Hokay. So, the government is hiding crashed UFOs and making secret deals with space aliens, did fake the 9/11 attacks, covered up the truth about the JFK assassination, et cetera. (It’s all out there in publicly available publications, and I haven’t seen any specific official denials.)
Mmm. Frogs.
Who brought marriage into this?
Once they become legal, they also become known. But obviously, it is not the only factor. The website you linked to below gives enough info on that. But, perhaps your problem with reading lies in reading what you want to see?
I cannot believe that anyone with half a brain can read that page and still not understand anything on the relation between abortion and teen-pregnancies. Here we have a site on the problems of teen-pregnancies, stating their seriousness, but it drips from your superior morality like water from a rock. This page contains more than 90% of all good arguments for choice, and shows that teen-pregnancies are a symptom of a large problem not related to abortion. If anything, promoting pro-choice (or maybe even promoting abortion) would be an effective remedy, although obviously and the page makes it clear, that would be mostly fighting symptoms and comparable to using Prozac without solving the underlying problems.
You couldn’t have linked a more ironic page for backing your flimsy way of discussion, that is so blindly focussed on winning an argument that reasons for winning it apparently become secondary (unless it was never anything but to boost your own ego). And perhaps the biggest irony is the table in the middle of the page, listing side-by-side statitistics from the United States and the Netherlands.
You couldn’t be much further wrong if you tried. Since it seems to be a more serious problem then I thought, maybe inquiring for a Remedial Teaching class in comprehensive reading wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Thanks, I need them - the ones I have for you seem to be slipping from my hands like live eels in butter.
Re-…slip!
Arwin
FIGHTING IGNORANCE SINCE 1974
and it’s proving to be an uphill struggle
Don’t be a fool. We’re not talking about elaborate legends or conspiracy theories. We are talking about something that Mary Calderone supposedly said in an article that she wrote – an article that appeared in a well-known scientific journal, and which is publicly available.
If Mary Calderone never uttered this statement, then why would the NRLC (or any other pro-life organization) blatantly fabricate that quote, knowing full well that their claim could be readily disproven? Similarly, if Calderone said no such thing, then why haven’t NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood or any number of pro-choice authorities stepped forward and said, “Wait a minute! Here is a copy of the journal in question, and she never said such a thing. Here’s the proof!” The overwhelming bulk of the evidence suggests that this statement was indeed factual.
Here’s a tip. Do you REALLY doubt that Calderone made this statement? Well, guess what? Here’s your chance to prove me wrong. Articles from back-issues of The American Journal of Public Health are readily available through their website. Feel free to check the veracity of the NRLC’s claim, since you express such doubt about its credibility.
The problem is that you’re exhibiting an unreasonable amount of skepticism. Likening this situation to JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories is intellectually dishonest and simply absurd. It is ultimately a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.
Here’s a distinction that is obviously lost on you, Steve MB. The publications that you mentioned would not necessarily prove that the government is hiding crashed UFOs or other such rot. However, they would constitute adequate proof of what their authors have written. Do you grasp the difference yet?
Various posters have asked, “How do we know that Mary Calderone actually said that illegal abortions were safe before Roe v. Wade?” Understand? They are questioning whether Calderone ever uttered such a thing. The answer is simple – her words are recorded in a well-known journal, and can be readily verified by looking for the relevant back-issue (the July 1960 volume, to be specific).
Does this automatically prove her claim? Admittedly not. However, do note that this was an admission by Planned Parenthood’s own president that illegal abortions were safe, and were conducted by licensed physicians. In a court of law, damaging admissions by hostile witnesses are especially valuable, since they lack any motive to fabricate such falsehoods. And so it is with Calderone’s quote; as the head of Planned Parenthood, it would have been in her best interest to attest that illegal abortions were being conducted under dangerous conditions, and that legalizing them would make them vastly more safe. Instead, she insisted that these were being performed under safe conditions by highly qualified personnel.
Walloon, I try to respect the views of those who consider themselves pro-life, I really do. I consider abortion immoral, and, like Bricker, I would love to see a day when no woman even considers an abortion, let alone has one. That said, do you have any idea how obnoxious your statement looks to me?
My best friend has a mild heart defect. That and health risks on her husband’s side make the odds of her being able to carry a healthy baby to term and survive unacceptably low. They’d love to have kids, but not at the quite real risk to her and the baby’s life. Are you honestly telling me that my best friend should never have intercourse with her husband? Are you honestly telling me that she and her husband should remain celibate throughout their marriage? Yes, I know there are ways of having sex which don’t involve putting the penis in the vagina. I also know from my own experience that they aren’t the same and aren’t as satisfying. Are you also aware, by the way, that a penis doesn’t have to be in a vagina for a woman to become pregnant? Pregnancy has resulted from just fooling around at the entrance, so to speak. Ejaculation isn’t necessary, either. Pre-come (there must be a more delicate term) contains sperm, too.
People can have very valid reasons for not wanting to have children. One reason I didn’t when I was in my 20’s, engaged, and very much in love, is because I was afraid I would inflict the same emotional abuse on my children my father inflicted on me. Should I, therefore, not have had sex with a man who loved me dearly and who’d vowed to marry me? (That is, technically, a moot point – we’d taked the issue of issue over before having sex and we would have moved the wedding up if I’d become pregnant.) While that engagement ended years ago, I’m currently in love with and dating an even more wonderful man. We’ve discussed having children and, if we marry, we’ll look into the risks involved for me and the baby. If the risks prove unacceptably high, which they may well do, do you honestly think I should never have sex with my husband? If so, let me suggest you and your spouse, if you have one try celibacy first.
As I said, I do try to respect the pro-life side of the debate; I agree with them on many points. Statements like the one I quoted do make it difficult sometimes, though. Please accept my apologies if I’ve caused offense.
CJ
Mary Steichen Calderone, M.D., M.S.P.H., F.A.P.H.A., “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health 50:948-954 (July 1960).
*Dr. Calderone is medical director, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., New York, N. Y.
This paper was presented before the Maternal and Child Health Section of the American Public Health Association at the Eighty-Seventh Annual Meeting in Atlantic City, N. J., October 19, 1959.*
No, but you should not let him ejaculate into your vagina unless he has had a vasectomy and/or you have had a tubal ligation.
OK, this is an acceptable cite.
Of course, it doesn’t change my view that an embryo or fetus prior to viability is not human, and that women therefore should not have to sneak around to doctors who do illegal abortions or leave the state or country to have an abortion.
Anybody can have an opinion. You are entitled to yours; however, let us see what more qualified individuals have to say.
Earlier, I mentioned a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting at which these experts were asked to testify. The pro-choicers were invited to produce their own expert witnesses, but they were unable to provide even a single expert who would testify that life begins at any point other than conception. One individual claimed that we can never know when life begins, but his viewpoint was severely outweighed by the counter-testimonies – and even his statement would run contrary to the pro-choice view that we should feel free to execute the unborn!
Tubal ligations and vasectomies have failure rates. At least one Doper knows that from personal experience. The birth control method I use actually has a lower failure rate than a tubal ligation. Women have become pregnant even when both they and their partners have been sterilized, or so they thought. Also, as I said, ejaculation isn’t necessary for a man to impregnate a woman. Sperm is present in seminal fluid, as well as ejaculate, and withdrawal is one of the less effective methods of contraception. Please, get your facts straight before oversimplifying.
CJ
Where did I say anything about “withdrawal”. Get your facts straight.
I think “when does human life begin” is ultimately a matter of faith, and, as such, we all have different opinions on it, and always will. For example, I believe that an embryo or fetus isn’t human until higher brain activity kicks in, because I think that’s more important than other criteria in what makes us human.
I don’t believe that anyone else is more qualified than me to determine what I believe on a question of faith such as this one.
So, are you saying that while you think abortions should be illegal, physicians should be free to decide whether or not they personally want to perform the procedure anyway? And what kind of freedom/choice are we talking about in that case. A guarantee that they’ll keep their licence if discovered, or do we have to rely on that they believe strongly enough in what they are doing to risk, say, conspiracy to murder?
For them to be more qualified, you will first have to agree with Anne on the meaning of human. The experts talk about the biological starting point of an individual specimen of a specimen of the homo erectus.
When Anne says ‘human’ and means not precisely the above definition, but a human being capable of rational thought, compassion, suffering and so on, then the experts you quote lose their qualification to a very large extent. More importantly, your quotes from those experts lose their qualification to a very large extent.
And, of course, there’s another argument for abortion even if one does believe that the unborn is human.
Suppose you need a kidney, you and I are a perfect tissue match, no one else in the world is a match for you (say we have some rare blood type), I have two healthy kidneys and would be fine with one, and dialysis won’t work for you for some reason. I am not legally required to give you my kidney, even if you will die without it. Therefore, I should not be able to be legally compelled to allow a fetus to use my womb to grow to viability, any more than I should be forced to let someone have my kidney.
or, individual specimen of the homo erectus :smack:
The failure rate probability for tubal ligations over a ten-year period is 1.8%. The ten-year failure rate of other contraceptives:
Implant: 0.5%
Injectible: 3.0%
I.U.D.: 20%
Pill: 50%
Diaphragm: 100%
Male condom: 100%
Spermicides: 100%
Withdrawal: 100%
Periodic abstinence: 100%
The pregnancy rates reflected here with each method do not reflect the inherent efficacy of methods when used correctly and consistently, but rather reflect typical or imperfect use.
Sources:
H.B. Peterson et al., American Journal of Obstetric Gynecology 174:1161-1170 (April 1996).
Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F et al., Contraceptive Technology. New York, NY: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998.
Whoops.
:smack:
Wat that a whoosh? Any way, let’s got back a step. Linky