Science > Abortion > Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses."
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"thisisme" |
| Date: |
22 Jun 2003 07:06:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3efd48fc.27508988@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:50:00 +1200,
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com> wrote:
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
He's still a nut.
Don't be so hard on yourself. pretentious and dishonest, sure,
but I can't think of an Anti-Choicer who isn't dishonest, a control
freak, or both.
i don't think you're a nut, though.
I agree with the other poster: Craig Chilton is a nut.
Let's see who REALLY is the nut.
As I've pointed out to you before (but you're 'WAY to dense
to learn), Anti-Choicers (which include *you*) support a mindless
agenda that actually seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon
no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING
childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the
DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-
citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere,
NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
Whereas fully 2/3 of Americans are SENSIBLE, FAIR-minded
people who are PRO-Choice, and thus your diametric opposites.
You're as nutty as a fruitcake, and if you haven't checked out the
KKK and neo-nazi groups, you should. They are your kindred
spirits. You'd be right at home with them.
*yaaaaaaaaawn*
Congratulations!! You just once AGAIN proved yourself incable of
making an intelligent rebuttal. (But then, of course, you'd first have
to BE intelligent. And THAT is *very* unlikely.)
Actually, another requirement would be that he have something of
substance to rebut. Sadly, you never deliver. He gave the only
sensible response.
He's a genuine nut because he has no idea of how nutty he is.
Like Archimedes Plutonium and other kooks, he'll never EVER get
the message...
The MESSAGE is in the SIG, below -- and it proves you and your fellow,
bone-ignorant Anti-Choicers to be as screwed-up as the segregationists
were. They were EQUALLY ignorant and sociopathic people. Only the
TARGETS were different: blacks 40 years ago, and women today.
No wonder you're an ANONYMOUS loser. If your friends ever learned
how rotten your core is (assuming you even have any friends), they'd
probably disown you on the spot!
You're a kook-ball. That's all you're proving with these posts.
Learn to accept it.
My posts contain FACTS. Yours NEVER do.
You don't even know what a fact is.
.
|
|
| User: "Krisblake4eva" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
22 Jun 2003 08:29:02 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses."
From: (thisisme)
Date: 6/22/03 8:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <dfffd647.0306220406.1e95fb72@posting.google.com>
xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
news:<3efd48fc.27508988@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:50:00 +1200,
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com> wrote:
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
Anonymous Coward < > wrote:
[ ... ]
He's still a nut.
Don't be so hard on yourself. pretentious and dishonest, sure,
but I can't think of an Anti-Choicer who isn't dishonest, a control
freak, or both.
i don't think you're a nut, though.
I agree with the other poster: Craig Chilton is a nut.
Let's see who REALLY is the nut.
As I've pointed out to you before (but you're 'WAY to dense
to learn), Anti-Choicers (which include *you*) support a mindless
agenda that actually seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon
no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING
childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the
DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-
citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere,
NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
Whereas fully 2/3 of Americans are SENSIBLE, FAIR-minded
people who are PRO-Choice, and thus your diametric opposites.
You're as nutty as a fruitcake, and if you haven't checked out the
KKK and neo-nazi groups, you should. They are your kindred
spirits. You'd be right at home with them.
*yaaaaaaaaawn*
Congratulations!! You just once AGAIN proved yourself incable of
making an intelligent rebuttal. (But then, of course, you'd first have
to BE intelligent. And THAT is *very* unlikely.)
Actually, another requirement would be that he have something of
substance to rebut.
And since Craig has satisfied that requirement, what is No@spam's excuse?
Sadly, you never deliver. He gave the only
sensible response.
It's the only one he could deliver in the face of countless facts that totally
anihilate his position.
Krisblake
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
22 Jun 2003 10:35:37 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2003 05:06:03 -0700,
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com> wrote:
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com> wrote:
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
He's still a nut.
Don't be so hard on yourself. pretentious and dishonest, sure,
but I can't think of an Anti-Choicer who isn't dishonest, a control
freak, or both.
i don't think you're a nut, though.
I agree with the other poster: Craig Chilton is a nut.
Let's see who REALLY is the nut.
As I've pointed out to you before (but you're 'WAY to dense
to learn), Anti-Choicers (which include *you*) support a mindless
agenda that actually seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon
no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING
childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the
DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-
citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere,
NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
Whereas fully 2/3 of Americans are SENSIBLE, FAIR-minded
people who are PRO-Choice, and thus your diametric opposites.
You're as nutty as a fruitcake, and if you haven't checked out the
KKK and neo-nazi groups, you should. They are your kindred
spirits. You'd be right at home with them.
*yaaaaaaaaawn*
Congratulations!! You just once AGAIN proved yourself incable of
making an intelligent rebuttal. (But then, of course, you'd first have
to BE intelligent. And THAT is *very* unlikely.)
Actually, another requirement would be that he have something of
substance to rebut. Sadly, you never deliver. He gave the only
sensible response.
Considering the factual nature of the paragraphs, above, to which you
refer, which totally indicts your loathesome stance against women, you
have just proven yourself EQUALLY deserving of the "Ignorant Bigot of the
Month" Award. Guess you'll have to toss for it. (But given the level of
ignorance you both constantly display, you'd probably choose instead to
FIGHT for it.)
He's a genuine nut because he has no idea of how nutty he is.
Like Archimedes Plutonium and other kooks, he'll never EVER get
the message...
The MESSAGE is in the SIG, below -- and it proves you and your fellow,
bone-ignorant Anti-Choicers to be as screwed-up as the segregationists
were. They were EQUALLY ignorant and sociopathic people. Only the
TARGETS were different: blacks 40 years ago, and women today.
No wonder you're an ANONYMOUS loser. If your friends ever learned
how rotten your core is (assuming you even have any friends), they'd
probably disown you on the spot!
You're a kook-ball. That's all you're proving with these posts.
Learn to accept it.
My posts contain FACTS. Yours NEVER do.
You don't even know what a fact is.
LYING is definitely your long suit, isn't it? Well, that's no
surprise. You SHARE that trait with just about ALL of your
equally-moronic Anti-Choicers.
The outline below is FILLED with the facts that ultimately will lay
out Anti-Choice alongside of segregation in extinction. And they make
you a complete FOOL for having said what you just did.
Sad things is -- everybody but YOU will recognize that. To your
detriment.
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion & talk.abortion
on Aug. 13, 2000, and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
23 Jun 2003 10:22:15 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2003 05:11:09 -0700,
"thisisme" <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ya know don't ya that you're double posting.
Twice in the last 2 or 3 days, I accidentally sent a post before it
was finished. Then, realizing that, I quickly cancelled each of them...
What did you do to cancel them?
Very easy to do with the "Agent" program. Highlight the undesired
post's subject line in the list of threads. Go to the "Post" pull-down
menu and select "Cancel Usenet Message." Then hit "Send" when the
cancellation window opens. Afterward, I always select from the "Online"
menus, "Get All Headers in Selected Groups." (AFTER I've deleted the
message body from the unwanted post.) If the unwanted post doesn't
reappear, then I know the cancellation worked on my *own* ISP's server.
But that's no guarantee that it will have worked on ALL the servers.
...shortly afterward, and then put up the finished versions.
Unfortunately, the cancellations must not have been effected by
all servers.
Still on Google.
STRANGE that of all the ones you'd have though would have
acted upon the cancellation message, that IT didn't. (??)
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "thisisme" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
24 Jun 2003 07:34:17 AM |
|
|
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3ef8c20c.482478@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On 23 Jun 2003 05:11:09 -0700,
"thisisme" <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ya know don't ya that you're double posting.
Twice in the last 2 or 3 days, I accidentally sent a post before it
was finished. Then, realizing that, I quickly cancelled each of them...
What did you do to cancel them?
Very easy to do with the "Agent" program.
Actually, it's not easy to do with any program. You can use the
"cancel" feature, but that's not very effective.
Highlight the undesired
post's subject line in the list of threads. Go to the "Post" pull-down
menu and select "Cancel Usenet Message." Then hit "Send" when the
cancellation window opens. Afterward, I always select from the "Online"
menus, "Get All Headers in Selected Groups." (AFTER I've deleted the
message body from the unwanted post.) If the unwanted post doesn't
reappear, then I know the cancellation worked on my *own* ISP's server.
But that's no guarantee that it will have worked on ALL the servers.
Sure isn't.
...shortly afterward, and then put up the finished versions.
Unfortunately, the cancellations must not have been effected by
all servers.
Still on Google.
STRANGE that of all the ones you'd have though would have
acted upon the cancellation message, that IT didn't. (??)
I've read that Dejanews didn't honor cancels sent in that fashion.
Not sure now that they are Google. But I am curious. You and I have
argued about post cancels because you thought it abhorant that people
were allowed to do it because it changes history and limits your
ability to research. Now you yourself have used the cancel feature.
Comments?
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
24 Jun 2003 10:19:58 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2003 05:34:17 -0700,
"thisisme" <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
"thisisme" <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Anonymous Coward <thisisme374@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ya know don't ya that you're double posting.
Twice in the last 2 or 3 days, I accidentally sent a post before it
was finished. Then, realizing that, I quickly cancelled each of them...
What did you do to cancel them?
Very easy to do with the "Agent" program.
Actually, it's not easy to do with any program. You can use the
"cancel" feature, but that's not very effective.
Highlight the undesired
post's subject line in the list of threads. Go to the "Post" pull-down
menu and select "Cancel Usenet Message." Then hit "Send" when the
cancellation window opens. Afterward, I always select from the "Online"
menus, "Get All Headers in Selected Groups." (AFTER I've deleted the
message body from the unwanted post.) If the unwanted post doesn't
reappear, then I know the cancellation worked on my *own* ISP's server.
But that's no guarantee that it will have worked on ALL the servers.
Sure isn't.
...shortly afterward, and then put up the finished versions.
Unfortunately, the cancellations must not have been effected
by all servers.
Still on Google.
STRANGE that of all the ones you'd have though would have
acted upon the cancellation message, that IT didn't. (??)
I've read that Dejanews didn't honor cancels sent in that fashion.
Not sure now that they are Google. But I am curious. You and I have
argued about post cancels because you thought it abhorant that people
were allowed to do it because it changes history and limits your
ability to research. Now you yourself have used the cancel feature.
Comments?
That's easy, and you should have understood it from what I said
above.
I only cancelled a couple of UNFINISHED posts that I accidently sent
prematurely. The UNcancelled posts that followed contained NO changes
from the first. The only difference was that they were completed at that
point. So NO history was altered by THOSE cancellations. Nothing was
lost.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: ANTI-Choice LIE # 1 -- Those Photos of "Aborted Fetuses." |
22 Jun 2003 10:32:09 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2003 05:06:03 -0700, (thisisme) wrote:
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<3efd48fc.27508988@netnews.mchsi.com>...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:50:00 +1200,
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi,com> wrote:
Anonymous Loser <no@spam.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
Anonymous Coward < > wrote:
[ ... ]
He's still a nut.
Don't be so hard on yourself. pretentious and dishonest, sure,
but I can't think of an Anti-Choicer who isn't dishonest, a control
freak, or both.
i don't think you're a nut, though.
I agree with the other poster: Craig Chilton is a nut.
Let's see who REALLY is the nut.
As I've pointed out to you before (but you're 'WAY to dense
to learn), Anti-Choicers (which include *you*) support a mindless
agenda that actually seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon
no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING
childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the
DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-
citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere,
NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
Whereas fully 2/3 of Americans are SENSIBLE, FAIR-minded
people who are PRO-Choice, and thus your diametric opposites.
You're as nutty as a fruitcake, and if you haven't checked out the
KKK and neo-nazi groups, you should. They are your kindred
spirits. You'd be right at home with them.
*yaaaaaaaaawn*
Congratulations!! You just once AGAIN proved yourself incable of
making an intelligent rebuttal. (But then, of course, you'd first have
to BE intelligent. And THAT is *very* unlikely.)
Actually, another requirement would be that he have something of
substance to rebut. Sadly, you never deliver. He gave the only
sensible response.
Considering the factual nature of the paragraphs, above, to which you
refer, which totally indicts your loathesome stance against women, you
have just proven yourself EQUALLY deserving of the "Ignorant Bigot of the
Month" Award. Guess you'll have to toss for it. (But given the level of
ignorance you both constantly display, you'd probably choose instead to
FIGHT for it.)
He's a genuine nut because he has no idea of how nutty he is.
Like Archimedes Plutonium and other kooks, he'll never EVER get
the message...
The MESSAGE is in the SIG, below -- and it proves you and your fellow,
bone-ignorant Anti-Choicers to be as screwed-up as the segregationists
were. They were EQUALLY ignorant and sociopathic people. Only the
TARGETS were different: blacks 40 years ago, and women today.
No wonder you're an ANONYMOUS loser. If your friends ever learned
how rotten your core is (assuming you even have any friends), they'd
probably disown you on the spot!
You're a kook-ball. That's all you're proving with these posts.
Learn to accept it.
My posts contain FACTS. Yours NEVER do.
You don't even know what a fact is.
LYING is definitely your long suit, isn't it? Well, that's no
surprise. You SHARE that trait with just about ALL of your
equally-moronic Anti-Choicers.
The outline below is FILLED with the facts that ultimately will lay
out Anti-Choice alongside of segregation in extinction. And they make
you a complete FOOL for having said what you just did.
Sad things is -- everybody but YOU will recognize that. To your
detriment.
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion & talk.abortion
on Aug. 13, 2000, and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
