Fetal Pain Is A Lie: How Phony Science Took Over The Abortion Debate

This stuff has gotten out of hand. We are talking about 1% abortions after 20 weeks. Can you prove that a reflex makes a baby? Do you have proof that saving a fetus outside the womb does not change the fetus characteristic? How does air affect the fetus? Do many couples panic until they hear a scream? How does a scream affect a fetus?

Roe v Wade allows a mother to choose at any time in her pregnancy. You are not allowed to make that decision for her no matter what fake science tries to tell you.

 

Yes, I have 4 children.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you lefty's loved science...oh that's right, only when you agree with it.

 

Not talking about a dictionary definition. We're talking about a legal definition.

Though yours doesn't fit the dictionary definition either....

 

Try be honest in your statement. Those pro-choice want sanitary and safety standards. You are using a trick to required the clinics to be hospitals so that you can close them. It will make poor women use more unsafe abortion methods just as they did before Roe v Wade. Oh, the reason for Roe v Wade was to make sure that there was certified health care after the first trimester.

 

No it wasn't. Immoral certainly. This is just the right attempting to use the word because they feel it has more rhetorical weight. Such Orwellian deceptions do not change the fact that abortion is objectively NOT murder, because it is legal.

 

Who doesn't support sex education??? Not me, but I don't think we should have it in kindergarten. I think men should be held responsible, but in what aspect? Women who want abortions usually don't care what the man thinks. If the man wants the child and they don't they get an abortion anyway. So in what way do you want men held responsible, just financial???

 

Roe vs Wade was not about healthcare, it was about the legalization of abortion.

 

Abortion is all the proof I need that liberals are heartless. Their claims to care about the poor, the minorities, women, homosexuals, immigrants, are all so much garbage because when it comes to the unborn child, they are heartless. All they want is votes from these groups, so they can acquire all they really care about -- power.

 

Nobody does, but this evades any serious discussion. WHEN is sex education appropriate? When pregnancy becomes possiblre? HOW should it be presented?

One of the main problems with contraceptives is, the most at-risk girls are becoming sexually active long before their parents would accept it - so they keep it a secret. Contraceptives would blow their cover. Then they get pregnant, which should never have happened. So does the problem lie with the girls, or with the parents, or with lack of education, or with contraceptive technology, or what? These are hard questions worth looking at.

The risk of owing child support for 18 years might be a deterrent, but I doubt it. I feel that since the woman endures the pregnancy, it's her decision to continue it or not.

But if you're serious about cutting WAY down on abortions, this is really a contraceptive discussion, not an abortion discussion.

 

And those who wish to cram their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else, sideways? Those who wish to saddle girls with a responsibility they can't handle OR afford? Those who wish to have unwanted children struggle through a life nobody wanted? THEY aren't heartless?

SOME people around here believe in individual freedom.

 

So you made a statement about men being responsible but have no answer as to how. Contraceptives have been cheap or free for decades now. Planned Parenthood has been around for decades. Sex education in schools has been around for decades now and evidently girls are still getting pregnant even with all this info, so evidently it has failed.

 

No, I didn't hold men responsible. That was someone else. I think it's impractical.

And you are right, the current approach to planned parenthood has failed. Contraceptives are cheap and aren't being used. Sex education is problematic. But actual field studies over several years, targeting free (and hand-delivered) contraceptives to thousands of the most at-risk women and girls, reduced unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions) to neary ZERO among all the women who accepted the freebies. Compared to a control population with access only to the traditional Planned Parenthood and sex education, they reduced unwanted pregnancies by 70%! This is impressive! And the 30% who STILL had unwanted pregnancies were those who declined the free contraceptives - again mostly for fear of having their cover blown with their parents.

So here we have two approaches, one of which is dramatically effective and the other of which is a failure. So what should we DO? I would recommend free hand-delivered contraceptives, delivered in such a way that it's not publicly visible. Putting them on a table in sex education class and inviting anyone to help themselves is a guaranteed failure. Nobody is going to wish to be seen by anybody, going up to that table. A better approach is to individually give every student in the class contraceptives, and don't let anyone decline. Tell them they can throw them away after class. Even then, they will all wish to be SEEN throwing them away.

Instead of contraceptives, what sex education classes should have in them is the parents. EDUCATE the parents that 70% (or whatever) of teenage girls have sex before finishing high school. Let the parents know that contraceptives are appropriate even for someone not sexually active, since activity can begin at any instant. Make sure the girls know that their parents know that just having contraceptives doesn't mean they are also having sex.

These are the things that should be discussed. They can work, we know this from experience. And done wrong, they will fail (as you point out). Slathering and drooling about BABY MURDER is a great way to ensure that battle lines are drawn, and drawn in the wrong place, and that nobody is listening to anyone.

 

Does agreeing with Roe v Wade make pro-choice correct? Does opposing Roe v Wade make anti-abortion incorrect? Following the law has to be correct. Disputing the law is fine but, until (maybe never) you can change the law, you are breaking the law. Morality has nothing to do with Roe v Wade. It is a law to protect known humans (women).

Not legally correct. I still don't want laws made based on religious beliefs.

Why? Isn't the definition that it is a child or infant after birth? I would think breathing in air would signify that it is a child. That seems to get the body moving. Now fetuses born early are immediately put on breathing tubes because they can not breathe on their own.

God, you are going to an extreme. An abortion at the extreme end of a pregnancy is not something done on a whim. It is kind of disgusting to bring a difficult situation and an extremely mental anguish period into this discussion. I can't believe that there are people who think that a woman would want to do this without serious conditions or that a doctor would look forward to doing this kind of abortion. Criminals might look forward to it for the money and anti-choice want these criminals to make money.

Yes, I have been telling anti-choice people this for years.

Who are these people? i would disagree with them too.

 

People who support abortion generally don't want it for themselves.


I may live the rest of my life without understanding why that is. Can anybody help?

I see these women who say they wouldn't get an abortion, but they will cut the nuts off of any man who is against it.


Now if that's the reason, and it's just a finger in the eye of their male oppressors, then I get it.

 

Well, some of this could work, but there will always be unwanted pregnancy's, just like there will always be poverty. One problem is 50% of these kids never graduate from school, they leave when they are 16 or before. They fall between the cracks of poverty, gangs and drugs. You can make it as easy as possible but we're still having millions of abortions a year and that is sad, very sad. I'm against abortion, but not against birth control, no matter what Montoya says.

 

Excuse me. I meant SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade. It actually steps in after the first trimester to make sure there is proper health care procedures.

 

No need when the baby is already aborted, huh?

 

That's exactly why I have always told my "pro-life" friends that the whole "fetal pain" debate is a red herring.

 

And you're right, it's completely beside the point. We as a society have decided that the price of legal abortion, high as it is, is lower than the price of illegal abortion. Legal abortions happen sooner, and far more safely. And as I've been discussing with Rapunzel, they could be cut WAY down if we as a society wished to do so. Nobody aborts a wanted pregnancy.

 

unless it is needed. Nobody supports abortion. That is a red herring. I do not someone to need an abortion but I will fight for a woman's choice because I never let my religious beliefs be forced on someone else.

 

I think a lot of the current support for a woman's rights, is with woman who were in the unfortunate position of having to rely on those rights. They know first-hand what someone else's religion could have done to their lives.

 

Wow. That's pretty impressive.

If it were not for that pesky idea of "equal rights and equal protections for all?"

I would be right there with you.

 

NO civilized nation on EARTH, (INCLUDING EUROPE, the Left's idols), allows abortion after TWELVE WEEKS, except in EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, and still the crazed, rabid Abortion for Profit Industry in America demans the right to murder the unborn PAST TWENTY WEEKS, and even up until the moment of birth, in some cases.






Stop the COWARDICE of pretending that these ARE NOT HUMAN CHILDREN.

Get real, and SEE THOSE WHO YOU SEEK TO KILL...

 

???Then I fail to understand the problem. To me, this entire dispute is over equal rights, and whether we wish to permit others the same rights we demand for ourselves. I see all of this as a matter of individual liberty on one side, versus those who wish to unilaterally impose their religion on the other side. And to me, it's a slam dunk. Grant everyone equal rights, and then mind your own business. Why is that so hard?

 

Do children have equal rights?

Shouldn't a child's "equal" rights begin when their life does?

And what does religion have to do with anything we are talking about?