Over 40 Million Dead Babies - Will Either Obama Or McCain Stop The American Abortion Holocaust?

You cannot make decisions over someones body for them, personally if it wasn't for abortion I would be making child support payments to 3 different women so I really hope the court doesn't get clouded by right wing religious propaganda.

Good to know so many still wish to have yet another pointless discussion rather than aiming for a higher level of discourse.

This is why I generally try once to enter sanity into the arena of this topic, but rarely get a reasonable answer.

ATS used to be better than this, at least somewhat.

Maybe it's just election time so people become blind.

Enjoy another fruitless "discussion".

It is sad to see so many people promoting abortion as a solution

I don't think abortion is a solution, but a last resort.
Nobody gets up says " right hairdressers at 1, lunch at 2....abortion at 3 and home for the soaps"

It is a very difficult decision and is not taken lightly.
As has been said....nobody who supports the right of abortion is evil or baby killers.

If you think abortion should be out-right banned in every case, then you are truly sick individuals.
There will always (until some medical breakthrough) be a need for abortion and to deny anyone that right is just plane crazy?

[edit on 1/7/08 by blupblup]

I believe that it is imperative that we get this information out to as many people as possible.

If we won't stand up for the truth now, when ARE we going to stand up for it?

A lot of people get angry when you simply tell them the truth.

look, I havent read all the posts in this thread, but I just have to say my piece.
How many times must the abortion argument be had until people can get it through their thick heads that it will never be agreed upon, and therefore becomes a personal choice.

The arrogance of thinking you have any say in what someone else does or doesnt do with their life is appalling...

If men could get pregnant, abortion would not even be a topic of conversation.

Yes, because 40 million homeless kids or 40 million babies in the adoption system really would make things a whole lot better on everyone....

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Like it or not, abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever read! Joseph Mengele performed "legitimate” medical procedures too. Are you going to defend that butcher as well? Something tells me you would as long as it advances your liberal agenda.

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Like it or not, abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever read! Joseph Mengele performed "legitimate” medical procedures too. Are you going to defend that butcher as well? Something tells me you would as long as it advances your liberal agenda.

That is a very good point.

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Like it or not, abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever read! Joseph Mengele performed "legitimate” medical procedures too. Are you going to defend that butcher as well? Something tells me you would as long as it advances your liberal agenda.

My lord, you all will invoke whatever you want to try and get your point across, even if it is in no way related to the subject.

Experimentation is not legitimate medical procedure. Just because the man was medically educated does not make it legitimate.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


It would not hurt to have boys schools and girls schools too, just swap the teachers around. Keep the fourteen year olds minds on education instead of...well you know.

I do not think you are going to be able to outlaw abortion again. The NWO wants to cut the population drastically and Obama and McCain are both NWO. I think it is much more likely you will see a nasty disease unleashed. The decision on who gets medical care and who does not has already been made and set down in writting. I find that ominous.

Let's dig through all the emotional hype and lay bare the uncomfortable truth about anti-abortionists.

The overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" agree that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is endangered. If the issue were truly about the "slaughter of unborn children," it would not matter how the child was conceived, it is still a child. And, if a woman does not have the right to abort in order to save her future, she clearly doesn't have the right to save her own life at the expense of the helpless, innocent, must-be-protected-at-all-costs child. Anyone who is really on the anti-abortion side for the sake of the poor helpless babies who have an inalienable right to be born and live, will accept abortion for one reason and one reason only: if mother and baby will BOTH die if it isn't done.

The difference between rape and and the unwanted child is very clear and very simple: the rape wasn't the victim's fault. This makes it quite clear that the agenda for those who want to make abortion illegal but allow them for rape victims is not about saving the child, but about punishing the woman for her perceived carelessness, poor planning, poor judgment, promiscuity, etc. In other words, it's about morality. She did something that they think is immoral or wrong, and being forced to bear the child is fitting punishment.

The other valid issue is freedom. Do you want the right to raise your children as you see fit? Then you should be willing to allow other people to take care of their own children as they see fit, be they unborn or alive.

The moral majority think that they should be able to dictate to the rest of the population how they should live. In a truly free society, this would not be the case. In any issue in which morality is unclear between different beliefs or values, freedom should be allowed. Nearly everyone believes that murder, theft, robbery, rape, etc. are wrong, and they harm other people who have their own rights to freedom; thus they are (and should be) against the law. As long as there is a significant portion of the population who do not believe that abortion is wrong, it does not fall into the same category as murder. It is a moral issue that should not be legislated. Abortion harms no one except the fetus and the mother, and if you think you have the right to control what someone does with their fetus, then you should be willing to give up control of your own children.

Before you take a freedom away from someone else, be willing to have it taken away from you. Your beliefs about right and wrong are no more valid than anyone else's, and every time you try to impose your concepts of right and wrong on someone else, you should remember that you have implicitly given permission for them to try to force their ideas of right and wrong on you.

In response to the mocking photo posted by the nameless member, (I remember reading it was against the rules to blank out your screen-name using a background colour,) I just want to respond with some hard facts.

In the UK the developing baby can be legally aborted up to the age of 24 weeks (nearly 6 months), although this can be 28 weeks under certain circumstances. Source: en.wikipedia.org... This is on the basis that the child can sometimes survive outside the womb at this stage.

It's not until after about 24 weeks that there are enough alveoli around for the infant to have a chance of breathing air. So about 23-24 weeks is the practical lowest age at which a premature infant has a chance of survival (although with medical advances this limit is being pushed back every year!).

Source: www.drspock.com...

This is what the baby looks like at 24 weeks:


Source: www.nlm.nih.gov...


Source: www.funonthenet.in...

The idea that abortion equates to cleaning out a few cells is just not factual. The fact that some of its proponents have to resort to such fallacies is very revealing.

Learn from your parents mistakes..
Use birth control !

reply to post by Heike


Hi. I recognize that your case is cogently argued. However many of your assumptions are not necessarily true, which invalidates your conclusions.

The overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" agree that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is endangered. If the issue were truly about the "slaughter of unborn children," it would not matter how the child was conceived, it is still a child.

Abortion should never be permitted, as two wrongs don't make a right. Killing does not solve rape. Such children can be adopted, for example. As such I would argue that what you have said is simply a straw man.

This invalidates your conclusion:

This makes it quite clear that the agenda for those who want to make abortion illegal but allow them for rape victims is not about saving the child, but about punishing the woman for her perceived carelessness, poor planning, poor judgment, promiscuity, etc.

...which, I agree, would be outrageous.

The moral majority think that they should be able to dictate to the rest of the population how they should live. In a truly free society, this would not be the case.

I beg to differ. A truly free society does not do away with law - which inevitably sometimes has dictates which go against the consciences of some citizens. The most obvious example is that to my mind legal abortion constitutes a legally-sanctioned holocaust.

The approximate number of induced abortions performed worldwide in 2003 was 42 million, which declined from nearly 46 million in 1995.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Your logic does not hold, as any legal framework forbids actions on the basis of the beliefs of only certain members of a society. Above all the law serves to protect from harm, not to give people the right to do as they see fit.

Legitimate debate therefore centers around the balance of protection that ought to be afforded the mother and the child. Some argue that the child is part of the mother's body, giving the mother the moral right to choose life or death for the unborn infant. I say the baby is dependent on the mother's body, but is genetically a totally unique individual. I believe that arguments based on dependency on the mother's body potentially open the door to infanticide as well. And indeed this already happens when abortions go wrong and the infant is born alive. (In such cases medical staff have been known to simply neglect care of the newborn child knowing this will almost certainly lead to death.)

It is not a matter of imposing beliefs on others. It is a matter of applying the universally-held belief that it is morally wrong to kill individuals.

Originally posted by MandM
It is sad to see so many people promoting abortion as a solution

I don't personally promote abortions...
However I do not believe my country has a right to tell anyone what to do with their
own bodies.

reply to post by mental modulator

However I do not believe my country has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies.

...which, as I argued in the post above, is an invalid argument, as the unborn child is a genetically unique, distinct individual. Your point is oft-repeated, but factually incorrect: the child is not part of the mother's body, it is dependent on it.