yet”. Because, if you take that at face
          value, as a testament of the sanctity of sperm, god is saying that the child
          has no genetic input from the mother. Which is utter nonsense.

           

          So most of these things have nothing at all to do with “seed”; and those
          that do have far better explanations when the obsession with preserving “seed”
          is dropped.

           

          As for your other sources, Luther, Calvin, etc…these guys are mortal humans,
          who made some pretty far out assertions about lots of topics (Luther’s views on
          Jews and Calvin’s ideas of what to do with anyone who disagreed with him come
          instantly to mind). The fact that they said something is immaterial; if the
          statement has value, it is outside of that fact. And the arguments you quote
          are hardly meritorious…they are mere repetition of opinion that was widely held
          at the time and that is not really supported by the verses.

           

          Frankly, I don’t care if you believe that every “seed” of man is a thing
          that must be protected. (I hope you are willing to let your husband take a
          second wife when you get past your childbearing age, or else never engage in
          intercourse with him again…because that would be a waste of that seed,
          remember). That’s your right; your rights extend only to, however, your life.

          • Djushi

            Thanks Rachel :D
            In just about all of your above comment I agree with you …

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1313404149 Greta Elisif Hoostal

        Just thought of something else: There’s that argument against abortion, about how God may well have sent to earth the person able to cure any particular deadly disease, or the next person as smart as Einstein or Shakespeare, but that person was killed in an abortion. God also may well have intended to send that person, but the person’s conception was thwarted by contraception, & God could be thinking sometime to the effect of, “Fine, have it YOUR way,” & the whole world is punished.

        • Djushi

          Greta,
          I’ve actually struggled with this too. If we love life, shouldn’t we be creating it left, right and center?

          No …

          Otherwise I would get married as soon as I was fertile and try to have kids! Any time a woman *doesn’t* conceive she would be virtually committing a crime …

          Personally I plan to have as many kids as the Lord will give me.

          But I do NOT have the right to make other people have kids!

          Abortion = killing a child that’s already there.

          Contraception = not having a child.

          In this case I think the pro-aborts argument might be useful – if we prevented Einstein #2 from being created we might also have prevented Hitler #2 from being created.

          You can’t judge someone before they’ve done anything wrong or right.

          You can’t save someone who doesn’t exist.

          As for the rest, read Rachel’s posts! :D

          God bless, and I for one hope LiveAction never takes issue with (legitimate) contraception! (By legitimate I mean non-child-killing, and with the notation ‘Please only have sex in the marriage situation.’)

        • Finton_wade

          The Bible is true. I read about a woman who was having direct conversation with Mother Mary, She said the word of God is the only thruth!  A gay man who was very sick with AID disease ask her. Could you ask her why God don’t send anyone to cure AIDs? She ask her in front of him. Then she said; God did send many futur doctors that could cure AIDs but they have all been aborted!

      • Finton_wade

        Contraception do kill babies. When women first started to use the pill, they were having heart attacks! So the company lowered the pill strenght. But! By doing this some eggs were fertilised by could not attach themselves and died. God does not control what humans are doing on Earth! Where did you read that? God created us completly free! He does not impose on us what we are thinking and what we are doing.Women have to be responsable and really think before having sex; do I want a baby? If the answer is no she should not have sex.  God made sex for reproduction! That is the main utility for sex! But most people seeks sex only for pleasure.Most abortions are from people who are not married!

      • Anonymous

        and if a family cant afford 11 kids they shouldnt have to have that many. they are being responsible by using birth control. if they dont agree with the pill or an IUD they can simply use condoms or track their cycles.

    • Steve

      First, many of these response put all contraceptives in the same category.  Yes, some contraceptives do kill a child after conception.  But others, such as condoms, prevent conception.  

      Second, there is a difference between venial and mortal sin. All sin is bad, but some sins are worse than others. Killing a child, through abortion or Plan B, is not on the same level as wearing a condom.

    • Anonymous

      its pretty ridiculous to be pro life but against birth control. NO ONE nowadays (unless you have a ton of money) can afford to have 18 kids. so what will women do? have abortions behind their husbands backs.

      if i didnt use birth control im sure i would have 4 kids by now instead of my one son. if god wants me to conceive, i will.. even if im using a type of birth control.

      • María Inés Benítez Formoso

        As long as they are not abortive (unlike the “morning after pill”, which is abortive), no ethical objection can be made to contraceptive methods. They are indeed risky, and their long-term use is associated to health problems such as thrombotic events and liver cancer; but that is up to the patient’s decision – again, as long as they are not abortive.

  • fern78

    I would add that even outside of pregnancy, a person can’t do whatever we want with our bodies. There are regulations for safety and prudence. For example, a woman in her 20′s has very painful periods and the doctor has tried everything. She already has a child, and wants to get a hysterectomy so that she doesn’t have to miss a week of work every month. The doctor won’t do it (I know a women in this exact situation) Because she is too young and may want children in the future.

    Another example, a woman who wants to stay on the pill even though she is over 35 and has high blood pressure. The doctor won’t let her stay on it. (My mother went through this.)

    So, no one can do whatever they want with their body. There are always restrictions. In the case of abortion, a child is being killed.

  • Descartes

    Well first of all the statement assumes that we have control over our bodies. While we have control over our judgements and seem to therefore control our bodies a large number of things can affect our bodies that are completely out of our control. Secondly ‘rights’ are only a fairly new rhetoric in terms of the history of man and his philosophy, rights are grounded on the idea of universal truths that absolute in all cases. The “right” as it were to “control your own body” conflicts directly with the right to life. Also only the right to life is based upon a universal truth or natural law as there is no part of human nature that suggests we have complete control over our bodies. People, regardless of gender, will always have the ability to make whatever choices they want. Whether that choice is to kill their unborn child or not is up to them and there is just no need to legalize a person’s ability to choose that’s already inherent within them.

  • JB

    These are good points, I would just add that women also don’t have the right to decide the value of their child.  Just because they are in your body doesn’t give you the right to decide if they are a human or if there life is worth living.  Their lives are valuable whether the mother wants them or not. 

    I mean whenever a mother wants her child, it is considered a blessing and very valuable but if the unborn child is unwanted then suddenly it has no value.  That’s the way laws are established for the unborn.  We have unborn child protection laws, when the child is wanted but abortion is allowed when the child is unwanted. 

    I’d say women don’t have a right to decide when and if the unborn have value.

    • Guest

      But women get to decide if their own lives have value–and sometimes carrying a pregnancy to term places their own life in danger.

      • María Inés Benítez Formoso

        I am very much interested in knowing about just an example of a condition that requires an abortion to save a woman’s life. I would like to believe that you have made a proper medical research before making this statement.

        • Steve

          Pulmonary Hypertension. (Direct)

          A pregnant woman discovers she has cancer. If she starts chemotherapy immediately, she will probably survive, but her child will die.  If she waits until after childbirth, then the cancer will progress to the point that it is untreatable. (Indirect) Cases like this one, or when complications like infections arise during childbirth, are usually what the pro-choice side are referring to when they argue about risk to the mother’s life.Either way, cases that require an abortion are very rare.  That’s why abortion should be illegal, unless the mother’s life is in immediate danger.  As a comparison, think about killing an adult.  As a rule, it is illegal and morally wrong. However, if this adult attacks you and you kill him in self-defense, your action is justified.  It’s an exception to the rule.

          • María Inés Benítez Formoso

            Steve, you still fail to tell me in which way abortion cures a cancer or pulmonary hypertension. What you are talking about is known in Bioethics as “Double-effect doctrine”: if a pregnant woman (as is the case we are speaking about) may benefit from a certain treatment, and the benefit suprasses the risks, she is treated and that is out of the question, just like any other patient in a similar situation. Depending on the case and the kind of therapy, the baby may be affected or not (that was your first mistake: assuming that all therapies may affect the unborn child). If the baby suffers damage or dies as a consequence of the therapy – may happen, may not -, it was an unwanted outcome. It was not the primary intention to kill the child, just as it is not the primary intention to kill a patient who dies during a high-risk surgery while the surgeon tries to save his/her life. It may happen as an unwanted outcome, but it was not intended. Or it may not happen at all.

            Abortion, on the other hand, has the primary intention of terminating the life of the child and that is the only possible outcome. And for all I know, abortion it does not cure any type of cancer, nor pulmonary hypertension.

          • María Inés Benítez Formoso

            Steve, you still fail to tell me in which way abortion cures a cancer or pulmonary hypertension. What you are talking about is known in Bioethics as “Double-effect doctrine”: if a pregnant woman (as is the case we are speaking about) may benefit from a certain treatment, and the benefit suprasses the risks, she is treated and that is out of the question, just like any other patient in a similar situation. Depending on the case and the kind of therapy, the baby may be affected or not (that was your first mistake: assuming that all therapies may affect the unborn child). If the baby suffers damage or dies as a consequence of the therapy – may happen, may not -, it was an unwanted outcome. It was not the primary intention to kill the child, just as it is not the primary intention to kill a patient who dies during a high-risk surgery while the surgeon tries to save his/her life. It may happen as an unwanted outcome, but it was not intended. Or it may not happen at all.

            Abortion, on the other hand, has the primary intention of terminating the life of the child and that is the only possible outcome. And for all I know, abortion it does not cure any type of cancer, nor pulmonary hypertension. If it does, I do look forward to reading the study which proposes abortion as a therapy against cancer. I would like to know what type of cancer it is that responds to abortion and not to chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

          • Steve

            For the record, I understand the principle of double effect, so don’t think that I am misunderstanding you there.  The reason that I included the example of cancer is that I believe this is what some people believe – that the pro-life movement will always choose the child over the mother. So, we agree on that point.

            Second, of course abortion doesn’t cure anything. But you have to remember that pregnancy and childbirth put the mother’s body through extreme physical stress. If she has another medical condition, like pulmonary hypertension, it can put her life at risk. 

          • María Inés Benítez Formoso

            I misunderstood you then. My apologies for that, I speak with many people who do not know about that principle, so I always like to bring it into the conversation just in case.

            Personally, I object the idea of choosing any patient over another. As prolifers, we should not – or rather must not – proclaim that one life is more important than the other, be it the child’s or be it the woman’s. We are not only pro-woman or only pro-baby; we are pro-life. If a woman, for example, is diagnosed with cancer and chooses not to receive any therapy because it may harm her child, that is her own valuable decision; if she, on the other hand, chooses to receive the therapy (despite not going through an abortion), that is also her legitimate decision – it is a patient’s right to reject a treatment (whatever his/her motives are), but no one has the right to demand that they do so if they want to receive it. There are documented cases such as that of Erika Vandiver, a woman with a very aggressive type of breast cancer who received chemotherapy and carried a healthy child to term. Also, it is good to know that there are protocols with both pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension: those patients certainly need to remain under intensive observation, but they can be treated.

            I would like to go back to what you sayed regarding the two lives considered here: remember that it is two patients we are considering. Just as the life of the child is not “more important” or valuable than the mother’s, it also runs the opposite way. We have to take care of both.

          • Guest

            And sometimes women would rather commit suicide than carry a pergnancy to term.

        • lisa

           the only one i know of honestly is an ectopic pregnancy, or an outer uterine pregnancy(the baby’s placenta and sac develop outside the actual uterus and adhere to a muscle or tissue near it…

        • Anonymous

          pre eclampsia.
          cancer.
          thats the only ones i can think of atm.
          oh and ectopic pregnancy.

          all fairly rare though, most peoples pre-e only gets bad during the 2nd or 3rd trimester so they can go on bedrest or deliver the baby.

          • María Inés Benítez Formoso

            Actually, regarding the managment of pre-eclampsia, the protocols state the following: the removal of the baby and the placenta is the frist line option; if the fetus is not mature enough, the patient’s stabilization and observation, when possible, are the best approach. A conservative treatment in order to gain time for the fetus to develop is contemplated. In fact, given that eclampsia usually happens after the 20th week of pregnancy and that now-a-days babies are viable outside the uterus at 24 weeks, a conservative approach should indeed be contemplated.

            As for cancer, I would like to repeat the question I made a comment earlier: which type of cancer is it that surprisingly responds to abortion but not to chemotherapy or radiotherapy? May I ask where exactly did you read that abortion can cure cancer?

            Regarding ectopic pregnancy. I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion, sometimes even before the woman realizes she is pregnant. When the ectopic pregnancy carries on with a living embryo (because there is also the possibility that it carries on but no living embryo is found), we have to go back to the earlier post and and learn a little bit about the concept of “double-effect doctrine”, as it is known in Bioethics. If a patient dies during a procedure intended to save his/her life (or in this case, a baby dies while the doctor is trying to save the mother’s life and thus its life too), it was an unwanted outcome. Just as when a patient dies during a high-risk surgery: the doctor did not want to kill the patient, but there was a strong possibility that the patient died during the procedure. It was an inherent risk. It may happen, it may not happen; and when it happens, it is an unwanted outcome.

            In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the rupture of the Fallopian tube will cause the death of both the baby and the mother if left alone to its natural evolution. Thus, the double-effect doctrine states that if the doctor loses a life that would have surely died while trying to save a life that has the possibility to be saved, the doctor is not at fault. It is quite similar to suspending the life support for a patient under irreversible coma, or inducing a pharmacological coma on a terminal patient (as it is contemplated in some paliative care protocols).

            The intentional killing of a living baby that has all the possibilities to be born, however, has the sole intention to cause its death. It saves nothing and no one.

      • Steve

        Yes, pregnancy complications can put the mother’s life at risk.  And you will find very few people who would object to the performance of an abortion when a choice must be made between the mother and the child.  But you don’t make the rule by the exception.  The law should be that abortion is illegal, unless it is determined that the mother’s life is in immediate danger.  Not that abortion should be available for any reason, just in case the mother’s life is at risk.

      • JB

        Well you’re right, women are valuable too and they def. have a right to protect themselves. but not by sacrificing the life of the unborn, that’s not fair to them. 

        If there is a threat to the mother’s life then the doctors and everyone involved should do everything they can to protect the mother’s life and the child as well. Whatever the problem is with the pregnancy, you can remove the child from the woman’s body without killing it. 

        There could be a situation where the child is removed but they are unable to keep him/her alive but I don’t consider that an abortion in the typical sense of the word. In that case, you are not directly killing the unborn, you are simply removing them but are unable to keep them alive.  I think cases like this would be acceptable because the goal is not to kill the unborn but to save them and the mother.

      • Anonymous

        and those rare situations have always been legal.

  • Wade Felty

    So you then plan to take up a collection to pay the expenses of every unwanted child, right? Every job they will need, their healthcare, grocery bills? And you will provide free grief counseling to the families that lose women to illegal or unhealthy abortions (because you made safe ones impossible), or to dangerous pregnancies (you care more about the fetus than the mother after all)?  And then what, all women wear chadors and stay in the house waiting to get pregnant?

    • María Inés Benítez Formoso

      In fact, let us go even further: let us exterminate the homeless, the addicts, the people with severe disabilities, so they do not take any more of our jobs and consume our resources. That would be even healthier for a woman than letting her go through a surgical procedure.

      OK, enough of eugenics and malthusian nonesense.

      If you believe all women should wear chadors and stay in the house waiting to get pregnant, that is your own personal opinion, not ours. No one here but you has stated such absurd nonesense.

      Now, may I require that you share your source of evidence – because you did consult any epidemiological evidence, right? – that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality? What are these dangerous pregnancy conditions that can only be solved by an abortion?

      Evidence, please. Evidence. If you are making medical statements, the least you ought to do is to provide actual evidence to support them.

      • Wade Felty

        http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unsafe-abortion-rates-rise/story?id=15387487#.Tx9-f2-Je8M 
        As if magic, the WHO issues a report on the jump in unsafe abortions, which I think you look forward to in this country, when you get your way. 

        Will you be having public spectacles for the mothers who die because of it?
        Will you be showing life-size models of those dead women like you do with babies? 

        My point about chadors was that, obviously you don’t care for women or their rights, despite you being a woman, which never made sense to me. Men can have sex all they want with no responsibility, but women, they have to put up with whatever happens to them. They get raped, they have the baby. Men have agency over their lives, women just have to grin and bear it. Because to you, they are baby factories. 

        I used to be a very extreme “pro-lifer” but when the Catholic brainwashing was excised I realized how sick and twisted this movement is. 

        • Steve

          Wade, I have two questions for you:

          1) Do you believe it would be wrong to kill an innocent two-year-old?

          2) Why do you propose allowing women to kill their children as a solution to the sexual inequality that you mention, instead of promoting the idea that the father should be responsible for the child also?

          • Wade Felty

            Of course I do, I don’t think a sane person would argue with that. But that child is independent of the mother and a self-reliant being on its own – inside a woman it is no more than a parasitic organism, dependent on the mother for sustenance. 

            They are not children, they are products of conception at stage. It’s not about “killing children” and there is NOTHING to make the father responsible, whereas you people would legally compel women to carry that thing around with them. Of course I agree that birth control or abstinence would be better for all concerned, but there’s no reason to ban abortion – unless of course you are trying to force your religious worldview down everyone else’s throat – which you are. First you ban abortion, then you keep women from holding jobs, then you stone adulterers, it’s always about controlling women. 
             

          • Anonymous

            wtf? how is a 2 year old self reliant? obviously you dont have children. a 2 year old is certainly a “parasite” and CERTAINLY cant live without some one to care for them.

            also, what about babies who are viable and killed by abortion? they certainly can survive in the outside world (as long as some one cares for them like any child)

          • Guest

            Suppose I showed you a developed country that has an excellent, very active pro-life movement but is decades ahead of the United States with respect to protecting unborn children.  It has completely outlawed abortion unless it’s necessary to save the mother’s life.

            If what you’re saying is true, I would expect women’s rights advocates to have to fight tooth and nail against those sick, twisted religious control freaks just to hold on to their basic rights to get birth control, vote, or work.

            Is this actually the case in Ireland?  In even the Catholic parts?

          • Steve

            1)  But a two-year old is not independent of its parents.  It completely relies on them for food, shelter, protection, and everything else.

            2) Mirriam-Webster defines “child” as “a son or daughter of human parents.”  The OED includes “the offspring, male or female, of human parents” as well as “the unborn or newly born human being; fetus; infant” as definitions. So to claim that the organism in the mothers womb is not a child contradicts the definition of the word “child.”

            But I’ve never been a fan of word games, so let’s look at the biology.  A human sperm cell fertilizes a human egg cell. At that moment, all the genetic information for a unique individual is present in this new organism. It is human, since two members of one species cannot create a member of a different species. Its behavior is distinct from that of an egg or sperm cell. It begins to grow.

            With all of that in mind, do you still want to argue that this “product of conception at stage” is not a human child?  The science about when human life begins is settled. It is the philosophers and politicians who debate that topic, not scientists.
            http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226168/when-life-begins/robert-p-george
            http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

            Finally, even your claim that the child is only a “product of conception at stage” is just another one of the word games that pro-abortionists like to use in order to fool those who are pro-choice.  But the OED defines “conception” as “the act of conceiving” and defines “conceive” as “to become pregnant.” Children are the “product of conception,” however you look at it.  They are merely “at stage,” as you point out. In this case, it’s the stage of being a fetus. Assuming that no one kills him, he will progress to being a product of conception at the infant stage, the adolescent stage, the adult stage, etc.

            So, to wrap up, this is certainly not about shoving religion down anybody’s throat. I don’t see a single religious argument in anything that I have written. And it isn’t about controlling women. I am not arguing that women should do this or that. I am arguing that no one should kill an innocent child.

            3) You are certainly correct that there are no physical consequences that the father must deal with after conceiving a child. Except the child itself. However, if there were social consequences, then there would be a reason for the father to stick around. We need to eliminate the idea that the “single mother” is an acceptable phenomenon. Now, I’m not saying that single mothers are bad people, before anyone gets that idea. But, for a single mother to exist, a father has to have abandoned her and his child. If you want both parents to be equally responsible for the child that they conceived, then we need to start holding fathers responsible for their children instead of allowing the mothers to kill the them.

        • Anonymous

          you dont think killing children is sick and twisted?

          i am all for womens rights, thats why im against abortion. i know WAY more women that were coerced into their abortions and are extremely depressed now, or women who were LIED to by the clinic workers than women who are glad they had an abortion.

          also, what about the women they are killing? wheres her rights?

          and dont even try to use the bullshit rape excuse, thats like than 1-2% of all abortions. the fact of the matter is, people are having sex and using abortions as back up birth control.

          “safe, legal and rare” my butt.

        • Guest

          Comparing third world countries to the developed world is committing a serious logical fallacy (not that I expect much better from Planned Parenthood’s de facto research arm).  Try comparing maternal mortality rates in developed nations with different abortion laws.  You’ll get a different picture.

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, I will even say please: where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The best you can post here is a link that directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly, where is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that. Evidence, please?

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The link you posted directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that.

          I am not sure what kind of problem you had with prolifers, but as far as I know we live under freedom of speech and religion. I see no problem in defending life from a religious point of view. Personally, I prefer doing so from a secular perspective, and there are many prolife groups that are not Catholic of even Christian at all, such as Pagans For Life, Agnostics and Atheists For Life, Secular Pro Life, Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and so on.

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The link you posted directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that.

          I am not sure what kind of problem you had with prolifers, but as far as I know we live under freedom of speech and religion. I see no problem in defending life from a religious point of view. Personally, I prefer doing so from a secular perspective, and there are many prolife groups that are not Catholic of even Christian at all, such as Pagans For Life, Agnostics and Atheists For Life, Secular Pro Life, Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and so on.

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The link you posted directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly is the actual quote of epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion. In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that.

          I am not sure what kind of problem you had with prolifers, but as far as I know we live under freedom of speech and religion. I see no problem in defending life from a religious point of view. Personally, I prefer doing so from a secular perspective, and there are many prolife groups that are not Catholic of even Christian at all, such as Pagans For Life, Agnostics and Atheists For Life, Secular Pro Life, Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and so on.

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion decreases maternal mortality? The link you posted directs to an article by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of legalized abortion. But where exactly is the actual quote of
          epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal
          and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal mortality.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion.
          In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save
          the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that.

          I am not sure what kind of problem you had with prolifers, but as far as I know we live under freedom of speech and religion. I see no problem in defending life from a religious point of view. Personally, I prefer doing so from a secular perspective, and there are many prolife groups that are not Catholic of even Christian at all, such as Pagans For Life, Agnostics and Atheists For Life, Secular Pro Life, Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and so on.

        • María Inés Benítez Formoso

          Wade, where is the epidemiological evidence that legalized abortion
          decreases maternal mortality? The link you posted directs to an article
          by the Guttmacher Institute (nothing more and nothing less than Planned
          Parenthood’s research arm, with an impossibly clearer conflict of
          interest) and the Wolrd Health Organization, a reknown promoter of
          legalized abortion. But where exactly is the actual quote of
          epidemiological evidence stating that legal abortion decreases maternal
          mortality?

          I did not ask what the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO
          have to say about the increase of illegal abortion – note that it is a
          very common mistake to equal legal to safe -; I asked where did you read
          that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality.

          So far, you
          have only proven two things: that legal abortion does not end illegal
          and alledgedly “unsafer” abortion; and that you lack any actual
          epidemiological evidence about the influence of legal abortion on
          maternal mortality. The link you posted states that illegal abortion has
          increased; it says no word about legal abortion decreasing maternal
          mortality. Please take the time to read things before quoting them as
          evidence.

          Let us move forward to the actual evidence, shall we.

          University
          of Chile’s Dr Elard Koch, a reknowned epidemiologist and director of
          the Department of Family Medicine of that university, took the time and
          trouble to do actual research about the issue. Chile, being the only
          country in South America where abortion is completely illegal (no
          exceptions allowed), has the lowest maternal mortality rates in the
          region. Since abortion is completely illegal in that country, the
          improvement in maternal health can not be atributed to legal abortion.
          In fact, not only the legal status of abortion has no influence in the
          lower maternal mortality rates: those rates started decreasing after
          abortion was declared completely illegal in Chile. The studies conclude
          the following: abortion did not improve maternal health; the improvement
          of women’s access to education and their attending regular obstetric
          controls during pregnancy did.

          I am still looking forward to
          reading the epidemiological evidence you have consulted that actually
          states that legal abortion decreases maternal mortality. I would also
          like to read about what condition exactly requires an abortion to save
          the patient’s life, since you insist on emphazising that.

          I am
          not sure what kind of problem you had with prolifers (and sadly, I know some self-called “prolifers” who act like crazy extremists, that is also true), but as far as I
          know we live under freedom of speech and religion. I see no problem in
          defending life from a religious point of view. Personally, I prefer
          doing so from a secular perspective, and there are many prolife groups
          that are not Catholic of even Christian at all, such as Pagans For Life,
          Agnostics and Atheists For Life, Secular Pro Life, Prolife Alliance of
          Gays and Lesbians, and so on

    • Steve

      Read point number one.  It is very well known that sex very often results in pregnancy.  Knowing this, if you choose to have sex, yo do so knowing that the possible consequence (not punishment, before someone throws that word around), is a pregnancy. As the article states, if you are going to claim a right, you must also accept the correlating responsibilities.  In short, get a job and start earning money before creating a child.

      Here’s a challenge: Think of one other time that a person is justified in intentionally taking an innocent human life in order to preserve their own well being.

    • Anonymous

      extremist much? NO ONE said ANYTHING like that. its hilarious how pro-abortion believers have to take everything to a ridiculous extreme because they have no factual arguments. fear tactics. thats all you have.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Q47VZ6OIYCJJXWBQ4MOVDZTVJM Amanda

    It is horrible that girl fetuses are overwhelmingly aborted in Asian countries while boys are kept. Why don’t you start making posts about why this is happening? Besides the great abortion conspiracy trying to wipe out the human race. Could it be there are underlying reasons why girls’ lives are not valued as much as boys? Do you have any ideas on how to combat misogynist culture?

    • María Inés Benítez Formoso

      It happens a lot in countries with an actual patriarchal supremacy: women are deemed less valuable than men. In India, for instance, the bride’s family has to pay a dowry to the groom’s family (according to the groom’s status) when she gets married, and since the man is the one who traditionaly brings the family’s economical support, families believe that having female children is a burden while male children will be their sustain.