h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"
(Most of this post was ignored by Nerd42 earlier, so please forgive the repetition.)
"

I haven't ignored anybody's posts on purpose that I can remember. There has been a huge volume of replies you know.

"
Nerd42,
We have shown how Intact Dilation and Extraction, renamed in more emotive terms by the anti-choice lobby"

Hey, what a great idea! I could build a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" online community, with a room called "The Anti-Choice Lobby"!

" as 'Partial Birth Abortion', is used in the most extreme circumstances to save the mothers life. One example is (and I'm repeating a quote from [now much] earlier here):

'If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of an adult skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the birth canal. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform a D & X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; attempted birth would kill her.'
"
I think I'm repeating this too:

Good! An attempt at a real answer!

At the time of that operation, the child is already dead and/or would not have lived anyway right? If so, THAT'S NOT AN ABORTION! See, D&X could be used on a dead baby (once again I'm using the B-word on purpose) in extreme circumstances, even if partial birth abortion were banned!

So far as I've seen, though I'm not sure of this, PBA is more broad, and means anytime the child is put to death while being born. (still in the birth canal, and usually most of the way out.) D&X refers to the specific method of "collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus".

To the people who think Pro-Lifers have no right to try to deny others their "right-to-choose" through legislation, I would be inclined to wonder if abolishinists (anti-slavery advocates) had any right to try to deny others their property? What's the difference as far as the First Ammendment goes? Truth is, I can campeign to get abortion banned all day long and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me. I have the right to my opinion same as yours, and if I get the laws changed, people have to follow the law! There are lots of laws I disagree with that I still have to follow. Saying that abortions will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them and saying (from worst to least) murder/rape/drugs/theft/speeding will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them, is the one and the same idea! And it's a dumb idea, because I don't want to live in a tooth-and-claw anything-goes violent society.

Nerd42

Hmm..the troubles of rule by majority..which makes me wonder - how would governments fare if the academics were to take over in the law-making for a spell, in particular, those in ethics philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etc.? In any case, I do symphatize with you, Nerd42. When I was a Christian, the ethical inconsistencies in our system and trying to reconcile how our personal rights and our responsibilities to others often play off (or crash against) each other were mind-bending (so much so that I couldn't deal with it ).

Quote Nerd42
"At the time of that operation, the child is already dead and/or would not have lived anyway right? If so, THAT'S NOT AN ABORTION!See, D&X could be used on a dead baby (once again I'm using the B-word on purpose) in extreme circumstances, even if partial birth abortion were banned!"


Can i emphasize this bit of your quote please
"or would not have lived anyway right"

SO IT IS STILL NOT DEAD. therefore your argument that they are performing/able to perform it on only dead babies is wrong. it may not survive past 2 torturous hours of life, but it is alive at that point (level of conciousness or awareness may barely exist if at all, but i am demonstrating via your own comments).

Would you suggest they wait for 2 hours until the baby is dead before removing the dead baby from the (septic if not dead by now) mother by d+x?

You contradict yourself by saying life begins at point zero and are a pro-lifer and then make the above statement which implies since the baby wont live it counts as dead?
What is your point?? I have tried to understand it, and think you distinguish the d+x and PBA by the statement you defined above and the following paragraph.

Quote nerd42 - "So far as I've seen, though I'm not sure of this, PBA is more broad, and means anytime the child is put to death while being born. (still in the birth canal, and usually most of the way out.) D&X refers to the specific method of "collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus".

So you accept a need to perform a d+x in some circumstances - Good for you, in acknowledging this. But I repeat -----but you have already said - it may not be dead............Would you suggest they wait for 2 hours until the baby is dead before removing the dead baby from the (septic if not dead by now) mother by d+x?


quote nerd42 - " would be inclined to wonder if abolishinists (anti-slavery advocates) had any right to try to deny others their property?"

People are not property. Don't be so ridiculous as to argue that in past times because they were considered as such, in theory the principle is the same.

If you insist on it then i will follow the argument - if having a slave kept in the most humane and civil, safe conditions would save the mental health and physical wellbeing of the owner if not their life, - then i would agree. Was that the case with slavery? NO.

So even using that rdiculous and immature comparison you have failed yourself again.

A little charity please - I think he was more attempting to comment on the arbitrariness of where we draw the line between what it permitted and what is not in a society, particularly with regards to human rights.

Thanks for the reply Nerd,

'Hey, what a great idea! I could build a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" online community, with a room called "The Anti-Choice Lobby"!'

Um, but the term 'Partial Birth Abortion' is a term invented by right-wing extremists to meet their own ends, namely to 'lobby' against women having a 'choice'. I didn't mention a right-wing conspiracy, but now you come to mention it...


'At the time of that operation, the child is already dead and/or would not have lived anyway right? If so, THAT'S NOT AN ABORTION! See, D&X could be used on a dead baby ... in extreme circumstances, even if partial birth abortion were banned!'

No, the child is alive, just with a severly deformed head so that it cannot pass through the birth canal. In this case the skull of the baby must be crushed and drained to allow the mother to live. This is not a full description of D&X, but just an example of where it is used. D&X describes the extraction of a late-term foetus and is ONLY used if the mothers life is in danger. It can be done by numerous methods.

Nerd, if a disabled baby was born that would die after 3 minutes outside the womb, they would 'have not lived anyway', so according to you it would not be an abortion. How about after 3 weeks? 3 months? 3 years? Three score years and ten?


'Truth is, I can campeign to get abortion banned all day long and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me. I have the right to my opinion same as yours, and if I get the laws changed, people have to follow the law!'

You can say what the hell you like, and I wouldn't want to stop you. If abortion is outlawed (which it won't be) then women will still want abortions. Will the demand for abortions simply vanish just because you have managed to successfully force your minority extreme religious beliefs on the population? To say that women simply 'have to follow the law' shows an enormous naivety and a blanket denial of reality. It also shows a unpleasant streak of cruelty on your behalf, to deny women psychological and medical care at the point at which they most need it. You don't want to live in a 'tooth-and-claw anything-goes violent society', but that's the exact situation you would create.


'Saying that abortions will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them and saying (from worst to least) murder/rape/drugs/theft/speeding will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them, is the one and the same idea!'

That is not what I am saying Nerd, and I think you know it. This particular Strawman needs exposing right now. Abortion is not parrallel to murder because, as the law defines it, abortion is only allowed during a time when the zygote/foetus is not a person, not a human. So, early abortion is, and should be, legal because it is a procedure that can only harm the preganant woman, and therefore the best care possible *must* be offered.

Nerd will now claim that abortion harms 'babies'. But that is clearly not the case. A foetus is NOT a baby, a *potential baby* perhaps. Is that your problem with abortion Nerd, that it's a potential human?

Nerd, your *belief* that humans are humans at conception is not shared by the majority of the public, including most doctors (the ones where religion doesn't get in the way), and scientists (including myself, a biologist) who can see that a microscopic ball of human cells does not constitute a human. You are in a minority and people like you with your beliefs could very well cause a *lot* of pain and suffering to a *lot* of people.


Nerd42, you did not answer my questions:

Which is better:

- The mother surviving and a foetus, which would not survive anyway it is so deformed, dying,
or,
- Both mother and foetus dying.

and

- Women getting butchered by non-sanctioned 'backstreet' amateurs,
or,
- Women getting the best medical and psychological attention that society can offer?

I'd appreciate some answers to clear your position up.


Ste

Nerd42,

While you're at it (if you *are* at it - answering people's questions to you) then tell me why you people call yourselves Prolife (capital P) when you only seem concerned with protecting a potential possible human life and not caring a jot about the real human existing life of the woman involved.

Calling a foetus a baby is ridiculous, in my opinion. A baby is a what exists after a human is born. Not before.

Okay, a foetus is alive. And abortions end that life, which has not yet developed into a human. And I have said before that I *felt* that when I was pregnant that my foetus was a child, which was a very emotional way of thinking about it. Because I had wanted it to become a child. But you then suggested that because I 'killed my baby' without waiting until I was at death's door I had somehow helped commit a murder?

So I still maintain that I am much more 'pro life' than you are because had I not had a serious physical problem I personally could not have agreed to end that possible life. But you see, that is only for *me* to think and believe. Just as it it is only up to other women to decide for themselves what is best for them.

az

>>>"A little charity please - I think he was more attempting to comment on the arbitrariness of where we draw the line between what it permitted and what is not in a society, particularly with regards to human rights."


It would be a lot of charity, to think that he indeed mean to try to demonstrate that point. From his past posts and opinions given in this thread, aswell as his ability to argue a point of view leaves me with no doubt that what society wants doesnt interest him.
He has indicated many times that what he thinks should be the will of man in this matter.

And yes i deleiberately used the word MAN for your benefit Nerd42.

Mort

I had placenta praevia with my first pregnancy when I was 18, but not only am I alive to tell the tale, the boy is too... this was in 1972. I can't believe obstetric science has regressed in thirty-mumble years - so I can't believe it's an indication for abortion - rather the reverse, I would have thought, as, as far as I know, it manifests *late* in pregnancy!

Ste, here is my problem, I respect you. But I must risk a trolling (not from you) to answer some of your points.
>>If abortion is outlawed (which it won't be) then women will still want abortions. Will the demand for abortions simply vanish just because you have managed to successfully force your minority extreme religious beliefs on the population?<<
It is my contention that many women who *have* abortions are under savage pressure, and don't really want them. When given assistance to get away from an abusive relationship, to continue the pregnancy and raise the baby, or whatever she needs, a woman can often decide that she doesn't want an abortion after all. I have observed this myself!
You say his is a 'minority religious view'. I don't think it's a minority view at all! It's just a view that's unpopular with the media.
>>abortion is only allowed during a time when the zygote/foetus is not a person, not a human.<<
That's begging the question. There is as much evidence for the personhood of the 'foetus' as there is against, in fact in pure biological terms, there's far more. That's why I cringe at hearing every unborn baby being described as a foetus. On television, even on the news, I have heard a 'wanted' baby minutes from birth described as a 'foetus'. Will we return to Roman days where a newborn was presented to her father, and her legal existence hung by a thread until *he* decided she was *wanted*? (I say she for a reason, not as part of my usual practice of generic she.)
There's more, but I don't trust the public computer the being calling himself Hoo doesn't believe in, and so am posting - now!

Hi Adele

'It is my contention that many women who *have* abortions are under savage pressure, and don't really want them. When given assistance to get away from an abusive relationship, to continue the pregnancy and raise the baby, or whatever she needs, a woman can often decide that she doesn't want an abortion after all. I have observed this myself!'

Fair enough. I find it hard to believe (me being an optimist) that most abortions, or even a large minority of abortions come about because the women are under 'savage pressure' and in abusive relationships. I'm not denying this happens (), but surely this is not that common. I'd be happy (well, very unhappy actually) to hear evidence to the contrary.

I understand that abortion counselling is very exhaustive, going through all of the alternative options. If it isn't then it should be.


'You say his is a 'minority religious view'. I don't think it's a minority view at all!'

It's a view based upon religion (be it Catholicism, or christian fundamentalism) and he wants to force his distorted religious view onto all. There are large numbers of religious people who are against birth control of any form but I sincerely think they are in a minority, especially as most democratic countries allow abortion hinting that a majority is needed to pass such a law.

'It's just a view that's unpopular with the media.'

Speculation I'm afraid.


'That's begging the question. There is as much evidence for the personhood of the 'foetus' as there is against, in fact in pure biological terms, there's far more.'

I'd like to hear them in biological terms. Here's some biological terms: No central nervous system. I.e., no brain, no brainwaves, no personality, no person. A human being is more than cells and tissues. The law defines death as loss of brain activity, so the presence of human life is defined by law as presence of brain activity. No brain activity, no human.

'That's why I cringe at hearing every unborn baby being described as a foetus. On television, even on the news, I have heard a 'wanted' baby minutes from birth described as a 'foetus'.'

It's the correct terminology though...

'Will we return to Roman days where a newborn was presented to her father, and her legal existence hung by a thread until *he* decided she was *wanted*? (I say she for a reason, not as part of my usual practice of generic she.)'

No clearly not (acknowledging it was a rhetorical question), but I understand your point. Will we go back to the days when women stuck knitting needles up themselves, or went to horrifically substandard black market 'doctors' to abort a foetus?


Ste

*There are lots of laws I disagree with that I still have to follow.*

Not exactly Nerd, there are lots of laws that you disagree with that you CHOOSE to follow, you could easily demonstrate against them by breaking them. The thing is laws as you well know are changeable and should act in the best interest of society, if they no longer perform a useful function they should really be changed.


*Saying that abortions will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them and saying (from worst to least) murder/rape/dr ugs/theft/speeding will happen anyway so we shouldn't try to stop them, is the one and the same idea!*

Close but no cigar young man. No because you fail again to recognise the shifting nature of laws. They are there to perform a regulating function within our societies they set the boundaries of behaviour and enshrine our norms. The drugs that you speak of, I take it you mean illegal drugs, are a great example.

Drugs are generally intoxicants. Intoxicants as their name suggests are poisons so despite their pleasant effects on the brain and central nervous system they have a harmful effect on other areas of the body. Now you can still get dr ugs of nearly all kinds legally and free in my country. They are prescribed by doctors and its a good way of getting these potentially dangerous substances to people who need them in a reasonably safe way. It is the same system used for the delivery of termination services.

In the UK we still have a problem with the illegal distrbution of dr ugs. The longer sentences for distribution become and the more the government squeezes the supply lines through police action the more ruthless and violent criminals who distribute these same kinds of dr ugs become. Whats the point of that. We are treating the symptom and not curing the problem in this way.

In America during "prohibition" the sale, production and distribution of your nations favourite intoxicant gave rise to criminal activity on an unprecedented scale. Now if your nation cant stop people getting drunk how do you think that a change of law will stop terminations taking place.

When the production of the UKs favourite intoxicant the same as in the US, alcohol, was unregulated it was not uncommon for people to go blind or die because of the additives unscrupulous manufacturers used in attempting to make bigger profits. You can never stop an activity by banning it ever. Thats NEVER. Look at booze, look at prostitu tion. You do not make an activity safer by forceing it undergrond, never.

All you will do is make your self righteous self feel better. You will not have won anything but the hollowest of victories and many thousands of others will lose out in ways that you may never understand.

The only way to stop supply is to remove demand. Ask an economics teacher about this one if you dont believe me.

The good news is that even you Nerd can do something about stemming demand for terminations.

But banning terminations is not the right way at all.

My apologise in perhaps not being clearer in what I was saying in my original posting. I was indicating that research suggests that domestic violence is more likely to occur during pregnancy than other complications such as placenta previa, etc. I was not intending to suggest that D.V could cause these symptoms or that they could be the cause for a termination. My intention was to prove that pregnant woman and their babies face violence from sources other than abortion. Hope this has cleared up my earlier posting.

I have a professional interest in the link between domestic violence and pregnancy. Part of this has involved looking at the effectiveness of screening for DV in obstetric and emergency wards of local hospitals. The idea about the perceived loss of control and competition for attention being a trigger for DV is an interesting one. It fits with the wider view that it is behaviour by the man (although not in all cases) to control his partner. This control can take many forms including financial, psychological, emotional, and physical. Also interesting to note that during pregnancy the most common attacks are abdomen, breasts, and genitals. (Journal of Australian Family Physician, vol 261, no 7, 1989, pp963-64)

My apologise in perhaps not being clearer in what I was saying in my original posting. I was indicating that research suggests that domestic violence is more likely to occur during pregnancy than other complications such as placenta previa, etc. I was not intending to suggest that D.V could cause these symptoms or that they could be the cause for a termination. My intention was to prove that pregnant woman and their babies face violence from sources other than abortion. Hope this has cleared up my earlier posting.

I have a professional interest in the link between domestic violence and pregnancy. Part of this has involved looking at the effectiveness of screening for DV in obstetric and emergency wards of local hospitals. The idea about the perceived loss of control and competition for attention being a trigger for DV is an interesting one. It fits with the wider view that it is behaviour by the man (although not in all cases) to control his partner. This control can take many forms including financial, psychological, emotional, and physical. Also interesting to note that during pregnancy the most common attacks are abdomen, breasts, and genitals. (Journal of Australian Family Physician, vol 261, no 7, 1989, pp963-64)

My apologise in perhaps not being clearer in what I was saying in my original posting. I was indicating that research suggests that domestic violence is more likely to occur during pregnancy than other complications such as placenta previa, etc. I was not intending to suggest that D.V could cause these symptoms or that they could be the cause for a termination. My intention was to prove that pregnant woman and their babies face violence from sources other than abortion. Hope this has cleared up my earlier posting.

I have a professional interest in the link between domestic violence and pregnancy. Part of this has involved looking at the effectiveness of screening for DV in obstetric and emergency wards of local hospitals. The idea about the perceived loss of control and competition for attention being a trigger for DV is an interesting one. It fits with the wider view that it is behaviour by the man (although not in all cases) to control his partner. This control can take many forms including financial, psychological, emotional, and physical. Also interesting to note that during pregnancy the most common attacks are abdomen, breasts, and genitals. (Journal of Australian Family Physician, vol 261, no 7, 1989, pp963-64)

My apologise in perhaps not being clearer in what I was saying in my original posting. I was indicating that research suggests that domestic violence is more likely to occur during pregnancy than other complications such as placenta previa, etc. I was not intending to suggest that D.V could cause these symptoms or that they could be the cause for a termination. My intention was to prove that pregnant woman and their babies face violence from sources other than abortion. Hope this has cleared up my earlier posting.

I have a professional interest in the link between domestic violence and pregnancy. Part of this has involved looking at the effectiveness of screening for DV in obstetric and emergency wards of local hospitals. The idea about the perceived loss of control and competition for attention being a trigger for DV is an interesting one. It fits with the wider view that it is behaviour by the man (although not in all cases) to control his partner. This control can take many forms including financial, psychological, emotional, and physical. Also interesting to note that during pregnancy the most common attacks are abdomen, breasts, and genitals. (Journal of Australian Family Physician, vol 261, no 7, 1989, pp963-64)

My apologise in perhaps not being clearer in what I was saying in my original posting. I was indicating that research suggests that domestic violence is more likely to occur during pregnancy than other complications such as placenta previa, etc. I was not intending to suggest that D.V could cause these symptoms or that they could be the cause for a termination. My intention was to prove that pregnant woman and their babies face violence from sources other than abortion. Hope this has cleared up my earlier posting.

I have a professional interest in the link between domestic violence and pregnancy. Part of this has involved looking at the effectiveness of screening for DV in obstetric and emergency wards of local hospitals. The idea about the perceived loss of control and competition for attention being a trigger for DV is an interesting one. It fits with the wider view that it is behaviour by the man (although not in all cases) to control his partner. This control can take many forms including financial, psychological, emotional, and physical. Also interesting to note that during pregnancy the most common attacks are abdomen, breasts, and genitals. (Journal of Australian Family Physician, vol 261, no 7, 1989, pp963-64)

re: little bear...

Ah..... I hope you can forgive my confusion. I had to laugh over the twins thing in particular when I read it the first time.

>>I understand that abortion counselling is very exhaustive, going through all of the alternative options. If it isn't then it should be.<<
Absolutely it should be - but it isn't always...
>>There are large numbers of religious people who are against birth control of any form but I sincerely think they are in a minority, especially as most democratic countries allow abortion hinting that a majority is needed to pass such a law.<<
I hope you're not saying that birth control and abortion are the same thing? Most 'pro-choice' people would nevertheless oppose using abortion as birth control!
>>like to hear them in biological terms. Here's some biological terms: No central nervous system. I.e., no brain, no brainwaves, no personality, no person. A human being is more than cells and tissues. The law defines death as loss of brain activity, so the presence of human life is defined by law as presence of brain activity. No brain activity, no human.<<
Unborn babies show brain activity! (Granted not at the start, but certainly by 24 weeks, which is where most jurisdictions start to frown on free access to abortion - though I don't know what the law in the USA is - and I believe you're currently still resident there..)
>>Will we go back to the days when women stuck knitting needles up themselves, or went to horrifically substandard black market 'doctors' to abort a foetus?<<
I know that many people consider that anything posted by Nerd42 is suspect, but he posted some figures from an American site, which regardless of *who* posted it should not be dismissed out of hand!
http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html
>>How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible. [11]<<

>>I understand that abortion counselling is very exhaustive, going through all of the alternative options. If it isn't then it should be.<<
Absolutely it should be - but it isn't always...

Wouldn't it therefore be more productive, as well as more rational and compassionate, to stop campaigning against abortion and start campaigning for better counselling?

"I hope you're not saying that birth control and abortion are the same thing?"

Well spotted. He wasn't. However, it CAN be used that way, and apparently is being used that way currently in the former Soviet union.

"Most 'pro-choice' people would nevertheless oppose using abortion as birth control!"

Right on, sister. Except the pro-choicers would, I suspect, *choose* to oppose it by educating women better and freeing up supplies of contraceptives so that women don't get pregnant in the first place.

In Russia right now abortion is free, but contraception can cost you 25% of a week's wages. Not hard to see where that will lead...

Unsurprisingly, Russia is considering tightening up its abortion laws from their current extremely liberal state.

>Unborn babies show brain activity! (Granted not at the start

So we're into where you draw the line. Back to that old one. You suggested 24 weeks - fine. What's the problem here?

The D&X procedure brought up by Nerd42 is *irrelevant* to this discussion because it's used only in cases where the mother is in imminent danger of death or permanent damage from a foetus which will not survive outside the womb.

">>How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?... it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year."...I knew the figures were totally false"

Hmm. Is there, perchance, a link to some accurate figures of what the numbers of deaths WERE, rather than simply a single person saying (no matter how authoritatively) what the figures WEREN'T?

Speaking of dramatic examples, one of this country's (hint for women not paying attention - "this country" = "the UK") worst miscarriages of justice involved illegal abortion, albeit peripherally:

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/timothyevans/

Would Beryl Evans have been killed, along with her daughter and unborn child, if she had not been forced into seeking an illegal abortion? Possibly. Possibly not. It's just one example. And maybe not even a good one - after all, she wasn't killed by the abortion.

The point here is that the fact she was seeking an illegal abortion passes by unremarked - it's not a shocking feature of the case, it's simply acknowledged that that sort of thing happened all the time. Doesn't that suggest anything?

H.

Hi Adele, good to see you back Hoo,

H has made a few points I was going to make, so I'll try not to repeat too much...


'I hope you're not saying that birth control and abortion are the same thing? Most 'pro-choice' people would nevertheless oppose using abortion as birth control!'

No, I'm not. But Catholics are against both for the same reason, and look how many of them are out there.


This is a salient point that you bring up:

'Unborn babies show brain activity! (Granted not at the start, but certainly by 24 weeks, which is where most jurisdictions start to frown on free access to abortion - though I don't know what the law in the USA is - and I believe you're currently still resident there..)'

In the US it is 24 weeks also, and after that only to save the mothers life.

This is an excellent website that describes the development of an embryo week by week: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html . At week 24 brain waves 'begin to activate', so not there yet (I would personally be more comfortable with a more conservative cut-off date for a termination, just to be safe). But it seems like 24 weeks is chosen on purpose because the foetus is still so undeveloped as to not have the brain activity of a human.

Here are some stats from Fox News! ( a nice 'Fair & Balanced TM' conservative view for you to trust) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html : '91% are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9% are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately 0.01% of all abortions performed'.

Adele, do you agree that 91% of all abortions are unequivocally performed on embryos and foetuses with no brain activity, therefore are not human beings? From what you have said before, I am presuming 'yes' [I would personally say the 99.99% in the first and second trimesters are acceptable, but I'm just asking Adele a question]. The 0.01% is presumably covered by D&X and other emergency prodedures to save the mothers life.


Adele, if 10 and not 10,000 women died due to abortion being illegal then it is still an horrific loss and ten too many. The sheer numbers do not matter. How many mentally and physically scarred people would there be out there if it were not for the legalisation of abortion?


Ste