ABORTION MAP OF THE U.S.

Christian Patriots For Life ^

[cpforlife.org]

THE ABORTED STATES OF AMERICA

The map above has 17 states blacked out. The population of these states is equal to the 42,000,000+ reported "legal" surgical abortions since 1973. Perhaps this visual perspective helps one to grasp the number of people that are gone, dead—robbed of their God given, constitutional rights to life and liberty.

Each time a person is aborted and robbed of their rights; our rights and very lives become less secure. How many more innocent people will have to suffer horrible painful deaths before the nation accepts the truth that with abortion, we are destroying our country and our future.

Please go to our Pro-Life Education Page , to learn how you can help end this tragedy.

[optimistically_conservative]

Not that I want in on this, but if it helps ...

According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, one in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage, with most occurring in the first three months after conception.

According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, women who are pregnant at the age of 25-30 have a miscarriage rate of 16%.

By the age of 40, this rises to 25%.

"Then as women get older through the next 10 years the rate goes up and up and up and would probably be at least 50% by 47 or 48," says College spokesman Peter Bowen-Simpkins.

This is because the likelihood of chromosomal abnormalities increases with age.

[dark_lord]

Hard to do. My wife had a miscarriage and her doctor told her that. From the web....

10 to 15% plus 3%
15%
10 - 15%

Based on the above, I would say: my wife's doctor may have told her 1/3 to make her feel better. So I retract my assertion of 1/3 and restate it as 15%.

[cpforlife.org]

I'd like to recommend all to visit: Christian Patriots For Life , and to read: THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.

[beavus]

Well, to be fair, these are pretty horrible states. Not a terrible loss!

Hey! Most of them are in Bush country! The plot thickens.

[Remedy]

GOTTA BE REQUIRED READING!

[MHGinTN]

I commend you for your retraction (forgive my harshness, please) ... Askel5 has done the same to me and I had to retract also! You make an important point though, if miscarriage happens, were the lost individual lives individual humans? Since I assume individual personage from conception onward, I would say yes, and I do that because I'm working to put a stop to the cannibalism of harvesting body parts of embryonic and fetal individual human beings.

[Overtaxed]

21 weeks

[MHGinTN]

The reliance on abortion is also a contributing factor in increased risk for miscarriage of subsequent pregnancies. It's not good to fool with mother nature don'tcha know!

[beavus]

D&C counts toward the abortion statistics.

Are you sure? Do you have a reference? If true, then there really aren't any abortion statistics.

[beavus]

Be glad your mother didn't abort you or maybe then you'd be singing a different song.

I think it was Woody Allen who, in neurotic state, was once worried that he'd wake up and find himself dead.

[Coleus]

Looks like a good read, don't you think?

[beavus]

By the age of 40, this rises to 25%. "Then as women get older through the next 10 years the rate goes up and up and up and would probably be at least 50% by 47 or 48," says College spokesman Peter Bowen-Simpkins.

True. Should pregnant women over 40 be charged with reckless endangerment?

[dark_lord]

Regarding Peter Kreeft's position, where he states:
All these issues are involved in abortion, but I shall argue only one: Is the fetus a person? The case for pro-life's affirmative answer is well-known, and so are the biological facts which constitute its simplest and strongest evidence, especially the genetic identity and individuality of the unborn child from the moment of conception. How does the pro-choice position argue against this case?
The major premise is: "Thou shalt not kill"-i.e., all deliberate killing of innocent human beings is forbidden. The minor premise is that abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The conclusion is that abortion is wrong.

Except that Christianity has held throughout most sects that it is valid to kill in war. That it is valid to execute criminals. Therefore, Christianity does not have a strong case to make that it is correct conduct not to kill under any circumstances. So, the key phrase must then be "innocent human beings", and while some "pro-choicers" (happy to slice and dice baby killers) will be likely concede a fetus is "innocent" (others will wander off into moral relativism), they will not concede that the fetus is a "human being". Thus they deny the "minor premise".

And Peter agrees with this: "So the soft pro-choicer must distinguish between human beings and persons, must say that fetuses are human but not persons, and say that all persons, but not all humans, are sacred and inviolable. "

However, he tries to defeat their position by saying: "Are there any human beings who are not persons?...Are there any humans who are not persons? "

The problem is, he does not clearly define what he means by human in such a way that his opponents agree with him. This is one reason this issue has existed for 30 years - no one wants to debate the base terms - what does it mean to be human? He does clearly identify 7 "pro-choice" arguments, which he asserts they ("pro-choicers") claim are true about the weakness of pro-life arguments, and denies them all because of what he calls the invalidity of: "Functionalism: defining a person by his or her functioning or behavior."

He makes some excellant arguments against the weakness of Functionalism (and is recapitulating basic arguments made by the Buddhist philosophy quite a long time ago.) He goes on to make some excellent intellectual points (although his refutation of the 2nd argument is flawed). He refutes (or thinks he refutes) all 7 "pro-choice" pro-choice arguments, and then goes on to establish his position:
Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities:
1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.

He then asserts that: "In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person-e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it. If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence.

He goes on to show how in cases 2 - 4 that abortion is wrong, and then wraps up his case without disproving case 1!!!!

And this IS the crux of the problem. Unless case 1 can be proved, the "pro-choicers" will merely assert it! He says, well, case 1 is not proved so he won't accept it. The pro-choicers say - DISPROVE IT!. And he doesn't.

Unfortunately, after all his well reasoned argument, he craps out on the 1 yard line.

[John Lenin]

Now we must replace the murdered with Marxist strangers, or so we are told.

My new book title, " Stupid White Men and Women" .

[dark_lord]

Yeah, I'm sure that D&C is included in the abortion statistics. See:
D&C as abortion
D&C included in abortions
Methods of abortion

See, the problem is that D&C as a procedure is use both for abortions and as a post-miscarriage procedure. The hospitals and clinics record it, but they don't record (oh, this one was for an abortion for Ms. Jones, and that one was for a post-miscarriage procedure for Mrs. Smith.)

[MHGinTN]

To convey personhood at some point after conception requires an arbitrary qualifier. Every alive individual human person began their individual existence at conception, according to science, and scientists assume this in their designed exploitation of individual human life.

[Flying Circus]

"If they were "persons" they wouldn be aborted." Servant of the Nine, 2003.

"If they were "persons" they wouldn be sent to concentration camps and gassed." Nazi Party c1939-1945
Funny how those who support abortion today compare pro-lifers to Nazis, but the early proponents of abortion, like Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood, favored it as a way of putting into practice the same eugenics theories that modivated the Nazi party's search for Arian purity.

"and you can draw the same map for automobile fatalities. Both numbers are trivial in US death statistics."

Automobile fatalities are trivial? I guess that is why...
The government mandates all automobile manufacturers to include seat belts for all passangers.
Most state governments furthermore require passengers to wear seatbelts in cars so equipt.
The government mandates air bags on newer model passenger car (~1990 or later?) and checks the function of those airbags at safety inspections.
Car companies spend many billions on structural and safty cage improvements every year.
Car companies race with each other to introduce new inovations like side curtain airbags.
Automotive marketing firms spend billions telling everyone how safe the cars they are advertizing are.
Consumers spend additional thousands of dollars on each car just for the safety features built in.
Volvo built their entire reputation on building safe, tank-like cars.
Multiple organizations do impact tests on on real cars worth tens of thousands of dollars each as well as carefully tracking accident data to tell their subscribers which cars were most survivable.
Consumers continually reject small fuel efficient cars in favor of larger cars or SUVs because they feel safer.

Funny how particular people can get over "trivial" death statistics.

[don-o]

Servant of the Nine.

M.I.A.

[I'm ALL Right!]

On behalf of my state, let me just say THANKS for the DISREGARD. I'd certainly rather live here, and raise my kids in a place with less crime, more spirituality, and more level-headed conservativism, than to move to one of the states you consider "superior"......and have to deal with throngs of moronic, leftist, morally bankrupt, PC, pro-abortion-disguised-as-women's-lib-loving, hillary-worshipping fools. But that's just me, I guess.

BTW, that is not assuming everyone in those states (not highlighted) is part of the crowd I just described.

[The Coopster]

I am pro-life. But at college I had a class called "propaganda", and it unfortunately gave me a jaded outlook on anything I read. I guess my only question for you is - don't you think everyone will wonder if you chose the least populous states for greater effect? I'm sure the answer is yes, but it's like knowing that you can read any statistic to support either side of opposing viewpoints. A great deal of credibility goes right out the window.

Look at post # 18. IMHO, this is an even more effective way to get the point across - and there's no room for the other side to call foul.