What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
759 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -154/+396Mark why not look at the STATS?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Rape or incest: 1% of abortions....
Can't afford baby: 21%
Not ready for responsibility: 21%
Concerned about how having baby would change her life: 16%
Wants to avoid single-parenthood: 12%
Take your "extraordinary circumstances" ***** and shove it. A MILLION abortions per year. 700,000 because the woman didn't want to deal with a kid.
NONE legally stopped because the father (or an adoptive couple) was willing to take on ALL of the responsibilities outlined by the 70% above.... - griz, on 10/12/2007, -35/+257Someone care to explain why someone would wait until after 12 weeks?
I have a perfectly clear recording of my daughters heartbeat at just 10 weeks.
Once you hear this, you are never the same. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -252/+404If you get knocked up....DEAL with it. It's part of the risk of sex (and really the biological point of it).
You can drop the baby off at hospitals, fire stations or to about ANY church in the world with NO CONSEQUENCES....except that the baby remains alive and has a chance. Is it really that much to ask that you go through 6-7 months of feeling slightly sick and tired, and one day of labor so that YOUR baby can have a FULL LIFE? Come on!! - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -100/+246This was probably the most disturbing abortions that I ever heard of. And a stupid one too. "Oh, as long as we don't take the head fully out, it's not born.". This will never hit Digg's front page though... unless the headline is "FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY: Republicans ban womans rights!"
- emildew, on 10/12/2007, -57/+182This procedure is done in less than 1% of 1% of all abortions. The only reason someone would have this done is to save the mother's life (ie: she will actually DIE if she tries to continue the pregnancy) or because the life of the fetus would be so greatly affected by a birth defect of some kind that this is mercy. I'm talking about the kind of thing where the baby, if born, wouldn't last an hour, or a day. Horrible deformities.
This is not a "method of birth control". Doctors so rarely perform this procedure because it is hell on the mother, both mentally and physically.
@AlwaysDuggDown:
"the woman didn't want to deal with a kid."
How many children have you adopted? It isn't just "dealing with a kid". There are physical ramifications, and financial ones, and mental ones. I know women who I would really prefer not be mothers, and I know women who would die if they were to get pregnant and try to carry the baby to term.
Walk in someone else's shoes, and don't judge what you don't know. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -14/+105@AlwaysDuggDown
The problem is, the father cannot legally force a woman to have the baby and then give it to him. If the woman does not want the baby, the father has no say in the final outcome. This even works in the other direction, if she wants to have the baby and he doesn't he gets to pay child support for eighteen years. - TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -21/+95For those who do not know. The umbilical cord can get wrapped around the unborn causing extreme complications for the mother. In most cases this scenario can kill the mother. I know this because I almost lost someone to this pregnancy complication. A late term abortion was performed to save the mother, the child was near death by the time the abortion was performed, the umbilical cord was wrapped around its neck. Luckily the mother did not die though it is my impression that with this law today she would die so a brain dead fetus could live.
- zelig, on 10/12/2007, -32/+103Let the fireworks begin!
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+70"How many children have you adopted?"
My wife and I have been on a waiting list for 3 years. Thanks for asking. - adamwebs, on 10/12/2007, -32/+93I would like to consider myself "pro-choice" but these abortions are disturbingly close to infanticide.
I think this is the right decision. - NaziHatinChimp, on 10/12/2007, -10/+68This is why there is and will be no outrage:
"More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling."
For most people an abortion is a simple procedure to remove a blatocyst, a tiny group of cells, from their uterus a few weeks after they miss their period. Just like in most things, people want to take things to the extreme. Abortion advocates want to say that people should be able to get abortions even when there is a large fetus inside the woman, making a partial birth abortion neccessary. A lot of Pro-life advocates say that even the morning after pill is egregious. Most people don't see abortion as Black and white and don't stand on a certain side of the fence.
You will not see outrage from this because most people don't like the idea that you can pull a growing fetus outside of the womb and then kill it because most people don't want abortions in late or even middle trimester. - NaziHatinChimp, on 10/12/2007, -77/+133@Afghanwhig
Human beings are the world's most valuable resource? That's funny. You see I was under the impression that human beings on this planet are overrated, and that each one of us consumes more than we do anything. We all assume the world was made for us and that we deserve big cars and whatever else. We are selfish and irrational and are the source of most of the pain that exists in this world.
It's real easy for all these people to go ahead and assume that every kid is taken care of and none of them grow up to be bad people because their parents didn't want them.
Republicans want to say "Have the kid!" but no one wants to commit their time to raising them or providing financial care for poor people. - tibasicdev, on 10/12/2007, -24/+69If you guys remember, Scott Peterson was actually charged with killing the fetus in Lacie Peterson, which was within this partial abortion time frame. I always wondered how they could charge him with the fetus murder, but they don't charge the women who do the exact same thing in the same time frame by aborting their baby. It's somehow right for a mother to kill the fetus, but nobody else. At least now they are headed in the right direction.
- benjpw, on 10/12/2007, -28/+72How many of you commenting against abortion are women? That's what I thought. I am not talking about those against partial birth but those who are like "Now lets go for the whole thing!" I thought most of Digg was libertarian - but I guess they support state intervention when it fits their fancy.
Why do we care so much about unborn fetuses when we can't even properly take care of the kids we have that are cognoscent, sentient, humans.
Hypocrisy in action. - Skye16, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50@tomthewombat
Don't make the assumption that birth control is fool proof, however. Hell, both my brother and myself are results of torn condoms and birth control pills that didn't work. I have no idea how often my parents banged, but 2 kids in 10 years was a result of it. I have no idea what the success rate of BC is there, but the point remains that, for something people do quite a bit of, even a really low probability can still become a reality.
With that said, you really should know early on whether or not you want the child, whether you know if you can care for the child, and whether you are ready to devote the next 18 to 22 years of your life caring and sponsoring a kid, and have an abortion or not accordingly. For some people, procreation is almost the entire point of their existence. For others, it is as reprehensible as voluntarily contracting aids. Whether finding a terminal disease that will kill you in a decade or two, or having a soul-sucking parasite leach away the best years of your life, you're still pretty much boned.
For some, the joy of having children is above anything else in the world. They would not trade parenthood for anything, not even a megajillion dollars. It is what they love, and they won't give it up for any reason at all.
But for others, it's like going to prison, only you get ass raped metaphorically, not physically. I understand how some (most?) people would love to have kids, but on the flip side, the rest of you have to understand how having children would be pretty much one of the top 5 worst things that could ever realistically happen to you. Some people just aren't wired to want children.
It's quite a struggle to get a vasectomy in your early 20's. Many urologists don't want to perform it, just in case. I had to see 5 different ones before one finally agreed to, but even then I had to wait a month before he would do it. I'm just flat out not interested in kids. I have way too many things I want to do in my life, and on my list of priorities, having and raising children is approximately on par with volunteering to have my liver removed without the use of anesthetics.
If I were a woman, then the chances of being allowed to get my tubes tied would even worse. It'd probably be practically impossible, considering my age. So my only other alternatives are the afore mentioned insecure methods of birth control, and if those happen to fail, abortion. Given that you generally know within at least about 5 weeks or so after conception, you have a relatively short window to get in and get that pea-sized collection of cells aborted. Or possibly grape sized. But that's still about 7 weeks before a later term abortion, when the fetus is drastically larger, more advanced, and close enough to being "alive" that you may very well be committing murder.
Quite simply, there is no clear line between a freshly fertilized egg and just-about-to-be-born baby. Yet there is obviously a drastic difference betwixt the two. It's alot like baking a cake; conception is like mixing the cake batter and pouring it into a pan - it's not a baby yet, nor is it a cake. If you try to eat it, you'll get food poisoning and throw up and poop like crazy and wish you were dead. (The cake, of course) It's not a cake yet. Nor is it a cake the moment it goes into the oven. Nor is it a cake 5 minutes later. But at some point it *becomes* a cake, and can be eaten like a cake, even if it may have a few "raw" spots here and there. Same with a fetus. Unfortunately, there is no clear time when we can say, with firm belief, that at one nanosecond, it is batter, and in the next nanosecond, it is a cake. All we can do is say that on either end of the scale, whether the moment you put the cake batter in the oven, or the moment you take it out, is that the batter is definitely not a cake, or that the cake is most definitely a cake. As you near either end, you can be more definite about whether or not it is a cake, or whether it is a batter, but as you come closer to the middle, you're like "I...uh... it... uhm...shoo. I donno what it is, but god damn is it goinna be tasty when it's done!" That's about all you got.
My suggestion is that abortions stay on the "still relatively definitely batter" side, and away from the "I have no ***** clue" area or the "it's a cake it's a cake it's a cake it's a cake zomg cake woo!" side.
Also, obviously, if you *need* to have an abortion or else you will -die-, or become irreparably physically harmed (as in, you'll be paralyzed, your liver will burst, whatever), then whatever they have to do to abort the baby, abort it, no matter how advanced it is. Though I question whether aborting a baby at the "5 minutes before it would be technically born" mark would actually save the mother, I suppose it could be *possible* that it was necessary. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -17/+53In Soviet America you are only cared for before you are born.
Be funny if we didn't have an infant mortality rate close to many 3rd world countries. - Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -54/+88AlwaysDuggDown- First off, your stats are taken from a site that has done more research on Star Trek vessells http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/startrek/index.html then abortion, I find it hardly credible. Second, if if it were true and 1% of women are getting abortion becuase of rape, well I guess its tuff luck for those 10000 women, according to your owns stats. And 21% not being able to afford it... thats a dam good reason, one might even say responsible reason, to get an abortion and hey thats only 210000 each year (again according to your factoids). As for "you get knocked up, Deal with it"??? One wonder if you would be saying the same thing if you were pragnant... or even female. Next "You can drop the baby off at hospitals, fire stations or to about ANY church in the world with NO CONSEQUENCES" Apparently you either did no research on this, or perhaps this set of "facts" came from hmm, a Quantum Leap fan page? I happen to be just finishing up a college course that has a focus on this particular topic. Not only is there long term emotional effects on people who surrender their children (look a consequence) but the social system (particularly in the Right wing dominated United States) can not support the children that it already has. The fostering system in your country (and most others) is massively over burdened.
The United States is slipping back into the dark ages and its thinking like yours that causes it. - mick4394, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43How is he snowing anyone? He's done what he said he would do.
- luvlyssa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39I'm so furious I can't even type without swearing.
It's apparently ok if you do it in the first trimester. But after that it's more then cells? The cells are THEN a human being? If you're going to be stupid and ban abortions ban all of them.
Circumstances people! Incest as named above. What about the health of the mother? Or what if during tests they find out the baby is horribly unhealthy?
We put our beloved pets to sleep when they're ill but won't allow a woman to decide that's the most humane thing for her "baby" (quotes used to imply that maybe it is a baby or maybe not it's all your point of view).
My best guy friend is dealing with this. His girlfriend is as of yesterday 17 weeks pregnant. About 6 weeks ago the doctors found a problem with the baby's heart. They have been on a horrible road ever since. They found out the baby has Turners Syndrome. Then found out the 15th chromosome is malformed. Which lead to more testing. The baby has Angelman Syndrome too.
It's nothing that the mom did. But the baby has those two diseases and a debilitating heart condition. They decided to terminate the pregnancy because it is the most humane thing to do. Why bring a child in when she'll be in pain for her entire life.
I personally am pro choice but I don't think I could ever have an abortion. I don't think that anyone but me and the father should make those decisions FOR me. Not the government, not my friends, not the families involved. - Skatmob, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33@rompom7
"A woman gets pregnant. Best scenario: She keeps the kid, starts a family. 2nd best: She does not want the child. She gets an abortion. Worst: She does not want the child. She gives it away to an orphanage."
Yeah, the orphanages in the US are practically overflowing. Are you some kind of idiot? The wait for adopting a baby is close to a year, with many people being denied. It's this kind of logic that gives pro-choices a bad name. - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Well a President has the constitutional right and obligation to "pack" the supreme court with judges that are of the same political ilk as himself. I think the only reason you are making a stink about it is because you don't agree with him politically.
- Codex77, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27This does not ban late term abortions, but ONE TYPE of medical procedure used to perform late term abortions, almost always for the health of a mother. This is saying, that if I am pregnant, and if I have medical complications that might kill me so I must have an abortion to survive, my doctor is prohibited from using this medical procedure to save my life EVEN IF IT IS THE BEST MEDICAL WAY TO DO IT.
Thanks Supreme Court, for making my medical decisions for me and my doctor. - TheFederalist, on 10/12/2007, -54/+74Why don't we see late-term abortion supporters out there protesting for this girls right to stab her newborn and throw it in the trash?
Oh yeah, because it's SICK.
Ok, there's one gold star for Bush for putting intelligent people on the supreme court. - feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30If you outlaw abortions you only make them more dangerous and harder to get. You also get more 'baby dumping'.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27As long as something is attached to your body, and requires your body for existence, then it is fair game what you do to the thing that is attached to your body. It is true that this life form will become a self-sustained human, however it is not until the very second that it comes out of your body and the cord is cut.
You hear Conservatives whine about abortions, but when they were in power they did very little (but whine) to stop them. It is a way for them to garner votes, just like gay marriage and gun control.
It's weird how Republicans don't want abortion for people (who are mostly poor) but then when those people decide to keep the baby and can't afford it, they bitch that they are on welfare. - crstern, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36regardless, and I am pro choice, it involves birthing the entire baby but the head (because if the head comes out it's a baby not a fetus), and then killing it. This procedure is wrong. There are other babies in the hospital that are being saved at this point in the pregnancy.
I believe abortion should be legal, but this PROCEDURE is really not right not matter what you call it. This is not a battle won for the right wingers, this is a battle won for kindness. If this proceeding extends to trying to ban other abortions, then I will not support bans on those, I believe in a womans right to choose, but choosing in the later terms of pregnancy is not right for the life that is being formed (I did not say it was a life yet, or that it wasn't, I'm not opening that can of worms), or for the psychological state of the mother. - djork, on 10/12/2007, -47/+66Actually, "Intact Dilation and Extraction" is just the technical term. The correct term is "killing a child after dragging it from the womb." That's clear and accurate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26To avoid contradicting the policies, abortion will have to be either legalized or made illegal outright. Crucial point is that it is not a fetuses fault that it was concieved via rape or incest. If you allow abortion for these cases it would be hypocrytical and morally unsound to not allow in other cases. If abortion was banned for other cases then you can't really ban it for rape or incest because as I have said it's not the fetuses fault.
@AlwaysDuggDown: It maybe 1%, but 1% of a big number is still a big number. If your daugther/sister was raped and she got pregnant as a result what would you do? - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -31/+48Overall I'm personally on the fence regarding abortions. However, on partila birth abortions I'm very much apalled it has ever been allowed. In my personal life I've found those "for" partial birth abortion don't know what partial birth abortion really is.
Basically, a late term fetus is delivered, before the baby is all the way "out" the baby is killed. Thus, it was never fully delivered and thus, its "just" an abortion.
If a woman makes it that far along that the only way to abort is to have the baby and kill it on the way out, then just have the ***** baby and put it up for adoption. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27The worst thing about the whole abortion debate (aside from the fact that pro-lifers are flaming hypocrites) is that some people really, really shouldn't procreate. Like Chris Rock says, "If have a kid and you're in the club on a Wednesday night, get the ***** out and go home and be with that kid so he doesn't rob me in ten years!"
- blimpmaster, on 10/12/2007, -30/+47"Partial Birth Abortion" is something the right wingers made up.
The correct name for the procedure is "Intact Dilation and Extraction."
I guess the former sounds more political. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29This is a rare procedure and has its perfectly correct medical uses. There are cases where the fetus' has a head that is far too large to be born without extreme surgery. Leaving the woman unable to have kids in the future. Let the doctors decide, that is what the have trained for. I doubt any of the justices are practicing OB/GYNs.
Can this be abused, yes, but to ban it completely is morally wrong. To limit a doctor from using a technique when it is truly needed to for it can be used arbitrarily in other cases is not a sound decision. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Are partial birth abortions really that common. I'm theologically against abortion, unless advised by a doctor, but is this a real issue or just something used for anti-abortion rabble-rousing?
- Eccohawk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I just find it extremely close-minded to think that 'if you're mature enough to be having sex, you're mature enough to have a kid.' There was a digg article just earlier in the week explaining how Bush's billion dollar abstinence education plan had failed miserably. And within the article, it gave statistics related to the average age at which teenagers begin engaging in sexual activity. And whether they were taught abstinence or contraception, the average age was still something like 14.9 years of age. Kids that age are by no means mature enough to be having kids of their own! No matter how badly you want to believe it. Is there that one or two people that might have the maturity level to handle it? yes. Are there kids that age dealing with pregnancy? yes. But to advocate that the average 14 or 15 year old teen girl is mature enough to take care of a child simply because american society has gotten it into her head that having sex that young is okay and fun is a complete fallacy. It's simply ludicrous to think that. Those of you advocating that the 15 year old girls of this world are ready for it are wrong, and those telling them to 'just deal with it' probably have little to no idea what it would be like for a kid in that situation.
It is a good thing to have a way out for those teens that cannot handle it, be it adoption or abortion. I agree that a clear decision should be made by that teenager before 3 months rolls around, but don't confuse their curiosity and promiscuous behavior as an indication of womanhood, because it simply isn't. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -17/+32(Also as I posted in another abortion thread)
To play devil's advocate here, there has been a study that revealed that abortions actually decrease violent crime rates.
Hence... If abortion wasn't allowed, there would be more violent criminals on the streets possibly murdering people who would otherwise lived happy normal lives and families.
Hence... By outlawing abortion you are indirectly murdering real live people who are conscious, have loved ones, and have meaningful lives.
I know it is a bit of a stretch, but there is a correlation. (I wish I could find the link... But one of the PHDs on the study was on Bill O'Reilly's show once and Bill actually thought the idea interesting) - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Abortion is a horrible thing-- and obviously should not be taken lightly...
But the reality is most of these babies that would have been born would have lived very tough, unloved lives.
Also, as I think many of you know there is a direct correlation between the crime rate and legalized abortion.
So we do have a choice-- either ban abortion and deal with a very high crime rate, or accept it and encourage access to free birth-control. - TheInfamousOne, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22People digging me down:
Are you retarded? When a woman wants an abortion its considered her reproductive rights, she can do it for any reason she wants, even if the father is a good upstanding man, who would take care of the baby and require nothing from the mother other than carrying the child full term, for 9 months.
When a man wants an abortion he is an insensitive ***** who couldn't begin to understand what a woman wants. Unless she agrees to it, he'll be paying a percentage of his income for the next 18 years or until the child becomes emancipated. It doesn't matter if the woman was poking holes in condoms, its his child, he has to take responsibility and pay for it.
How about some Male reproductive rights. And don't any of you spew about men getting a vesectimy if they don't want children, if thats the case every woman who gets an abortion should have her tubes tied. - mumblyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22"Most people on here are sane individuals that are fine with abortion in general but find late term abortions sickening and morally wrong."
Most people on this forum don't understand what D&C is or why it's used. If they thought about it, they would realize that it isn't "sickening and wrong" to act to protect the life of the mother. - teknotant, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23Have you been reading the Comments? Most people on here are sane individuals that are fine with abortion in general but find late term abortions sickening and morally wrong. Do not confuse my statement about morality with religion and start calling me a far right nut job.
Anyone that has a black and white view of abortion is a nut job in my book. - shoota, on 10/12/2007, -32/+46Let's be very clear here. The last thing we need is more people on Earth. Whoever said people are more valuable than oil I beg to differ. the earth is already stretched to a limit with 6billion+ people. do we need a few more on top of it all? I don't think so personally.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Let's put it another way then. The infant mortality rate of the US is nowhere near as low as other 1st world countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005) - adamwebs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Make sure you are informed about what this topic is referring to:
"Partial-Birth" is indeed a reference to the "Intact dilation and extraction" method of abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction - Skatmob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@emildew
Get your facts straight.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) would ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary to the save a mother's life. It doesn't prevent aborting a pregnancy if the mother's life is at stake. Additionally, at birth when a doctor has needs to choose between the life of a baby and mother, the baby is the one to go. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Supposedly, they represent about 0.17% of all abortions, which would place the number at about 1360 partial birth abortions per year.
- Cerialthriller, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17these abortions are only used in extreme cases.. The woman can't just decide to change her mind at this point, its more likely that the child will die anyway or the mother will die. That being said, I am pro-choice, but I would never ask my fiance to ever abort a child were we to get pregnant although I have no intentions of being a father. If she suggested it, I would be upset, but it would be her decision. If you dont like abortions dont have one. Dont stop the rest of the people from doing what they want to do. Side note: two of my best friends were abused in foster care and still need lots of medication and therapy.
- TherealObadiah, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27"Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in the uterus - is available and, indeed, much more common."
Oh, that is sooo much more comforting. Can these people be any more pathetically gruesome? - thrallie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Abortion should be allowed up to age 5
- IamTheProfessor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Killing someone for murdering innocent people...
Killing someone for being conceived...
I don't see the correlation. - grendel59, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16So many people are missing the point: the court ruled on a procedure....not the act. The procedure can be changed.
What I find disturbing is that the court ruled on a procedure that obstetricians support. We now have the court dictating morality. It's a sad day regardless of the side of the abortion debate you're on.
"Judicial Activism," anyone? Or is it only 'activism' when they rule against your personal morality?
It's a sad day for the US. ( - warriormonk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21The statistics are deceiving. The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is actually much LOWER than most 3rd world countries. The reason why the stats don't show it is b/c most of those countries don't begin counting infant deaths until they've reached one year of age, so any babies that die within that first year aren't counted. This obviously results in better stats, and that is the intention.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 763 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is