The real threat to human life is not a gun

[AZXD]

Abortion in the United States

Something prompted me to run the numbers on 34 years of data

49,915,603 divided by 34 years equals 1,468,106 per year

1468106 divided by 365 days equals 4022

4022 divided by 24 hours equals 168

168 divided by 60 minutes equals 2.8

2.8 divided by 60 seconds equals.....

Every 21 seconds a life is terminated due to an abortion, and people have the nerve to say that guns are dangerous.

So, the next time someone get's into a Gun Control argument ... Throw these numbers out and ask them if it is the Gun that is dangerous, or the person making a choice.

For reference:

1981 - 1998, United States Firearm Deaths - All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages = 620,525

1999 - 2005, United States Firearm Deaths - All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages = 207,751

1981 - 1998, United States All Injury Deaths - All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages = 2,638,634

1999 - 2005, United States All Injury Deaths - All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages = 1,119,781

Source: WISQARS Home

I'm not going to do the remaining math ... It's pretty obvious which is more dangerous to human life.

[afmo]

i'm sure i'll open a whole can of worms with this one....

but you're assumption is that life begins at conception. You'll get different answers from different people depending on where their politics lie.

I don't believe life begins until the child is able to survive outside the womb. Which is why i'm against partial birth abortion/live birth abortion. Early term though /shrug.

In the end its really no one elses business but the doctor and the woman involved. If you think she'll have to atone for her actions at the end of her life, then thats a decision she's going to have to live with. I don't see any point in railing against what someone else is doing. Gun owners rail against the government for getting into our business owning what all the time.

[Brickboy240]

If you're truly a believer and a Christian...isn't it safe to say that God will judge them in the end? Who are we as mortal men to make this judgement?

Also, aren't there enough examples of bad parenting and juvenile delinquency around in our world today? Do you not see enough starving kids and kids that have one or no parents around to give them guidance? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that more unwanted children wandering the planet would lead to higher crime rates and the things that we don't want in our society? I think so. (so did the authors of "Freakonomics"...you ought to read the section in that book about abortion...it will make you think and they have footnotes for proof of their theories)

Think about it....leaving the final judgement up to someone that is is suited for is a good idea. We have enough tough issues that need focus and attention in this country. The economy, the border, security, our tax structure, energy policy....pick one...these issues affect MORE PEOPLE than does the issue of abortion.

I am not too jazzed about the idea of abortion and my wife and I would have never done it...BUT...we will leave the decision (as we do most all decisions) in the hands of the individual, because we beleive that God will judge them in the end and this is not our place.

That is why I am pro-choice. Pro- CHOICE...not pro abortion. There is a difference, I don't care what anybody says.

- Brickboy240

[AZXD]

A potential life versus a potential death ... It still breaks down to choices.
Guns are not the dangerous item ... Human choices are!

I'm just amazed that so many choices occur.

[Reeek]

Originally Posted by afmo

i'm sure i'll open a whole can of worms with this one....

but you're assumption is that life begins at conception. You'll get different answers from different people depending on where their politics lie.

I don't believe life begins until the child is able to survive outside the womb. Which is why i'm against partial birth abortion/live birth abortion. Early term though /shrug.

In the end its really no one elses business but the doctor and the woman involved. If you think she'll have to atone for her actions at the end of her life, then thats a decision she's going to have to live with. I don't see any point in railing against what someone else is doing. Gun owners rail against the government for getting into our business owning what all the time.

Wow, that is a refreshing attitude around here. I lean somewhat right on many issues and I lean a tad to the left on others. This is one of MANY areas that I think the goverment should stay out of. It confuses me when I see the extreme right, the side that says government should stay small and stay out of our personal business is the same side that criticizes the extreme left for wanting more government responsibility. The bottom line is, to demand reversal of a legal opinion or a law based on a moral interpretation (as opposed to scientific) is asking the government to meddle and that just seems contrary to other rants they have. Dear SCOTUS, leave the constitution alone regarding my guns and read it literally because it's your duty but change it for another cause because it's your duty? And if I decide I don't like your interpretation, I'll find someone who thinks like me, something both sides are quite guilty of. Legal interpretations are a no win affair.

[Reeek]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

If you're truly a believer and a Christian...isn't it safe to say that God will judge them in the end? Who are we as mortal men to make this judgement?

Also, aren't there enough examples of bad parenting and juvenile delinquency around in our world today? Do you not see enough starving kids and kids that have one or no parents around to give them guidance? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that more unwanted children wandering the planet would lead to higher crime rates and the things that we don't want in our society? I think so. (so did the authors of "Freakonomics"...you ought to read the section in that book about abortion...it will make you think and they have footnotes for proof of their theories)

Think about it....leaving the final judgement up to someone that is is suited for is a good idea. We have enough tough issues that need focus and attention in this country. The economy, the border, security, our tax structure, energy policy....pick one...these issues affect MORE PEOPLE than does the issue of abortion.

I am not too jazzed about the idea of abortion and my wife and I would have never done it...BUT...we will leave the decision (as we do most all decisions) in the hands of the individual, because we beleive that God will judge them in the end and this is not our place.

That is why I am pro-choice. Pro- CHOICE...not pro abortion. There is a difference, I don't care what anybody says.

- Brickboy240

I would have never guessed and that too is refreshing. And logical. And free from special interest.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Reeek

...Dear SCOTUS, leave the constitution alone....

This was precisely the problem with the Roe v Wade decision... it overstepped Federal powers at the expense of states' powers.

Nothing in the Constitution addresses Federal jurisdiction over abortion. Even the original proponents of Roe v Wade have gone on record stating the decision was bad law. Others have tried present this exact point in another thread here in the PV forum... and the reality is the SCOTUS in 1973 walked all over the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments in an effort to give nation-wide abortion to the vocal minority who insisted on it in 1973... a bone tossed to the rabid NOW, and ERA proponents. When SCOTUS did this, they usurped legitimate laws passed by due process and the will of the people in all states that prohibited or limited abortion. The will of the people was run roughshod.

At the time of the Roe V Wade decision, states determined their own abortion laws; abortion was legal in 17 states at the time of Roe v Wade. If someone wanted an abortion, and it was not permitted in their home state, they could travel to a state where it was permitted for the procedure. I know this personally, as one of my best friends while in college got his GF pregnant and they decided to abort. She flew from Chicago to New York, out in the morning, back late that evening. They could have also driven to Wisconsin, but opted for New York.

Aside from the "legality" ... I personally believe Life begins at conception; the developing fetus is human, plain and simple. It is not a fish, it is not a bird nor an insect. It is a human being undergoing fetal development. At four weeks major organs are beginning to form. By five weeks blood is circulating. Here's what happens in the first three months of development.

People can talk "choice," and how "the government can't legislate control over a woman's body," but the reality is the woman is sharing her body with her child... it is the way humans reproduce. Stop using the euphemism "Pro-choice" when the choice is an abortion. Stop sugar-coating things...just call that position what it really is: "Pro Abortion."

We went through two miscarriages before our daughter was born, and we had a third miscarriage trying for child number two a couple years after her birth. Each of those miscarriages was a human being, each of our children's loss hurt deeply and left long lasting scars. Don't fool yourself.

ETA: Give the states back their right to make this decision. It does not belong at the Federal level.

[afmo]

Originally Posted by jmichna

This was precisely the problem with the Roe v Wade decision... it overstepped Federal powers at the expense of states' powers.

Nothing in the Constitution addresses Federal jurisdiction over abortion. Even the original proponents of Roe v Wade have gone on record stating the decision was bad law. Others have tried present this exact point in another thread here in the PV forum... and the reality is the SCOTUS in 1973 walked all over the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments in an effort to give nation-wide abortion to the vocal minority who insisted on it in 1973... a bone tossed to the rabid NOW, and ERA proponents. When SCOTUS did this, they usurped legitimate laws passed by due process and the will of the people in all states that prohibited or limited abortion. The will of the people was run roughshod.

At the time of the Roe V Wade decision, states determined their own abortion laws; abortion was legal in 17 states at the time of Roe v Wade. If someone wanted an abortion, and it was not permitted in their home state, they could travel to a state where it was permitted for the procedure. I know this personally, as one of my best friends while in college got his GF pregnant and they decided to abort. She flew from Chicago to New York, out in the morning, back late that evening. They could have also driven to Wisconsin, but opted for New York.

Aside from the "legality" ... I personally believe Life begins at conception; the developing fetus is human, plain and simple. It is not a fish, it is not a bird nor an insect. It is a human being undergoing fetal development. At four weeks major organs are beginning to form. By five weeks blood is circulating. Here's what happens in the first three months of development.

People can talk "choice," and how "the government can't legislate control over a woman's body," but the reality is the woman is sharing her body with her child... it is the way humans reproduce. Stop using the euphemism "Pro-choice" when the choice is an abortion. Stop sugar-coating things...just call that position what it really is: "Pro Abortion."

We went through two miscarriages before our daughter was born, and we had a third miscarriage trying for child number two a couple years after her birth. Each of those miscarriages was a human being, each of our children's loss hurt deeply and left long lasting scars. Don't fool yourself.

ETA: Give the states back their right to make this decision. It does not belong at the Federal level.

I'm going to have to defer to George Carlin on this one:

If a fetus is a human being why doesn't the census count them?
If a fetus is a human being why do people say "we have two children and one on the way instead of we have three children."
If a fetus is a human being why don't we have a funeral when there's a miscarriage?

So if a fetus is a human being, then why can they not survive outside the womb before a certain point? If its a human being, then it should be able to survive without the mother. Without the mother, the fetus is nothing. Its a cellular egg. Without the mother you have no fetus, thus, until the fetus is able to survive outside the mother, then its not a life.

Don't attack the "pro choice" moniker either. You can be anti-abortion and pro choice at the same time.

I'd NEVER want my girlfriend to have an abortion. I would also NEVER want the government making medical decisions for a woman.

Abortion should be legal and Roe V. Wade ensures that women have access to a procedure that should be no one elses business but the doctor and the patient.

Stop putting noses where they don't belong.

Not my body, not your body, not my child, not your child, not my problem, not your problem. (that's "your" in the universal sense, not a calling out of anyone in particular)

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by afmo

... So if a fetus is a human being, then why can they not survive outside the womb before a certain point? If its a human being, then it should be able to survive without the mother. Without the mother, the fetus is nothing. Its a cellular egg. Without the mother you have no fetus, thus, until the fetus is able to survive outside the mother, then its not a life....

...Don't attack the "pro choice" moniker either. You can be anti-abortion and pro choice at the same time....

Let's talk survivability (viability) then. Can a new born child survive without its mother (or some other human help)?

No, it can't. Does that mean a new born is not human? Following the progression of your thinking, sounds like the answer is "No, the new born is not a human being." Babies can't even roll over until they are six months old... everything they need is provided by some one else. Without their mother, they are non-viable. They die of dehydration, starvation, or exposure. The new born is totally dependent on its mother, or some surrogate, providing the same nurturing as the mother. The only difference is the baby is now outside the womb.. a difference of degree, not non-human versus human.

If someone is pro-choice... What is it they are choosing?

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by afmo

If a fetus is a human being why doesn't the census count them?
If a fetus is a human being why do people say "we have two children and one on the way instead of we have three children."
If a fetus is a human being why don't we have a funeral when there's a miscarriage?

Re "we have two children and one on the way instead of we have three children." Do people say we "we have two children and one fetus"?

Re funerals for miscarried babies, they happen more often than you know. My personal experience. Don't be a jerk.