Abortion

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to


On 23-Jan-2000, "Bur...@irtc.net" <bur...@irtc.net> wrote:

> there is a little alternative called A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. There are
> so many married couples who want children but are unable to have them that
> if every aborted baby in the U.S. had been given up for adoption, they
> would
> all have a home with a loving family. Give me one good reason why this
> shouldn't be an alternative to abortion.

Because it is difficult to adopt a baby in the united states, that wahy
people buy thier babies in China.
--
Intellectual argument of the Issues at hand:
www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
Para asuntos Hispanos, en Castellano: www.onelist.com/subscribe/boriken

Alex Wolfson

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to
In alt.adoption Jabriol <jab...@catalan.org> wrote:

: On 23-Jan-2000, "Bur...@irtc.net" <bur...@irtc.net> wrote:

:> there is a little alternative called A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. There are
:> so many married couples who want children but are unable to have them that
:> if every aborted baby in the U.S. had been given up for adoption, they
:> would
:> all have a home with a loving family. Give me one good reason why this
:> shouldn't be an alternative to abortion.

: Because it is difficult to adopt a baby in the united states, that wahy
: people buy thier babies in China.
: --


Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
just different. Seems to me that neither of you know what you are
talking about.
: Intellectual argument of the Issues at hand:

--
SlayerBud - The Mighty Shepherd

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to

On 26-Jan-2000, Alex Wolfson <a...@netcom5.netcom.com> wrote:

> Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
> Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
> just different

it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
china, than it is to adopt a child
in the USA..

but feel free to "educate" us..

can a jw adopt a child in the united states, knowing full well that they may
let that adopted child die, if it needs a blood transfusion?
--

Alex Wolfson

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to
In alt.adoption Jabriol <jab...@catalan.org> wrote:


: On 26-Jan-2000, Alex Wolfson <a...@netcom5.netcom.com> wrote:

:> Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
:> Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
:> just different

: it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
: china, than it is to adopt a child
: in the USA..

Bullshit...
I dont think you know a goddam thing about adoption domestic or otherwise.

How many times have you adopted?


: can a jw adopt a child in the united states, knowing full well that they may


: let that adopted child die, if it needs a blood transfusion?

Probably, and especially if the childs bmom is a Witness.

Dave Barnes

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to
In article <ygIj4.3083$Wy5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
jab...@catalan.org wrote:

> it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
> china, than it is to adopt a child
> in the USA..

You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
How many children have you adopted, or are you another one of those people who
feel a responsibility to force women to have the unwanted children, but take no
responsibility after it is born. (Untill they commit a crime, then you want to
throw the switch, yourself...)
--
Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to

On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:

> > it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby
> > in
> > china, than it is to adopt a child
> > in the USA..
>
> You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
> How many children have you adopted,

one girl.. next question...

Bob

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to

Jab.

Three copies of this one, each posted two minutes apart. Are you, like, having
tremors and hitting the send key more than once?

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to

Alex Wolfson

unread,
Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00
to
In alt.adoption Jabriol <jab...@catalan.org> wrote:


: On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:

:> You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.


:> How many children have you adopted,

: one girl.. next question...


So you adopted a baby girl from China? And you refer to this adoption
in a public forum as "buying a baby"? Shame on you...
Do you have no regard for your little girls feelings?

People like you give aparents a bad name...

Dave Barnes

unread,
Jan 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/27/00
to
In article <I4Kj4.3511$Wy5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
jab...@catalan.org wrote:

> On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:
>

> > > it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby
> > > in

> > > china, than it is to adopt a child
> > > in the USA..


> >
> > You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
> > How many children have you adopted,
>
> one girl.. next question...

If true (and I have no reason to not believe you), I congratulate you on
following up on your convictions. You are the first person on this NG to say
this.

However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy white
children are hard to adopt. Yet non-healthy, non-white babies are more apt to
be born if abortion were made to be illegal.

Sue Tretter

unread,
Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to
Dave Barnes wrote:

> If true (and I have no reason to not believe you), I congratulate you on
> following up on your convictions. You are the first person on this NG to say
> this.
>
> However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy white
> children are hard to adopt.

Wouldn't that depend on one's perspective and whom you're viewing as the
"customer"?

If you are the neonate, adoption isn't usually difficult, time-consuming, or hard.

If you're the prospective adoptive parent, your perspective might be totally
different.

I wish more of us would try seeing adoption through the children's eyes.

> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine

Good sig. And my new one: "Expecting the world to treat you fairly because
you're good, is like expecting the bull not to charge because you're a
vegetarian."

Anon.

Best
wishes.
Sue T.

Jabriol

unread,
Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to

On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:

> If true (and I have no reason to not believe you)

well it is... not I wanted too, but so goes life, later on we discovered
that the child was emtionally disturbed,
we did not adopt a infant, but a pre-teen child. It cost me about 38,000 in
a two week period, for shrink care, It was revealed the child was abused,
something that made my blood boiled, until it was explain too me that rape
is a part of natural selction in evolutiuon.. we adopted a defective
product.. a throw away..and I have been through hell and back.. In the nd we
kept the child until it left on it own legal ability when she became 16..

and has succefully reproduce two more equally un-fathered brats, the future
delinquents in our ever going evolved society.

> However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy
> white
> children are hard to adopt.

well maybe if the coathanger was so easily and legally easy to get.. there
would be more white babies to adopt.

Dave Barnes

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
In article <38944DDB...@azstarnet.com>, Sue Tretter
<ses...@azstarnet.com> wrote:

Sue:

The reason that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I refuse to distort their chosen
names to make a weak point, I wish others would do the same) is that we are
talking about two different things. We can never agree.

Pro-lifers, as the name implies, see the issue as "life". The child, the baby,
etc. It is the most important thing to them. The bible emphisizes life.

Pro-choicers, again as the name implies, see the "life" question as secondary to
the "liberties" question. American history and heritage emphisizes civil
liberties.

We shouldn't be going back and forth about "when does life begin", etc., but
which is more important? All life or the citizens civil rights. How does one
get beyound this issue?

I actually believe that the pro-life movement has caused more abortions to be
allowed, and not the other way. Many pro-choice people (like myself) are afraid
to concede ANYTHING to the pro-life forces out of fear that once we step out
onto that slippery slope, we won't get back. (Kind of a NRA mentality...)

An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many pro-choice
people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so afraid of
what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to exploit the
issue.
--

Sue Tretter

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
Dave Barnes wrote:

> Sue:
>
> The reason that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I refuse to distort their chosen
> names to make a weak point, I wish others would do the same) is that we are
> talking about two different things. We can never agree.

Oh but I do agree with pro-lifers on many issues. And there is?was a group called
COMMON GROUND which brought pro-life and pro-choice advocates together in a retreat
setting so they could explore those areas of agreement that they did have, see that
the "enemy" was in fact another sane person (in most cases) who loved their family,
respected the ... Whatever.
I've lost track of the Common Ground group and don't know if it's ongoing.

I wonder about those who use words like "never", "always", etc. to discuss human
nature.

> Pro-lifers, as the name implies, see the issue as "life". The child, the baby,
> etc. It is the most important thing to them. The bible emphisizes life.
>
> Pro-choicers, again as the name implies, see the "life" question as secondary to
> the "liberties" question. American history and heritage emphisizes civil
> liberties.

Perhaps that's why I often describe myself as BOTH pro-life and pro-choice.

> We shouldn't be going back and forth about "when does life begin", etc., but
> which is more important? All life or the citizens civil rights. How does one
> get beyound this issue?

I believe a good start would be to realize that good people can hold divergent
positions and that it behooves none of us to try to push our religious/moral agenda
on an unwilling recipient.

> I actually believe that the pro-life movement has caused more abortions to be
> allowed, and not the other way. Many pro-choice people (like myself) are afraid
> to concede ANYTHING to the pro-life forces out of fear that once we step out
> onto that slippery slope, we won't get back. (Kind of a NRA mentality...)

I can understand that. But I thought you were going to say that the pro-life stance
against the anti-implantation pill has resulted in more abortions. I've often
wondered about that ...

> An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many pro-choice
> people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so afraid of
> what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to exploit the
> issue.

Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I suspect that's
not the best method.

Best
wishes.
Sue T.

Sue Tretter

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
Jabriol wrote:

> well it is... not I wanted too, but so goes life, later on we discovered
> that the child was emtionally disturbed,
> we did not adopt a infant, but a pre-teen child. It cost me about 38,000 in
> a two week period, for shrink care, It was revealed the child was abused,
> something that made my blood boiled, until it was explain too me that rape
> is a part of natural selction in evolutiuon..

But those who are saying that rape is "part of natural selection in evolution"
are not also saying that rape is justified in our society.

> we adopted a defective
> product.. a throw away..and I have been through hell and back..

YOU have?

> In the nd we
> kept the child until it left on it own legal ability when she became 16..

Why are you using "it" instead of the more normal pronouns?

> and has succefully reproduce two more equally un-fathered brats, the future
> delinquents in our ever going evolved society.

Those "un-fathered brats ... future delinquents" would be your grandchildren,
would they not?

Btw, how does one produce an "un-fathered" child? Are we talking about
immaculate/virgin conception here, or cloning? Or are you using fallacious
terminology to convey that the children will be or are being raised without the
ongoing presence and support of their male parent?

Dave Barnes

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
In article <38958305...@azstarnet.com>, Sue Tretter
<ses...@azstarnet.com> wrote:

> > An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many
> > pro-choice
> > people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so
> > afraid of
> > what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to
> > exploit the
> > issue.
>
> Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I
> suspect that's
> not the best method.

Thanks for the intelligent conversation, its rare here.

Again, on "late term abortions", I have to be honest and say that I am unclear
of the details of the procedure and how/when it is used. There is so much
ProLife/ProChoice propaganda about it that it is hard to tell what is really the
truth.

Note to the rest of you: Please don't attach more ProLife/ProChoice propaganda
on "late term abortions" to this message.

Sue Tretter

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
Dave Barnes wrote:

> Sue T:


> > Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I
> > suspect that's > not the best method.
>
> Thanks for the intelligent conversation, its rare here.

That's certainly not what I've been hearing of late from other a.a. posters!

> Again, on "late term abortions", I have to be honest and say that I am unclear
> of the details of the procedure and how/when it is used.

Don't you think that educating yourself on the procedure might be a dandy idea
BEFORE expressing an opinion on the pro-choice or pro-abortion issue?

> There is so much
> ProLife/ProChoice propaganda about it that it is hard to tell what is really the
> truth.

Hard but not impossible.

> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine

I agree with Tom Paine on this.

Best
wishes.
Sue T.

BG

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to

Rose Busch <ro...@roze.net> wrote in message
news:gyRk4.3586$4f5.9...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> ---
> Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote in message
> news:barnes-308432....@news.visi.com...

> > However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy
> white
> > children are hard to adopt.
>
> $$$ Some couples wait years for one.

>
> Yet non-healthy, non-white babies are more apt to
> > be born if abortion were made to be illegal.

Maybe the parents who choose to keep abortion legal would be better putting
that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about the
responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push their
child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they can
say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"
>
> $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then go up
as
> women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods. What
will
> the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?

It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when you had
a chance to be a child). And maybe after a few of those deaths you are so
concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl will
think twice about getting pregnant in the first place. If she does, and
chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic. But, you
tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is murdering.
> --
>
> Carol...
> Too many people try a little kindness. As little as possible.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
>


hereti...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>,
"BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
snip

> > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
go up
> as
> > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.

Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
vacationing where abortion is available.
That is what was going on before Roe.

What
> will
> > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
>
> It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
you had
> a chance to be a child).

Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
made abortion illegal.

> And maybe after a few of those deaths you
are so
> concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
will
> think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.

May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women
don't have a choice in having sex or not.
Maybe we should just castrate males, if they are so irresponsible
as you seem to think.

> If she does,
and
> chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic.

Yeah, the bitch deserved it, right?

But, you
> tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is
murdering.

Because a fetus is not a baby, rapo.
Only a rapist would insist that everything is the woman's fault.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Spouse

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to

Rose Busch <ro...@roze.net> wrote in message
news:gyRk4.3586$4f5.9...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move
back
> underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will
then go up as
> women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
What will
> the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
> --
>
> Carol...
> Too many people try a little kindness. As little as possible.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
I think they don't care if the death rate goes up.

Dave Barnes

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "BG"
<bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:

> Maybe the parents who choose to keep abortion legal would be better putting
> that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about the
> responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push their
> child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they can
> say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"

Maybe you are right, but SO WHAT? They don't do that!
If you want to live your life on maybe this, maybe that, fine. But stop
trying to change the real world with these goofy "maybe" rules.

Maybe we should all stop killing each other, so let's do away with the
military.

Maybe criminals should stop committing crimes, so lets dump the police.
--

Bem

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to

hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:

> snip


> > > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
> go up
> > as
> > > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
>

> Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
> docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
> vacationing where abortion is available.
> That is what was going on before Roe.
>

> What
> > will
> > > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
> >

> > It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
> you had
> > a chance to be a child).
>
> Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.
>
> > And maybe after a few of those deaths you
> are so
> > concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
> will
> > think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
>
> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women
> don't have a choice in having sex or not.

Are you completely insane? Where do you come up with this crap. Amazing.
Baffling. Stupid

BG

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to

<hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8775k8$otq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
> snip
> > > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
> go up
> > as
> > > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
>
> Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
> docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
> vacationing where abortion is available.
> That is what was going on before Roe.
>
> What
> > will
> > > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
> >
> > It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
> you had
> > a chance to be a child).
>
> Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.

If you believe that abortion was as common say in the 60's as it is now with
an Abortions-Are-Us clinic on every other corner you are reading to much of
your own Pro-choice garbage.


>
> > And maybe after a few of those deaths you
> are so
> > concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
> will
> > think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
>
> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon.

I am not the one who condones killing babies so, I do not believe I will be
the one spending an eternity in hell!!

Most women
> don't have a choice in having sex or not.

Oh BULL CRAP! First of all the statement "MOST women do not have a choice
in having sex or not" is ignorant at best. I guess ALL men must be rapists
then.
Secondly, if raped and medical attention has been sought the a D&C would be
performed to prevent the pregnancy.

> Maybe we should just castrate males, if they are so irresponsible
> as you seem to think.

I did not mention either gender specific. That is your doing. Perhaps a
little involvement on the parents part in teaching their children
resposibility and morals instead of leaving it up to the local school
district is in order. Or would that cut into your busy social calander?

>
> > If she does,
> and
> > chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic.
>
> Yeah, the bitch deserved it, right?

Not saying she deserved it but, there are many options above abortion.


>
> But, you
> > tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is
> murdering.
>
> Because a fetus is not a baby, rapo.

Oh , you are one of the ones who believe it is not a living being until it
reaches voting age. I've heard ignorance is bliss, Is that true?

> Only a rapist would insist that everything is the woman's fault.

Only ignorance would induce such a response. What is it with the gender
specific accusations. Is this due to a guilty conscience or are you just
one of the women's libbers who believes all men are evil.


BG

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to

Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote in message
news:barnes-29C50C....@news.visi.com...

> In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "BG"
> <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
>
> > Maybe the parents who choose to keep abortion legal would be better
putting
> > that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about
the
> > responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push
their
> > child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they
can
> > say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"
>
> Maybe you are right, but SO WHAT? They don't do that!
> If you want to live your life on maybe this, maybe that, fine. But stop
> trying to change the real world with these goofy "maybe" rules.
>
> Maybe we should all stop killing each other, so let's do away with the
> military.
>
> Maybe criminals should stop committing crimes, so lets dump the police.

Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.

> --
> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine

Except the lie that an unborn fetus is not a "living" child.


Steve Stanley

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to
In article <BUMl4.6300$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "BG"
<bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:

> Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.

Whatever the fuck that means...

BG

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to

Steve Stanley <ssta...@pedif.com> wrote in message
news:sstanley-4A306B...@news.visi.com...

> In article <BUMl4.6300$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "BG"
> <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.
>
> Whatever the F$#* that means...

Exactly what it said. Rather than say "This is not right" and work towards
change" have opted for "Oh well, That's the way it is"

Because this thread has become cross-posted to alt.adoption.issues where it
is quite off topic I will not respond any longer in this group.

Petruccio

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
> Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.

I didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but I really can't
listen to these bizarre lies without responding. Bernard Nathansen, founder
of the National Abortion Rights Action League, has admitted that he lied to
the Supreme Court about the number of so called "back alley abortions" in
order to fool them into thinking that they were helping women by legalizing
abortion. He has said that there have been more deaths to women by legal
abortion than there were by "back alley abortions" prior to Roe v. Wade.
Abortion was not so common back then and it is not safe now.

> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women


> don't have a choice in having sex or not.

These are the sort of comments people make when they realize that their
argument has been demolished by the truth.


Rebecca Ebenezer

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
Hello: My husband and I are looking into adopting a baby. However, we were
interested in adopting an international baby. I am Asian Indian and my
husband is black. We are having lots of problems having a kid and are about
to just forget about trying. We have tried for the past 3 years now so you
can understand our frustration. My question actually is can anyone give me
infomation about adopting an international baby. (LEGALLY PLEASE!!!) Prefer
one from India or of Asian back ground. Please help!

DeannaBefore

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
Is it just me, or does the header imply that this woman is a tad confused?
--
Peace freedom & justice
Deanna

"Rebecca Ebenezer" <kave...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:87g6f5$r3v$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...

Al Borges

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
Petruccio <gel...@staffnet.com> wrote in message
news:BcLm4.1494$NS3....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> (clip) has admitted that he lied to the Supreme Court about the number of

so > called "back alley abortions" in order to fool them into thinking that
they were > helping women by legalizing abortion. He has said that there
have been more > deaths to women by legal abortion than there were by "back
alley abortions" > prior to Roe v. Wade.
> Abortion was not so common back then and it is not safe now.

Oh really? Where did you get your [lying] statistics, Petruccio? The
original data has been posted by our government on the web for everyone to
see; other stuff has been posted elsewhere. Below is an abstract from the
Journal of the American Medical Association:

Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the
mortality and morbidity of women. Council on Scientific Affairs, American
Medical Association. JAMA 1992 Dec 9;268(22):3231?9.

ABSTRACT: The mortality and morbidity of women who terminated their
pregnancy before the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade are compared
with post?Roe v Wade mortality and morbidity. Mortality data before 1973 are
from the National Center for Health Statistics; data from 1973 through 1985
are from the Centers for Disease Control and The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Trends in serious **abortion?related** complications between 1970 and 1990
are based on data from the Joint Program for the Study of **Abortion** and
from the National **Abortion** Federation. Deaths from illegally induced
**abortion** declined between 1940 and 1972 in part because of the
introduction of antibiotics to manage sepsis and the widespread use of
effective contraceptives. Deaths from legal **abortion** declined fivefold
between 1973 and 1985 (from 3.3 deaths to 0.4 death per 100,000 procedures),
reflecting increased physician education and skills, improvements in medical
technology, and, notably, the earlier termination of pregnancy. The risk of
death from legal **abortion** is higher among minority women and women over
the age of 35 years, and increases with gestational age. Legal?**abortion**
mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more
than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
between 1979 and 1986. Serious complications from legal **abortion** are
rare. Most women who have a single **abortion** with vacuum aspiration
experience few if any subsequent problems getting pregnant or having healthy
children. Less is known about the effects of multiple **abortions** on
future fecundity. Adverse emotional reactions to **abortion** are rare; most
women experience relief and reduced **depression** and distress.
Comment in: JAMA 1993 May 5;269(17):2211; discussion 22112.

Here is a copy of a government website:

Abortion-Related Deaths

Maternal deaths
Year1 Legal Abortions Legal abortions Illegal abortions
1970 36 109
1971 54 65
1972 24 41
1973 615,831 25 21
1974 763,476 26 7
1975 854,853 29 4
1976 988,267 11 3
1977 1,079,430 17 4
1978 1,157,776 9 7
1979 1,251,921 18 0
1980 1,297,606 9 2


Notes:
1. The odd grouping of years and missing data for some years are due to the
way data was
reported in the mix of sources we used.
2. 1958-1971 are estimates from the Population Council "inflated to
comparability with data for
later years".
3. Includes deaths from miscarriages.
4. Because there are so many difficulties in getting accurate reports of
abortion-related deaths, the
government stopped collecting these statistics in 1987.


Sources: National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 1994.
Hyattsville, Maryland:
Public Health Service, 1995. Table #17 (Data based primarily on reporting by
State health
departments and by facilities performing abortions.)

Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.

Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population
Council, p 103


Regards, Al.

Petruccio

unread,
Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00
to

"Al Borges" <alb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:87gsgh$a24$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

> Oh really? Where did you get your [lying] statistics, Petruccio? The
> original data has been posted by our government on the web for everyone to
> see; other stuff has been posted elsewhere. Below is an abstract from the
> Journal of the American Medical Association:
<snipped to save bandwidth, refer to previous post for details>

You'll notice that all of the statistics regarding deaths due to abortion
prior to 1973 and after 1973 are percentages. Because of the tremendous
increase in the numbers of abortions, there have actually been more deaths
due to legal abortion than there were due to illegal abortions prior to
1973.

The statistics that you quoted that dealt with straight numbers rather than
percentages did not list any deaths prior to 1973.

The fact is that prior to 1973's legalization of abortion, there were not
only less deaths to pregnant women who procured abortion, but there were
approximately one and a half million less deaths to children. I'd say the
world was a much safer place pre 1973, especially for those who find
themselved totally unprotected by our federal government during the first
nine months of their lives.

Petruccio

Schuyler

unread,
Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00
to
Does the destruction of a zygote count as a death?


Petruccio

unread,
Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00
to
Yes, the destruction of a zygote counts as a death. A zygote has its own DNA
and is a completely separate human organism from its mother. It is dependant
upon its mother for sustenance and most likely will be dependant upon others
for its sustenance and protection for the coming decade and more.

The fact that the zygote is small means that it has just begun the process
of life. One day it will become and embryo. Later it will become a newborn;
still later, a toddler. If nobody kills this child anywhere along the line,
it may make it to middle age and even, perhaps, may someday become a senior
citizen. Nowhere along that journey of life is it appropriate to kill that
person for the convenience of those around him/her.

Petruccio

P.S. My adopted son's middle name is Schuyler--good name!

"Schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:389F5F2C...@mail.utexas.edu...

patrice

unread,
Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to

Unless of course prior to 1973 abortions were illegal and therefore no
data was able to be collated, which I think is more accurate. They
legislated to allow abortions to save lives in most other countries, not
simply a matter of women demanding their rights, although that was
clearly a large part of it.
Di

Judy

unread,
Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00