House Votes to Ban Late-Term Abortion Procedu

[2LEYS]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] :smile:

House Votes to Ban Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Thursday, October 02, 2003

WASHINGTON — The House voted decisively Thursday for the first ban of an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade (search) ruling that women have a right to end their pregnancies. Strongly supported by President Bush, the bill could be on his desk for signature in days.

The 281-142 vote culminated an eight-year drive by the Republican-led House to end the procedure that abortion opponents call partial birth abortion (search). The Senate could take up the bill as early as Friday and send it to the president.

"Today's action is an important step that will help us continue to build a culture of life in America," Bush said in a statement. "I look forward to the Senate passing this legislation so that I can sign this very important bill into law."

Abortion rights groups, citing court rulings striking down similar state laws, say the legislation is unconstitutional and they will challenge it as soon as it becomes law.

Doctors who violate the ban would be subject to up to two years in prison. The law would not affect women having the operation.

The legislation bans a procedure, generally in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before a doctor punctures the skull. The opposing sides differ on the medical necessity or the numbers of such abortions, but they agree the bill will have far-reaching ramifications.

"Abortion will stay legal," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (search), R-Texas, a strong supporter of the restriction. But he added, "After a generation of bitter rhetoric, the American people have turned away from the divisive politics of abortion and embraced the inclusive politics of life."

"Don't ever forget, this is about Roe v. Wade," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision making abortion legal. "It's about restricting access to safe medical procedures throughout a pregnancy."

While the vote was mainly along party lines, four Republicans voted against the bill and 63 Democrats supported it.

The House has passed the bill on an almost annual basis since Republicans won control in 1995, but President Clinton twice vetoed it, saying it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

The health factor was also key to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in 2000 to overturn a similar Nebraska state ban. The high court also ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because its definition of partial birth -- not a medical term -- was too vague.

Writers of the bill said they had met the court's objections by tightening the definition and adding findings to show the practice is never needed for health reasons. "Partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health," said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Chabot said the procedure is "akin to infanticide."

But Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the bill is written so that any mid- or late-term abortion could be subject to criminal charges. "What the law does is prevent doctors from using the safest medical procedures to terminate a pregnancy as early as 12 weeks," she said.

Her group is one of several that says it will file a lawsuit as soon as the bill is signed into law. The National Abortion Federation, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, will also file suit and seek to block enforcement.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said a key issue is whether Bush, if he wins a second term, will nominate judges to the Supreme Court who are hostile to Roe v. Wade. "This case could either be used to overturn Roe or to eviscerate the protections guaranteed by Roe," she said.

But Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council said the bill reflected a shift in American attitudes toward abortion. "This is the first time that we've seen a significant public policy move to parallel the cultural move back to a respecting of human life."

I support the ban! Good job [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Freakwater]

I have never followed this issue closely. On the surface, I can't imagine anyone opposing this ban. As I said, not knowing too much about it and not being a doctor (though I play one on the internet), I can't imagine a situation where it would be neccesary to terminate a pregancy "mid-birth" to protect the life of the mother. That being said, I hope if that case happens that an appeal is made to protect the mother and doctor.

This one is tough for a reason. It would be a tragedy for a child to be killed, a mother to lose her life, or a doctor to fear prosecution for protecting the life of their patient. The far right would have you believe that this is a covert way to murder children, and the far left would have you believe that this a "not so uncommon" medical neccessity.

I don't know where to stand on this one........

[pdxkevin]

The line was drawn originally at a point where it was beleived a child could not survive being born before that date. With the advances in science and medicine over the passed decades, the survivability age has dropped. It seems only right to change the cut-off date.

[Silver Hilton]

I played golf with a doctor earlier this year. He said that this procedure was so rare as to be a non-issue. The antis like to talk about it because it sounds graphic, but it was, according to him, rarely used. So this is making political points without really changing the field of play.

[BrionLutz]

SilverHilton,

He said that this procedure was so rare as to be a non-issue. The antis like to talk about it because it sounds graphic, but it was, according to him, rarely used. So this is making political points without really changing the field of play.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Exactly correct. Extremely rare and only used in life threatening situations. Certainly a chance for the right wing religious fringe to use the government to try and play god with other people's lives but few actually affected.

The real reason for it is to establish a legal precedent for banning abortion to kind of sneak up on women's rights issues.

Cynical and heartless for the few who might need it to survive but that is the nature of religious extremism when mixed with politics.

Brion

[Hogback]

Since R vs. W our country has aborted more unborn children than the total amount of people killed in WW2. Isn't the killing of the unborn for convience sake cynical and heartless?

[ 10-03-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Hogback ]

[El Shaddai]

Talk about extremists promoting an agenda.......intellectual honesty demands the facts behind R v W be examined a lot closer. The deception/lies used by the pro choice movement to get this legislation passed makes Saddam and Osama look like pretty good guys......facts are coming to the surface....mainstream media (completely unbiased of course) won't give that primetime coverage.......

[BrionLutz]

Hogback,

Roe V Wade doesn't apply to "unborn children" so I guess you've answered your own question with the example you've chosen.

Probably the best stat for you to consider is that sex educationn and free birth control reduce abortion the most, if that is your goal.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

El Shaddai,

Talk about extremists promoting an agenda.......intellectual honesty demands the facts behind R v W be examined a lot closer. The deception/lies used by the pro choice movement to get this legislation passed makes Saddam and Osama look like pretty good guys.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Roe V. Wade was a Supreme Court Constitutional decision not legislation.

The ban on extremely rare, lifesaving medical procedures under discussion was legislation.

Is it the government's role to decide who lives or dies? Can anyone claim that power for others? If no, then it is a decision that only the mother and her doctor can make.

I suppose the characterization of those who supported this legislation as Saddam and Osama is valid in the sense this is what we can expect from a government run by religious extremists.

What makes them extremists is not their views per se but in trying to use the government to impose those views on others.

All religions do not share those views or the use of goverment to impose those views on others even if it means their death.

Consider that a government that has the power to ban abortions also has the power to impose them. Be careful you don't get what you ask for.

There is probably a lesson there. Our founders thought so.

Brion

[El-Kabong]

Thankfully I can now just write my elected offical when I have a cold or the flu as they clearly are in a better position to make medical recommendations then my trained and licensed doctor. Given this I guess trying to get medical insurance is now unnecessary, not to mention how expensive doctors are, this is a good thing for America.

Can I now sue my elected reps for medical malpractice?

Thank God we have people representing us that know better then trained medial professionals.
in fact lets give them a big raise, doctors make more then sentators and congress-people.

NOT

EK

[ 10-03-2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: El-Kabong ]

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by Hogback:
Since R vs. W our country has aborted more unborn children than the total amount of people killed in WW2. Isn't the killing of the unborn for convience sake cynical and heartless?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hog, if your daughter were ***** and impregnated, and to take it one step further, if the rapist was mentally challenged or otherwise, would you want her to carry the child to term?

[Tilla]

Yeh, we need more government in our personal lives.

[2LEYS]

It is really sad when we need the goverment to tell us that it is wrong to kill babies...You think society would have figured that one out a long time ago.

And from your posts, most of you do not even have a clue what partial birth abortion is.

[Hoosier Daddy]

The killing of an unborn child for "convenience" is wrong. Abortion shouldn't take the place of birth control and common sense. However, I believe it has a place. Glad I have never/will never have to make such a decision.

[El-Kabong]

It is clear to me that someone does not have a clue as to what this medical procedure is, otherwise they would not be happy that some politico in washington is interferring with trained medical professionals and there patients.

Hopefully your wife will never be in a place where her life is forfeit because congress said a doctor could not perform a medical procedure.

[Tilla]

Yep, it's sad when we need government to tell us when it's right to kill as well as wrong.

[skahorse]

From 2LEYS article:

Writers of the bill said they had met the court's objections by tightening the definition and adding findings to show the practice is never needed for health reasons. "Partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health," said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Chabot said the procedure is "akin to infanticide."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Evidentally there isn't a need for this procedure medically... I guess I don't understand the argument of those who claim that this is a life and death decision for the mother when it clearly states that this scenario has never been an issue...?

Lutz said:

Is it the government's role to decide who lives or dies?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They decided murder was illegal...? What's the difference? Or should we allow murder seeing as it's outlawing is based upon a religious background?

[ 10-03-2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

[El Shaddai]

Cool- Set aside the .0001 of all abortions for the sake of this discussion....the other 99.999 are what we are talking about....abortion as a matter of birth control......

Brion- Time for a little intellectual honesty....you are a very bright, stand up guy....let's take the personal feelings towards the issue and shelve them...let's just look at the issue objectively....

Post modernism views have far more deadly effects on society if you really think about it....at some point a specific view will have to be imposed on others whether they like it or not....morality is about right and wrong and that's what laws attempt to put into legal form...can you name one law which doesn't declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong?

The truth is all laws legislate morality and eveyone in politics is trying to legislate morality...the only question is whose morality should be legislated?

While I believe morality comes from God, there's a big difference between religion and morality. Religion involves our duty to God, while morality is more concerned with our duty to one another. Laws against murder, **** and theft are moral-not just religious issues- because thet are needed to restrain evil and protect the innocent.

We can and should avoid legislating religion, but we can't avoid legislating morality. There should not be any law that tells people how to worship, where to worship or even if to worship, that would be legislating religion. But we can't avoid making laws that tell people how we should treat one another. In short, legislating religion is unconstitutional, but legislating morality is unavoidable. All laws legislate morality.

It's widely believed that the religious right (pro life) are the oned who want to cram morals down the throats of everyone else while the pro choice folks are more reasonable who don't want to impose on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.........in reality both sides are actively seeking to impose moral standards on others.

Everyone realizes what pro life people want to impose: they want to protect the baby and thus impose upon the mother the duty to carry her baby to term. But what is so often missed is that the pro choice folks want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and in some cases the father.

When abortion is chosen, the morals imposed on the baby come in the form of a knife, vacuum or scalding chemical. Such a choice also imposes on the father by depriving him of fatherhood and depriving him the right to fatherhood.....in short, the pro life side seeks continued pregnancy on the mother, the pro choice side seeks to impose death on the baby when abortion is chosen. The important point is that liberals, like conservatives, want to impose certain moral positions on others.

Sooooooooooo, back to the real question...whose morality should be legislated? Seeing as you mentioned the founding fathers, let's see what they said.....

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "we hold all these truths to be self evident, 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.

Notice our rights come from the Creator and the first right we have is to life. In other words our founding fathers believed true morality comes from God.

Our reactions help us discover what is right or worng much better than our actions. For example, you may not be conscious of the Moral Law when you lie to someone (your action), but when someone lies to you the Moral Law becomes as bright as the sun, because being lied to upsets you immediately (your reaction).

Likewise, a pro-abortion activist might not think that abortion is wrong if she wants the freedom to have an abortion (her action), but if you could put her back in the womb, her opinion regarding abortion would change immediately (her reaction). As Ronald reagan said "I've noticed all those in favor of abortion are already born."

So again, whose morality......the answer is simple....we should not impose my morality or your morality...we should impose our morality-the one inherited by us all. Morality, like math is not based on subjective feelings, it is based on objective facts.

More to follow if you are interested.....because the obvious conclusion is missing, but I have to get to work.....

[El-Kabong]

"Partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health," said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor.

gee I wonder what a chief sponsor of the bill is gonna say. screw the mother, let her die!

the only real issue here is whether congress is qualified to make medical decisions. seeing no medical degree hanging on the wall of congress, then they should STAY OUT making medical decisions.

I an hardly wait for my tax dollars to be spent fighting and subsequently paying for the malpractice lawsuits.

[hntngirl]

I for one am very happy about this ban.
And I do have a question.

The legislation bans a procedure, generally in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before a doctor punctures the skull.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This "procedure" is claimed to be used only in instances where the mother's life is in danger. Now, a third trimester baby is very likely and often certainly viable, and with the medical technology we have today, very often a second trimester baby can also survive to live a normal life. In this type of abortion, the baby has already been partially delivered, and simply needs to be brought the rest of the way out. How on earth is killing this baby---mostly born and very likely to survive---going to do any more to protect the mother than allowing it to live? Does anyone know the answer?

[El-Kabong]

I don't but I believe that my doctor should be making medical procedures not some york in congress WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR.

[Reelentless]

Congress is protecting the rights of the unborn child who is unable to defend itself.

[El-Kabong]

Congress is unable, on a case by case basis, to make or offer medical opinions. This is a job for a trained and licensed medical professional.

Ever wondered why we have medical schools, well this is one of the reasons I won't speak for you but I for one want a QUALIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL evaluating medical situations.

EK

[BrionLutz]

Catch and Eat,

Nothing like someone to blame it all on religion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You have to look at those who promote the legislation, they are the ones who make the religious claim and use religious justification.

It's not just a religious issue regarding the sancitity of life Brion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">sanc•ti•ty

Pronunciation: (sangk'ti-tE), [key]
—n.,
—pl. -ties.
1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.
3. a sacred thing.

You make my point.

And in this case, the government is deciding which life is more valuable.

It is an ethical issue and a moral issue whether it is okay to take the life of an innocent human.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And you are qualified to make that decision for someone else about their life? The government is qualified to make that decision?

Brion

[El-Kabong]

I have rethought my position. There are certain members of congress that are uniquely qualified to perform certain medical procedures. The Acceptable Use policy prevents me from detailing most of those procedures, suffice to say that when I hit 50 there is a procedure that comes to mind that many members of congress have been practicing on the US for years and given the amount of practice they are probably qualified

[CATCH AND EAT]

You have no point Brion. Stick with fishing. Sorry.

[Lured In]

El Shaddai...well said. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

El-Kabong....I find it interesting that you oppose Congress' "medical decision" on this, given that they are not doctors. Do you also oppose their other decisions on these same grounds(any congress at anytime in history)? Such as...

1. Enviromental Laws (or lack of) without being bio-chem expert?
2. Requiring auto safety standards without being a machinist or a mechanical engineer?

Since when was it required in our constitution that members of Congress be "experts" in every area of life in order to pass or deny legislation? Do you honestly believe that either side did not listen to testimony of Doctors who intimately understand these issues?

While I would not be so naive as to believe each side would not use doctors supporting their own agenda, I do have to believe that they look at the information before them and what they believe is best for those they represent. Isn't that WHY we have a Republic? Could you imagine if this were a pure democracy and the entire country had to vote on this? How many of the general public are even half as educated as our congress? Talk about nuts. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

The good and the bad of a Republic is that you give up some of your right to direct the government and in turn you gain freedom to live life. (Could you imagine if the general public had to vote everyday in order for anything to get done?) Its hard enough just trying to keep up on who is doing what for an election, much less be an "expert" in every area legistlation is proposed.

[BrionLutz]

El Shaddai,

Cool- Set aside the .0001 of all abortions for the sake of this discussion....the other 99.999 are what we are talking about..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Perhaps the topic of another thread, this one is specifically about the .0001. Sometimes one has to deal with the specifics.

...can you name one law which doesn't declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What is the morality of driving on the left or the right. Many laws are simply to establish a common way to do things. One can argue that all laws are based on economics, economic determinism vs.moral determinism.

...because thet are needed to restrain evil and protect the innocent.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And when both are innocent, as in this case, who is qualified to make the moral decision? That is at the heart of this specific abortion issue.

It's widely believed that the religious right (pro life) are the oned who want to cram morals down the throats of everyone else while the pro choice folks are more reasonable who don't want to impose on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.........in reality both sides are actively seeking to impose moral standards on others.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't believe that is correct. One side insists that everyone must abide by their morality.

The other side says that it is a deceision that can only be left to the mother, that no else has the moral authority to make that decision.

One side imposes no morality but trusts in people to make the most personal decision of life as best they can.

Notice our rights come from the Creator and the first right we have is to life.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Whose Creator is that? The Chrisitian Creator who has condoned death to pregnant Jews and Muslims and other non-believers? The Jewish Creator who was fairly ruthless to non-Jews? It goes on an on. Based on history, organized religion has a very tenuous claim to morality.

This is why the one thing the founders, some of whom were atheists, agreed upon was no religion in government. Religion in government had been the source of so much evil in the world.

Regarding abortion, at the end of the day both sides can come up with equal moral certainty. Perhaps one should trust to the morality of mothers. How can anyone assume to have a higher moral authority or interest than the potential mother?

There is a fascinating group of women, anti and pro-choice who formed to try and reach a common ground. They developed friendships but at the end of the day, they could never agree on the issue.

In such a case, I would argue that this country was founded on the right of the individual, not the government, to make those personal moral decisions and this is one where we probably need to let the mothers make that decision.

Brion

[Reelentless]

Regarding abortion, at the end of the day both sides can come up with equal moral certainty. Perhaps one should trust to the morality of mothers. How can anyone assume to have a higher moral authority or interest than the potential mother?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would work in a perfect world. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don't make the best choices in life and need a little "outside help".

I will admit, that if my wife was pregnant and there was a problem that jeopordized her life and we had to choose between her life and the babies, we'd like to be the ones making that choice. Ugh, makes me want to cry just thinking about it.

But, using abortion as a method for birth control or dispatching the child because it has abnormalities, is wrong.

[2LEYS]

This "procedure" is claimed to be used only in instances where the mother's life is in danger. Now, a third trimester baby is very likely and often certainly viable, and with the medical technology we have today, very often a second trimester baby can also survive to live a normal life. In this type of abortion, the baby has already been partially delivered, and simply needs to be brought the rest of the way out. How on earth is killing this baby---mostly born and very likely to survive---going to do any more to protect the mother than allowing it to live? Does anyone know the answer?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Exactly.

How is killing a baby that is halfway delivered EVER necessary in order to save the woman's life?

Partial birth abortion is when a women is given medication to start labor way before she is ready. She goes through extreme pain and then goes into labor. When the baby's head appears they lance the back of the head.

Now do I go into more detail or do you get the point that it is never necessary to save the woman.

[fishbane]

I'm opposed to any abortion law changes.


The religous right needs to learn the meaning of seperation of church and state. The right is already ruining this country. They want to turn it into militant goverment. Just like the taliban except christian. Keep your ten comandments and anti abortion views in your church thats fine. Keep it out of the court house. We already can't feed the people of the world. The world population grows 66 million a year. Over a billion people in this world don't have enough to eat.

Women and girls will start dieing at an alarming rate if we make abortion illegal again. You can't make all kids believe in safe sex and abstanance. Thats unrealistic.

[Steelhead Hound]

I agree and disagree with this ruling.One thing I'm not sure on is that if the mothers life is in danger then the childs life is in danger and if the child would not survive if the mother died wouldn't it be best to save at least one of them??? I do agree on first and second trimester abortions but third trimesters is one I can see both ways. GO FISHBANE [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[ 10-03-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Steelhead Hound ]

[happybrew]

Every time an abortion occurs, a someone's 'morality' is forced upon an unborn child. I'm under no illusions that this will do a whole lot to end abortion in and of itself, but at least it's a start. By the way, how many of you were aware that the "Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade converted to Catholicism, began speaking out against abortion, and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision in her own lawsuit? It's true! Of course, the Supreme court wouldn't do that.

happybrew

[STGRule]

My qualifications to respond to this post:
1) I'm female. It’s ME who is pregnant.
2) People I know who have been pregnant have all been women.
3) People I know that have had abortions have all been women.
4) All partners of women that I know have had abortions have been men.
5) All male partners of women that I know that had abortions mysteriously disappeared at the mention of pregnancy. Not one of them stepped up and chose to take the baby if the mother was unable to be a mother. Not one.
6) All women that I know who thought about an abortion and chose not to have a male partner that did not mysteriously disappear.

My conclusions based on real-life experience.

1) Couples sometimes get pregnant when they had no plans on that happening.
2) You want to get rid of abortions? Stick around.
3) Women who have good family relations usually DON'T get abortions. Keep every member of your family close to you.
4) Until you are in the position of being an alone, pregnant female? Please keep your opinion to yourself.
5) The idea that any sane woman uses abortion as a birth control method is insane. Intellectually and emotionally it isn't possible. Please drop that stupid excuse.
6) Since I can never be in every woman’s mind at the time that choice is made? I won't presume to make that choice for them.

That being said, I’m not sure that partial-birth abortions are morally (yes, morally) right. But to borrow from the gun rights threads, there is a slippery slope. Don't give an inch. After all, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

[2LEYS]

My qualifications:

1.) I am a man.
2.) I am a father.
3.) I have two children and went to every single dr's appointment.
4.) I saw them develop.
5.) I saw their hearts beat at 8 weeks.
6.) I see then today.
7.) I realize that if they were aborted that they WOULD NOT be here today. In other words they would be dead.
8.) My son was born 7.5 weeks early. He was no less alive and a person than if he was term. He could have been aborted 8 weeks after he was born? How does that make any sense?

It is not a woman's issue. It is a human issue. If you don't want the child, do not kill it as a conveinience. Give it up for adoption.

[ 10-03-2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[happybrew]

STG Rule: People shouldn't be having sex when they aren't married. Everyone having sex knows that pregnancy might occur. Those women you cite had sex knowing that pregnancy might occur. They also knew that those men did not love them enough to marry them, otherwise they would have married them. You seem to use the selfishness of men as a reason for abortion. I fully acknowledge their selfishness. However you do not admit the selfishness of those women looking for pleasure, whether emotional or physical, that would result in pregnancy under circumstances not conducive to raising a family. The bottom line is that they had abortions, not because their "men" (and the term is used loosely) left them, because they did not want to raise a child alone. Key phrase "they did not want". I have known women who have had abortions who used this reason to justify it, not weaseling out with "my man left me." Don't go blaming men for abortions. It is logically inconsistent, in fact downright hypocritical, to say that men have no say in it because they're not the ones pregnant, then to say that men are the cause of it. You're forgetting that those women specifically chose those losers, then they chose to sleep with them without securing a committment of marriage so that they might have a stable family in which to raise the children which will INEVITABLY result from sexual activity, even when artificial birth control is used. My wife and I had two of our kids while using artificial birth control (a practice which I am very ashamed of now, and sincerely regret having engaged in). But once one buys into the propaganda of Planned Parenthood, one conveniently ignores the fact that sex will result in pregnancy, even though their statistics try to tell you otherwise. Yes, conveniently ignore. As hormone influenced as I was as an adult, I could still recognize that a 2% failure rate of the pill in actual practice, as opposed to laboratory results, translates into a 20% chance of pregnancy over ten years, and those weren't odds I was willing to take without the benefit of marriage. Of 1000 girls having sex on the pill for ten years between the ages of 14 and 24, 200 will become pregnant. With condoms, this is much higher. Planned Parenthood knows this. Yet abstinence is viewed as unrealistic. It's much easier to blame the men for not sticking around, then kill the kid. In reality, both the man and the woman are to blame. I've known women who have taken responsibility for their actions and raised a child alone. They have my admiration and support for making a good decision after a bad one. Abortion is not the only alternative. It's only the easiest one.... or so it seems at first. What women are not told is that abortion leaves them at greater risk for depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide, not to mention surgical side effects, breast cancer (yes, the link between abortion and breast cancer has been determined, and the causal mechanism identified), infertility, later miscarriage, and trouble establishing healthy relationships. It is more dangerous for a woman to have an abortion than it is to give birth. If it's the woman's choice to do this, and the man doesn't have any say over it, then don't blame the man for it.

happybrew

happybrew

[2LEYS]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[MasterCaster]

People shouldn't be having sex when they aren't married. Everyone having sex knows that pregnancy might occur. Those women you cite had sex knowing that pregnancy might occur.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">VERY WELL said!!!!! I couldnt agree more. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[happybrew]

It's all fine to have applause from those already convinced, but it would be better to convince those unconvinced.

happybrew

[crabbait]

STGRule - [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

2LEY - Not qualified.

[2LEYS]

Care to explain why? Because I am a man? That is rediculous.

[STGRule]

People shouldn't be having sex when they aren't married. Everyone having sex knows that pregnancy might occur.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I didn't say they were married or not. You made that assumption.

Those women you cite had sex knowing that pregnancy might occur.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As does every man.

They also knew that those men did not love them enough to marry them, otherwise they would have married them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again, you are assuming they were not married.

You seem to use the selfishness of men as a reason for abortion. I fully acknowledge their selfishness.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I was not making that connection. I was saying that if there isn't a caring, loving partner or family there, it is her decision.

However you do not admit the selfishness of those women looking for pleasure, whether emotional or physical, that would result in pregnancy under circumstances not conducive to raising a family.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am not talking about what happens before. I am talking about what happens after. But you are correct, that happens.

The bottom line is that they had abortions, not because their "men" (and the term is used loosely) left them, because they did not want to raise a child alone. Key phrase "they did not want".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I wasn't there at that time to know what the reason was, nor were you. Since I DO know women that raised children alone, I doubt that would be the only reason. In fact I would be willing to bet that there is a myriad or reasons that an abortion happens or doesn't. Again, I am not there so I will not presume to make that decision for them.

I have known women who have had abortions who used this reason to justify it, not weaseling out with "my man left me." Don't go blaming men for abortions.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Then you know some very sad women. Just because they didn't "want" to raise a child alone is not a reason to not complete a pregnancy. Excuse maybe. Reason, not. Again though, since I wasn't there and didn't have the benefit of knowing the entire situation, I will not impose my opinion.

It is logically inconsistent, in fact downright hypocritical, to say that men have no say in it because they're not the ones pregnant, then to say that men are the cause of it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This one we will just have to not agree about. Since it is life altering to the women and somewhat inconvenient to the man, the woman gets to choose. If men want the choice? They can get pregnant. I never said it was the man that "makes" a women get an abortion. All I said was if they are there through the whole thing the outcome will be better for all involved. Man, woman and fetus. Not always but it certainly helps.

You're forgetting that those women specifically chose those losers, then they chose to sleep with them without securing a committment of marriage so that they might have a stable family in which to raise the children which will INEVITABLY result from sexual activity, even when artificial birth control is used.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again you are assuming no marriage. And beyond all that, you should bottle that perfection of yours and sell it. I'm sure the divorce rate would be zero after that.

My wife and I had two of our kids while using artificial birth control (a practice which I am very ashamed of now, and sincerely regret having engaged in).

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Apparently you didn't pay attention to the percentages attached to different birth control methods. As far as I know the only one that is 100% effective is abstinence. And that decision was perfect for you. But a little over the top to make that choice for others.

But once one buys into the propaganda of Planned Parenthood, one conveniently ignores the fact that sex will result in pregnancy, even though their statistics try to tell you otherwise. Yes, conveniently ignore.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Uh, see above. I refuse to assume anybody is that unintelligent

As hormone influenced as I was as an adult, I could still recognize that a 2% failure rate of the pill in actual practice, as opposed to laboratory results, translates into a 20% chance of pregnancy over ten years,and those weren't odds I was willing to take without the benefit of marriage. Of 1000 girls having sex on the pill for ten years between the ages of 14 and 24, 200 will become pregnant. With condoms, this is much higher.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't even know where to start with your interpretation of the statistics so I will just leave that alone. Although, you are most correct about condoms. They are a really lousy birth control method by themselves. They can however be very effective combined with a spermicide. In fact the numbers rival voluntary sterilization. Only abstinence is 100% effective.

Planned Parenthood knows this. Yet abstinence is viewed as unrealistic.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Why do you believe this and what makes you think Planned Parenthood doesn't promote abstinence?

It's much easier to blame the men for not sticking around, then kill the kid. In reality, both the man and the woman are to blame. I've known women who have taken responsibility for their actions and raised a child alone. They have my admiration and support for making a good decision after a bad one. Abortion is not the only alternative. It's only the easiest one.... or so it seems at first.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, it is the most life-altering thing that will ever happen. No matter what the choice. and it needs to be a choice. One way or the other.

What women are not told is that abortion leaves them at greater risk for depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide, not to mention surgical side effects, breast cancer (yes, the link between abortion and breast cancer has been determined, and the causal mechanism identified), infertility, later miscarriage, and trouble establishing healthy relationships.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh man, your doctor is going to have to talk to mine because that is the biggest load of mis-information that I have ever seen put in the same place at the same time. You have managed to mix some truth, half-truth, and downright fraud into one paragraph.

It is more dangerous for a woman to have an abortion than it is to give birth.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You are right. It is in some cases. In some cases that abortion is more dangerous than the pregnancy, especially if it's an illegal abortion.
In some cases the pregnancy will be more dangerous than the abortion.

If it's the woman's choice to do this, and the man doesn't have any say over it, then don't blame the man for it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is correct. It is the women's choice. It will be based on the circumstances, the support and the available options.

[ 10-03-2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[freespool]

STGRule, [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[CATCH AND EAT]

[/QUOTE]Extremely rare and only used in life threatening situations. Certainly a chance for the right wing religious fringe to use the government to try and play god with other people's lives but few actually affected.

Cynical and heartless for the few who might need it to survive but that is the nature of religious extremism when mixed with politics.

Brion [/QB][/QUOTE]


Nothing like someone to blame it all on religion. Nice Brion. Real Nice. And I suppose the left wing does not used government to do the same? Get real!

It's not just a religious issue regarding the sancitity of life Brion. It is an ethical issue and a moral issue whether it is okay to take the life of an innocent human. Don't ya understand that? What a pathetic attack on religion. Try another venue when trying to state your case. Maybe you are not aware of this Brion but I am sure there are many non-Christians (you know, the non-religious types) that believe abortion is wrong and should be legislated.

Man crap like you just dished out ticks me off. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[ 10-03-2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[Stratocaster]

I think it would be safe to say that, if the pro-abortion groups tried as hard to curb un-wanted pregnancies as they advocate abortions, it would be alot better for everyone. Born or not and woman or man.

[ 10-04-2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[STGRule]

Dan, this is what I do not understand. Why do you suppose that just because there is a choice that it will be for an abortion? Why do think that a pro-choice person would only advocate an abortion? It seems to me that somebody who advocates a choice would not be the one who would decide what that choice would be.

[ 10-04-2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Stratocaster]

un-wanted pregnancies

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They advocate choice, fine. But lets advocate, lets not get pregnant also. Thats all. If someone wants an abortion as a last resort fine. But how did i get to this difficult decision? Irresponsibility? And in the future will i not put myself in this position again?

[ 10-04-2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[RichH]

Is it the government's role to decide who lives or dies? Can anyone claim that power for others? If no, then it is a decision that only the mother and her doctor can make.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Am I missing something here or don't the second and third sentence contradict each other?

[BrionLutz]

STG,

You missed this posted by the anti-choice folks:

Abortion is not the only alternative. It's only the easiest one.... or so it seems at first.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I can't imagine a more difficult choice in life than whether to end a pregancy.

Most of those who make such assumptions will never face that choice.

That anyone can assume to make that decision for someone else undercuts the "morality" claims of the anti-choice folks.

While this is a clear case where, no matter what the "majority" view, deciding whether to bear children is a choice that only the woman involved can make, it is interesting to note that polls on this show consistent, big majorities for choice. I looked at Gallup's website and the last poll was 81% favoring legal abortions.

Brion

[crabbait]

fisherdan - And I think it would be safe to say that, if the anti-abortion groups tried as hard to take care of the unwanted children that are already born as they do harrassing people at clinics, it would be alot better for everyone. Born or not and woman or man.

[Reelentless]

While this is a clear case where, no matter what the "majority" view, deciding whether to bear children is a choice that only the woman involved can make, it is interesting to note that polls on this show consistent, big majorities for choice. I looked at Gallup's website and the last poll was 81% favoring legal abortions.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Who cares, Mr. Statistics. Killing babies is wrong despite what the majority says.

What I find ironic is that the same liberals who say its ok to kill innocent babies are against killing convicted murders (death penalty).

[STGRule]

What I find ironic is that the same liberals who say its ok to kill innocent babies are against killing convicted murders (death penalty).

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be incorrect statement. While it may be true for somebody somewhere it is not true for all. For instance, me. Actually, I don't personaly know anybody who believes that.

[fishisabonus]

A woman should have the choice. I am not saying it is the choice I would make, but what works for me may not work for someone else.

I know of a family, before abortion was legal. The doctor wanted to do surgery and they found out she was pregnant. They knew she couldn't carry the baby to term and that they baby probably would not survive and that the woman would die giving birth. The doctor's hands were tied. She did die as well as the baby girl. She left three young boys without a mother and a heartbroken husband behind.

The doctor knew he was writing her a death sentence by not being able to do the original surgery.

Do we want to go back to those times. How many of you men out there would want to lose your wife, daughter, mother or sister under similar circumstances.

The woman should have the right of choice under any circumstances.

2Leys I have a question for you. How can you talk about the sanctity of human life and then laugh when someone is nearly mauled to death by a tiger in a circus act?

[happybrew]

STGRule:

1. You said "partner", not "husband" or "spouse". I made no assumptions about the marital state of those involved. "Partner" as opposed to "husband" or "spouse" means that there is no marriage bond. If you meant "husband" or "spouse" then you should have said "husband" or "spouse". If you meant "live-in domestic partner" then you're talking about people living together outside of marriage.

2.

you should bottle that perfection of yours and sell it. I'm sure the divorce rate would be zero after that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No need to bottle and sell anything. To begin with, it's not "perfection". It's plain common sense. Second, that common sense is available at most churches, although not all. We have abandoned common sense, though. We as a society have gone after the cheap bauble in the store window, and passed up the rare diamond in the back of the store. We need to curb our impulses so we can get that diamond.

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the percentages attached to different birth control methods.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not at all. One child was born while my wife was on the pill, and another while she was on DepoProvera. Both boast a 99% effectiveness. But that's in the laboratory.

Yes, it is the most life-altering thing that will ever happen. No matter what the choice. and it needs to be a choice. One way or the other.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The choice is made when choosing to be sexually active. Is having children life altering? Yes. But people have sex knowing that children will occur. Abortion is a life-ending choice.

quote: What women are not told is that abortion leaves them at greater risk for depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide, not to mention surgical side effects, breast cancer (yes, the link between abortion and breast cancer has been determined, and the causal mechanism identified), infertility, later miscarriage, and trouble establishing healthy relationships. Oh man, your doctor is going to have to talk to mine because that is the biggest load of mis-information that I have ever seen put in the same place at the same time. You have managed to mix some truth, half-truth, and downright fraud into one paragraph.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So you are accusing me of lying, or at the very least passing on lies I have believed? I can document all of those claims, and I shall do so in another thread. It will be quite lengthy. I find it interesting that you call it fraud without seeing the evidence. So what part are you calling fraud?

happybrew

[happybrew]

Originally posted by STGRule:
2leys, you are not embryonic tissue. Niether am I. In fact we haven't had embryonic tissue since we were embryos.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So you were an embryo. Do you realize how profound that statement is in its implications for your position? You used the personal plural pronoun, and used it in a sentence which identified you with an embryo. Let's look at these statements:

1. I am an elderly man.
2. I am an adult.
3. I am a teenager.
4. I am a child.
5. I am a toddler.
6. I am an infant.
7. I am a neo-natal infant born 2 hours ago.
8. I am a fetus about to be born in 2 hours.
9. I am an 8 month old fetus.
10. I am an embryo.
11. I am a zygote.

An elderly person is a stage in human development.
So is an adult, a teenager, an all of these listed here. We use those terms to identify ourselves and others. They are an essential part of who we are as a person. Someone who is a teenager is a fundamentally different sort person than someone who is an elderly person. At the same time, someone who is a teenager is not a different person in identity, but a different person in type than when they were a child, or when they will be as adults. These are words that are descriptive, and describe essentials. A person cannot be a person and not be one of these things.

The term "embryo" is a term that describes human development, and at the same time, human identity. Yet this term of human development is used to deny the humanity of the unborn, as if it were divorced from a person's humanity. Yet you can say "...we were embryos" and describe something essential about you at that time. You are are a human being. You were a human being as a child. When you say "...we were embryos" you are describing part of your identity, your history, and who you were as a person. If we can excuse the killing of someone because they are an "embryo", divorcing arbitrarily their humanity from their developmental state, what's to stop us from deciding, as the ancient Romans did, that newborn infants are also have no humanity, and kill them too? Or a two year old? Or a person with Alzheimers? Abortion is a human rights issue, not a women's rights issue. You implicity affirm this when you say "...we were embryos".

happybrew

[STGRule]

The half-truths:
Suicide

I only copied the key messages from this study. Notice the OR in the last sentence.

Key messages
The risk of suicide after birth is half of that among women of reproductive age in general
Suicides are more common after a miscarriage and especially after an induced abortion than in the general population
Increased risk for suicide after an abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Depression

Abortion
January 18, 2002
(British Medical Journal) - Depression among women after an unintended first pregnancy is linked to whether they abort or carry to term, conclude researchers from the United States, in this week's BMJ.
Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to conduct the research. In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed about depression and unintended pregnancy.
A total of 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery between 1980 and 1992. Among married women, those with a history of abortion were significantly more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared with those who delivered unintended pregnancies.
Among unmarried women, rates of high risk depression were similar, regardless of whether they aborted or carried to term. This may be due to the stress unmarried women may experience in raising a child without support or it may be related to this group's higher rate of concealing past abortions, suggest the authors.
Compared with national averages, unmarried women in this study report only 30% of the expected abortions compared with married women, who report 74% of the expected abortions, which may make the results for married women more reliable, say the authors.
Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are all associated with greater post-abortion depression, anxiety, and hostility, the high rate of concealing past abortions in this group (60% overall), means that these results may underrepresent the full effect of abortion on subsequent depression, they conclude.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Substance abuse

Editor's Note: The following five studies examine the association between substance use/abuse and reproductive history, including elective abortion. Their findings sometimes have been misinterpreted as suggesting that substance abuse is an effect of abortion. With the exception of Reardon & Ney, none of these researchers reached this conclusion. The evaluation of each study indicates why the assumption that abortion causes substance abuse is unwarranted. In sum, data were primarily retrospective, potential confounding variables were not considered or, when considered, the relationship between abortion and substance use disappeared. It should be noted that the Amaro, Zuckerman & Cabral (1989) and Frank et al. (1988) articles analyze different samples from the same data set, and the Klassen & Wilsnack (1986) and the Wilsnack, Wilsnack & Klassen (1984) articles are also from the same general data set.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Infertility

Some Estimates of the Rates of Abortion-caused Infertility

Ohio Right to Life (1) quotes Dr. Bohumil Stipal, Czechoslovakia's Deputy Minister of Health, who stated: "Roughly 25% of the women who interrupt their first pregnancy have remained permanently childless." The 25% figure would presumably include:

women who had an abortion and simply have not tried to become pregnant since

women who had decided to not have any children for the foreseeable future, found themselves pregnant, had an abortion and have remained childless by choice ever since

women who were fertile, had an abortion and are now infertile because of complications arising from the abortion..
There is, of course, no way to estimate how many instances of "childlessness" are due to each of the three causes. Thus, we cannot even guess how many women are infertile as a result of an abortion. We conclude that Dr. Stipal's statement is meaningless with regard to abortions and infertility.

Ohio Right to Life (1) quotes an unidentified article in the British Journal of OB/GYN for 1976-AUG which stated that the risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one induced abortion is 3-4 times greater than that among non-aborted women. That figure might have been accurate in the mid 1970's, but be totally invalid in the present day. At a time when legal abortions were difficult or impossible to obtain, the only alternative was the back-alley butchers. Extremely high rates of infection could cause permanent infertility.

We have been unable to find reliable current data on the likelihood of women becoming infertile after an abortion.

We have been unable to locate a medical site on the Internet that deal with the topic. If there were a significant infertility problem, we would assume that some sites would mention it. Only pro-life sites appear to cite it as a concern. For the time being, we assume that infertility arising from an abortion is a hoax, like the cancer and post abortion syndrome scares.
There are probably many millions of women alive today in North America who became infertile as a result of an abortion. Most of them are the victims of back-alley abortionists in the days before Roe vs. Wade made early abortions legal. It would appear that the chances of becoming infertile as a result of a hospital or clinic abortion is very slight.
Teens who live in states where parental consent is needed for an abortion have three options:
1. tell their parents about the pregnancy and obtain permission from them to have an abortion
2. go to court and ask a judge to authorize an abortion
3. keep the pregnancy secret and seek out an illegal abortion
Unfortunately, many young women are taking the third option, and are placing their future fertility (and sometimes their life) at risk.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The fraud:

Part 1

FARGO, North Dakota - After more than three days at trial in state court, Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion clinic that distributes information stating that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Ruling from the bench, Judge McGuire relied on trial testimony from leading epidemiology and endocrinology experts who confirmed the statements made in the clinic's brochures. The judge also asserted that it was reasonable for the clinic to rely on preeminent cancer research institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, neither of which have concluded that there is an established link between abortion and breast cancer.
"The judge rejected the abortion-breast cancer scare tactic," said Linda Rosenthal, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel in the case. "This ruling should put to rest the unethical anti-choice tactic of using pseudo-science to harass abortion clinics and scare women," added Rosenthal.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Part 2

The relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been the subject of extensive research. The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer. Until the mid-1990s, results from studies of breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion were inconsistent. Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk.
Recent large studies, particularly cohort studies, generally show no association between breast cancer risk and previously recorded spontaneous or induced abortions. In a large-scale epidemiologic study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, researchers compared data from Danish health registries that included 1.5 million women and more than 10,000 cases of breast cancer. The registry data on abortions was collected before the diagnosis of breast cancer was made. After adjusting the data for several established breast cancer risk factors, the authors found that “induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.” The strengths of this study include its large size, the ability to account for breast cancer risk factors that may differ between women who have had abortions and those who have not, and the availability of information on abortion from registries rather than having to rely on a woman’s self-reported history of abortion.
In 2000 and 2001, additional findings were reported from studies that collected data on abortion history before the breast cancers occurred. These studies showed no increased breast cancer risk in women who had induced abortions. In three of the studies, information on abortion was based on medical records rather than on the woman’s self-report; in another study, interview data was collected before any breast cancer diagnosis. The studies were conducted in different populations of women, and varied in size and the extent of details on established breast cancer risk factors.
Most of the early studies necessarily relied on self-reports of induced abortion, which have been shown to differ between breast cancer patients and other women. Other problems with these studies included small numbers of women, questions of comparability between women with breast cancer and those without, inability to separate induced from spontaneous abortions, and incomplete knowledge of other breast cancer risk factors that may have been related to a woman’s history of abortion.
Even though it appears that there is no overall association between spontaneous or induced abortion and breast cancer risk, it is possible that an increased or decreased risk could exist in small subgroups of women. For example, the large Danish study found a slightly lower breast cancer risk in women with abortions occurring before 7 weeks gestation, and a slightly higher risk in women who had abortions at 7 or more weeks. The National Cancer Institute is currently funding at least six other studies examining complete pregnancy history, including induced and spontaneous abortion, in relation to the risk of breast cancer.
Well-established breast cancer risk factors include age, a family history of breast cancer, an early age at menarche, a late age at menopause, a late age at the time of the first birth of a full-term baby, alcohol consumption, and certain breast conditions. Obesity is a risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
References:
Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates D. Abortion and breast cancer: A case-control record linkage study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2001; 55:336–7.
Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000; 11:76–80.
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt M, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336:81–85.
Michels KB, Willett WC. Does induced or spontaneous abortion affect the risk of breast cancer? Epidemiology 1996; 7:521–528.
Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2000; 11:777–781.
Rookus, MA, van Leeuwen, FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: Reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1996; 88:1759–1764.
Tang M-T C, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000; 11:177–180.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[STGRule]

zy·gote
1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2. The organism that develops from a zygote.

em·bry·o
a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
c. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
d. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

fe·tus
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

A person cannot be a person and not be one of these things.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yet any higher vertebrate can be and is the first three things

The term "embryo" is a term that describes human development, and at the same time, human identity.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It is not a term of human development. It is a biological term for a stage of zygote development.

[2LEYS]

All that does not change the fact that abortion does indeed take a life.