U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Is First Step to Outlawing Abortion

Operation Rescue ^ | April 18 2007 | Operatuion Rescue

[traderrob6]

Don’t try to find consistency in higher court rulings as it will just make you crazy.

[TigersEye]

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

45,951,133

Total Abortions since 1973

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[Mere]

No you are dead wrong. Roe v. Wade will stay. The only thing this changes is that the pro-abortion crowd now have finally lost one and will lose others when they take a very unreasonable stance like they did on this issue.

[Swordfished]

I won’t argue at length with you out of respect for the social conservative views of FR, but I will say that it is a mistake to turn the discussion into ‘killing innocents’ and ‘murdering babies’. Ending the developing life of a baby human being is not equivalent to murdering a born innocent person. If the issue was so clear cut morally, there would be near unanimity on the issue. Instead, the moral ambiguity of the issue is reflected by the lack of unanimity. The central issue is when does ‘personhood’ begin? If it begins at conception, then birth control should be outlawed. If it begins when one meets certain self-recognition thresholds, then infanticide or worse would be allowed. So, a quasi-arbitrary threshold has to be defined, and birth provides a more grounded and logical threshold than any other between these two extremes. It has to be a civil definition first, such as the definition of a citizen.

[Always Right]

No you are dead wrong. Roe v. Wade will stay. The only thing this changes is that the pro-abortion crowd now have finally lost one and will lose others when they take a very unreasonable stance like they did on this issue.

If Fred Thompson wins and the GOP gains back control of the Senate, Roe v. Wade is history.

[Vision]

If RvW is overturned, how many states do you think will outlaw abortion? 5? 10?

I’m so sick of these flammatory pro abortion articles.

[DLfromthedesert]

The ruling did not make partial birth abortion unconstitutional; it allowed the law against it to be upheld.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

To ALL GW Bashers

You really need to take a chill pill. I, and many others who were disappointed with Bush on other issues have always admired his strong pro-life position.

All you're doing is spoiling for a flame-war, and I ain't giving it to you.

[jrooney]

"All you're doing is spoiling for a flame-war, and I ain't giving it to you."

You already did, you responded to me. AND NO I WILL NOT CHILL OUT. This is an open forum whereas I have the right to throw it back into the faces of GW bashers, if I want to. You deserve another Clinton because you sure as hell are not worthy of the class of GW. Did Ronald Reagan or any other president give us a victory in the fight against abortion? No. GW did. Can you not have the intestinal fortitude to thank him for that? A great president and a great man.

BTW, of the three different threads where I posted the same thing, you were the ONLY freeper to tell me to chill out. Me thinks you got the problem.

[jacknhoo]

The ruling did not make partial birth abortion unconstitutional; it allowed the law against it to be upheld............That's right, what the ruling did was state that the ban on this infanticide is constitutional as written without exception for the health of the mother. People should know there are really no cases of partial birth abortion being the safest alternative for protecting the mother's health and future fertility and in truth more of a health threat to the mother. Also people should know this infanticide is quite frequently used starting at 20 weeks, hardly full-term and hardly ever for any other real reason than social convenience. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/test.html

[montag813]

It is not the first step if there are no further steps to come. The dissent on this was very hostile, and you can be sure Ginsberg and Stevens will stay on the bench until the coroner has to come and get them. Bush will not get another nomination, and Hillary’s wont be pretty. Enjoy the 5-4 while it lasts.

[jacknhoo]

I would estimate 35 to start and eventually all would make abortion legal if Roe v Wade were reversed - we’ve learned so much since that error in judgment.

Abortion Ban Considered in Growing Number of States: South Dakota, Indiana, Ohio
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06012303.html

Many states would ban abortion, report finds
Roe v. Wade ruling prevents it, but that could change
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6184949/

It is kind of clear, to me, which states would outlaw this child murder - this is a good indicator of the ones that would not outlaw abortion:
States that provide Constitutional Protection for it:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/maps-and-charts/map.jsp?mapID=24

[jacknhoo]

Bush certainly could get another nomination, especially if he nominates a claimed moderate but whom has a more conservate goal whose true views are simply not known. Even a moderate must acknowledge the error in judging that the killing of over million little boys and girls a year is a federally protected women’s right.

[Vision]

That article says only about 20 would be “safe” from outlawing abortion. IMO, no way. I’d be surprised is 20 outlawed it entirely.