Posted on 10/15/2007 8:28:51 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
It’s an interesting map, but I gotta say it doesn’t match the other moral tones in those parts of the world. The muslim green areas where women are barely people? The african areas where genocides continue? China’s forced abortion policy if you already have a child is equal to the US because they are both purple? India is morally above the US - a country that still has a rigid caste system that considers the lowest caste not even to be people?
You could make all the red countries essentially purple because these are the same excuses they use in the purple countries - the very above article shows how the UK has used its safeguard laws to essentially give abortion on demand.
It should also be noted that the US has the most people in the world fighting to end abortion.
Among women who had abortions, 8% have never used any contraceptive.
That's 54% not bothering with contraceptives and effectively selecting abortion as their birth control method.
Among the rest of aborting women, "inconsistent use" of their contraceptive method was reported about 85% of the time for condoms and The Pill.
I guess that means about 1 million (4/5ths of abortions) happen in lieu of a good faith effort at birth control or personal responsibility.
I'd imagine it has to be something like that.
That's what makes it surprising to so many, including myself. It's hard to hold up our country as a moral exemplar when we do the least to protect the most innocent.
"whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." --Jesus
"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." --Mother Theresa
How can we even hope for God's mercy on our nation?
In the West, as the article states, abortion is supposedly justifiable when a pregnancy represents a hardship to the mother. Yet it is the poorest continents in the world (South American and Africa) that seem to have the most compassion for unborn children.
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." --Jesus
I’m proud of you for speaking up. The “laser look” lady may be over-reacting because she KNOWS you’re right and hates to admit it to herself.
Whatever, we shouldn’t keep quiet because we OFFEND the liberals and commandment breakers.
I think this is an interesting article, and pushing the line back regarding abortions will save lives. That is a good thing. The sad and disgusting thng about this article is that these physicians still seem perfectly ok with doing abortions. They just prefer to do them when the child is smaller and less developed. The bigger the child gets, the more it looks like a baby to them. It becomes emotionally and morally harder in their eyes. The thing is, it doesn’t matter if a child is killed at 20 weeks, 8 weeks, or 1 week. The child is the same person whether at conception or 20 weeks. He/she is just smaller and less developed.
I have a tough time figuring out the proaborts. They claim that the child is not a person. You then prove to them scientifically the child is a person. They then say it doesn’t matter if the child is a person because a person cannnot live attached to another’s body against their will. However, if they believe that, they would have to believe abortion should be legal for 9 months. Only the very hardcore want abortion legal for 9 months, and others claim the child is too far developed to be killed. Of course this counters their claim that a person can’t live attached to another’s body against their will. It’s an inconsistent position that makes your head spin. Besides, Judge Blackmun said if the personhood of the unborn child is established, abortion would then be illegal under the 5th and 14th amendments.
Isn’t there an error, on your map, about Poland ?
It’s only a matter of nine months; after which the baby (something called a foetus is easier to kill) may be adopted into a loving home.
Pregnancy out of wedlock does not cause women in the Western world to be shunned in this day and age; women cannot use that an excuse. It boils down to the inconvenient interruption and unwanted physical changes.
The teenager in the article justified killing her baby - with the grandmother’s complicity - because she wished to attend college. Does an innocent baby deserve to die because a teenager wishes to continue (in all likelihood) unprotected sex with even more partners at college?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.