Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Two abortions vs. 500
Which states in the USA have the highest abortion rates? The Guardian has the data from 1970 to 2005, and the gaps between the states are far and wide.
The lowest abortion rates:
- Wyoming: 2 abortions per 1,000 live births
- Idaho: 48 abortions per 1,000 live births.
- Kentucky: 67 per 1,000 live births.
- Mississippi: 72 per 1,000 live births.
- South Dakota: 70 per 1,000 live births.
- Utah: 69 per 1,000 live births.
The highest abortion rates:
- New York: 507 abortions per 1,000 live births
- Delaware: 356 abortions per 1,000 live births
- Washington, DC: 316 per 1,000 live births
- Florida: 409 per 1,000 live births
- Massachusetts: 303 per 1,000 live births
The national abortion rate is 233 abortions per 1,000 live births. Greg Mitchell looks at some of the statistics in the middle and and seems to find it surprising that abortion is “quite common” in red states. I’m not sure why this should be surprising since abortion is legal in all states. I find it more surprising that abortion is as rare as it is in some states. The gap between 2 abortions in Wyoming versus 507 abortions in New York (756 abortions per 1,000 live births in New York City alone) is huge.
Topic: Culture, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top99 Comments to “Two abortions vs. 500”
I’m not sure why it’s surprising either. It’s not like everyone in a red state is conservative. Or everyone in a blue state is liberal.
I live in Oregon: if you look at a red/blue map of the state itself, you see a lot of red. We are simply outvoted by the blue dots, (the cities): Portland, Eugene, etc. So we’re a blue state.
Report comment to moderator
507 per 1000 is really bad. Yikes.
But I suppose they were all due to rape, incest, the life of the mother, or poverty, since that is all pro-choice people ever want to talk about.
Report comment to moderator
sad the people chose to kill a baby
Report comment to moderator
The figures come from the new CDC report on abortions for 2006 (the last year for which it has available data). A story on the full report is at http://www.lifenews.com/nat5707.html
Report comment to moderator
The gap between 2 abortions in Wyoming versus 507 abortions in New York … is huge.
That’s a 25,350% difference on a state-wide basis, which is indeed huge, and it implicates the “roe effect,” of which more here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Roe_effect
Report comment to moderator
Whether it is 2 or 507 per thousand…one word…tragic!
Report comment to moderator
Some of it is population density and the number of providers. NYC has long been the abortion capital of the country–Wyoming and the Dakotas may only have one or two clinics in the entire state.
Report comment to moderator
I can never understand how someone can call themselves a Chrsitian and still support the killing of babies
Report comment to moderator
#8: Unfortunately, Christians sin all the time. I suspect they have been convinced to lay aside their religion on the issue, or that religion has no bearing on the issue in the first place. Humans are capable of deluding themselves and living with contradictions to an astonishing degree. Like our resident atheists, who claim to still be law-abiding citizens, for no logically apparent reason.
Report comment to moderator
Mississippi and Arkansas have the highest percentage of abortions performed on girls under the age of 15.
What are we to take from those figures?
Report comment to moderator
I noticed that Montana had 186 per thousand. Even that is a huge difference from Wyoming’s 2-per. Many factors come into play I’m sure, from faith to politics, but I think Michelle may have a great point about sheer availability. There’s some crossing of state lines to do these horrific deeds too. Some may not want to do this close to home. Also, which states have bigger college populations?
And Kansas has 262 (if I recall correctly)–ouch! Isn’t that where Tiller had his aborticide industry?
Report comment to moderator
“Greg Mitchell looks at some of the statistics in the middle and and seems to find it surprising that abortion is “quite common” in red states.”
However, looking at the stats, I saw very few Red states that were above average.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I thought of Tiller when I saw that Kansas was up there.
Report comment to moderator
“What are we to take from those figures?”
That abortion is a great heartbreaking evil and that the Democrat Party is shameful in the extreme for advocating not only it’s legality but also (in many cases) for not even informing parents or requiring consent from parents of minors seeking abortions (disgusting, isn’t it Thomas?).
Consent from parents of minors is required for aspirins though.
Report comment to moderator
10. Still probably less over all than New York or Massachusetts.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to see the breakdown of states with a strong “Planned Parenthood” presence compared to states with a strong contingincy of Christian “Crisis Pregnancy Centers.”
God bless those CPC ministries. They are able to disuade some women from making this irreversable tragic moral mistake. AND they place a strong focus on helping women after abortions too with compassionate counseling, AND they help women who have their babies to find work, residence and help in many other ways.
God bless those who work behind the “statisical” scenes to help other humans do what is right and recover from wrongs dones.
Report comment to moderator
It never ceases to amaze me that consent is required for even an aspirin, but a major thing like abortion is allowed without parental knowledge or consent.
It’s just bizarre. The whole business on the pro side seems like one big attempt for supporters to justify and lie to themselves things that simply aren’t justifiable and which facts refute.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, “10. Still probably less over all than New York or Massachusetts.:
Actually, DEFINITELY less over all than NY & MA.
_____________
New York – 507 per 1,000.
Massachusetts – 303 per 1,000.
Mississippi – only 72 per 1,000.
Arkansas – only 120 per 1,000.
_____________
Perhaps I should reconsider the use of the word “only” above.
Report comment to moderator
Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama lead the statistics in abortions in girls under 15. All three states have parental consent requirements, which the girl can bypass only by court order.
It suggests to me that all three places are a very bad place to be a teenaged girl.
Besides… isn’t one, one too many? Reducing it to a numbers game is of limited utility.
I might add, Joel, that if Republicans wanted abortion to be illegal, it would have been long ago. They don’t. It’s not a partisan question, no matter how much they pander to you for votes.
Report comment to moderator
Note: Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas took an average of $4,000,000 each from the federal government in 2008 for failed abstinence-only sex ed programs in their public schools.
Report comment to moderator
I think I would be okay with making:
1) all second and third trimester abortions illegal barring a 3 doctor agreement that carrying the baby to term would kill the mother. (Not just be bad for some amorphous “health” reason that includes “mental health,” but literally a significant chance (50% plus?) that it would kill the mother.)
For third trimester, if they decided the mother’s health was in danger, then they would be required to birth the baby and see if they could save it.
2) all first trimester abortions to require an ultrasound (preferably 3D), a consultation, and a waiting period of a few days after such a consultation. (And, I’d like to get this down to only being allowed before 8 weeks, when the heart starts to beat, then make it illegal after that as per #1).
3) NO repeat abortions. If you were stupid once, then get educated, and deal with the consequences. (Barring rape, although I really think a woman should still carry to term, since it isn’t the baby’s fault).
Those would be acceptable (although not ideal) compromises for me, because it would save the baby much more of the time than it does now.
I know that some people think any compromise is unacceptable, and I would agree with you in an ideal world. But, at this point, we need to get these numbers down.
Report comment to moderator
“The national abortion rate is 233 abortions per 1,000 live births.”
Nearly a 1/4 is staggering enough. When you look at inner cities where the rates are higher, and abortion mills more easily available due to a larger number of them, it looks more like genocide. It is ignored by, and even supported by minority clergy, think Al and Jesse, while minorities numbers are culled in the inner cities. Shame on us as a nation for this. We complain about the Chinese and their forced abortions, yet in the US some city’s numbers are no better. Only here it’s not women, it’s minorities. This must stop. Those who support abortion, especially those who claim to be christian, must cease in the folly that you can be a follower of Christ, and support this madness. It goes against everything that He teaches. We should all pray for mercy, undeserving as we are of it.
Report comment to moderator
The logical conclusion for Thomas is to begin to vote Republican in order to join the noble resistance to the rampant abortion industry in America, especially with regard to young girls. But Thomas is clearly deluded about what Republicans want.
The African-American population in the South is higher, and statistics show that pregnancies out of wedlock are far higher in that poplulation. This may explain some of the statistics Thomas is claiming (by the way, I don’t base moral convictions on mere statistics). But this is certainly grounds for more compassion, not grounds for ridicule or prejudice. It’s a cultural thing rather than racial.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, clearly the BIGGEST failure rates (as shown in this whole post) are in states where abstinance only programs are largely disrespected and less likely to be used responsibly with public school kids. Teaching human fidelity and faithfulness to future partners is more intelligent that all other options.
Living, teaching and showing the greatness and worthiness of marriage and planning for it is the best option for young eople.
Report comment to moderator
10. It could also mean since there are few abortions the one they have are more likely to be hard cases like incest or life of the mother.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, the logical conclusion is for you to admit that the Republican party used the demographic of conservative Christians like a baby uses a diaper, pandering for your votes and walking away from you once elected.
Republicans are not monolithic on this issue, either: http://www.republicansforchoice.com/
I also feel compelled to point out that the Republican party health plan covered abortion until they got caught 2 weeks ago.
Inconsistent much? Also – love the casual racism.
Report comment to moderator
#26
Why is it racism to quote facts?
Report comment to moderator
Failure:
The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. Public health officials expect about 750,000 teen pregnancies this year. About one of every four teen girls has at least one common sexually transmitted disease. Nearly 50 percent of black girls from 14-19 have an STD at some time. Those numbers and the societal crisis they represent are, in large part, the legacy of eight years of abstinence-only sex education.
Over that time, the Bush administration shelled out big bucks for programs designed to convince youngsters to wait until marriage to engage in sex. That was supposed to reduce the incidence of pregnancies and STDs among teens. It didn’t. Reports from public health officials decisively show that approach doesn’t work. There’s ample research to support that finding — and to suggest a more comprehensive approach to sex education is needed.
One thoroughly vetted survey indicates abstinence-only programs played no role in reducing the rate of teen sexual activity or in delaying teens from having sex for the first time. Another indicates that about half of all high school students have had sex. Another indicates that more than 3 million teen girls are among those with STD infections. All that strongly suggests that abstinence-only sex education fails to meet its stated goals.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I would like some facts that support the assertion that African-American girls are culturally more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock before the age of 15.
There were no facts in Joel’s post – at least, none that were supported.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, .6 percent of 507 is higher than 1.2 percent of 72. So a higher percent of girls under the age of 15 are having abortions in New York than are in Mississippi.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, no.
A higher number of girls under the age of 15 are aborting in NY. That’s because there are more girls.
But in MS, under 15s represent a higher percentage of all abortions performed.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, those stats are per 1000 live births not overall.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, the number of 15 & unders is expressed as a percentage of all abortions performed in the state.
Report comment to moderator
#23 – The African-American population in the South is higher, and statistics show that pregnancies out of wedlock are far higher in that poplulation.
You are on to something. The underlying article (linked by #4) notes that black women accounted for 36.4% of all abortions, which reflects a higher abortion rate than white women and women of other races. In fact, 36.4% is much higher than the population of African Americans as a whole. Interestingly, Planned Parenthood has its genesis in racist eugenics, as is well known. Abortion on demand in America can legitimately be seen as a continuation of eugenics in fact, if not purposely so.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, lets say you have 1000 New York girls and 1000 Mississippi girls. Of those New York girls 507 of them have an abortion. Of those 507 .7 percent of them are under 15. That 3.5. Of the Mississippi girls 72 have an abortion. Of those girls 1.2 are under fifteen. That’s .86. Therefore fewer girls per 1000 under the age of 15 are having abortions in Mississippi than are in New York.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, the honest thing to do is for you to admit that the Democrat party has been disrespectful and disdainful to the demographic of conservative Christians for decades. The Republican Party has been far more receptive and respectful to us. These are just facts for all to observe. They don’t force you to become a Republican. After all, you may like the fact that Demcorats are disdainful toward conservatives.
The Republican Party CANNOT “pander” for conservative votes unless they adopt conservative policies and follow through. To the degree that they don’t, they get hurt at the polls, as the last two elections confirm.
And, Thomas1, I cannot respect your stated “love” for “casual racism.” Shame on you for that, Thomas. I don’t know what you are referring to but it is wrong of you to “love” casual racism anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
Thank goodness for ANY program that works honestly to curtail the problem of sexual chaos in America and promotes the integrity of marriage in the mainds and hearts of young people. Nothing will diminish STDs and unwanted pregnancies better than such efforts. This is not about party or even political ideology. Let’s clean up the culture and teach morality and personal responsibility–at home, at church, at school, on TV and more.
Report comment to moderator
35 – KBells, there is indeed a difference between raw numbers and percentages.
Joel, you are suffering an irony deficiency.
This is not surprising.
Conservative Christians have been Republican patsys for a really long time. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
This is, as I said, not an issue of partisan politics. If Roe got repealed tomorrow, few states would criminalize abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Woman and minorities have been Democrat patsys for even longer. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
That’s the part I don’t get. Dems are supposed to be the party for women and minorities, yet they advocate for, and take money from, abortion providers who do great harm to them. It’s like battered wife syndrome. I don’t get it. It’s not logical.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1: Those numbers and the societal crisis they represent are, in large part, the legacy of eight years of abstinence-only sex education.
How is this assertion supported? For instance, if the cited numbers were significantly better in 2000, that would be consistent with this quote.
It would be easy to note that the STD rates, etc, were much lower in 1960 than they are today and conclude that all sex education is a failure.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy
the Roe effect is noted in Freakanomics to account for a lower crime rate. Apparently unwanted children to single mothers are more likely to live a life of crime and since Roe have been more likely to have been aborted. In this case, the Roe effect should have no effect on voting patterns since convicts rarely vote even if they are allowed.
Report comment to moderator
40. They control most of the media. When you have Oprah and Jon Stewart and Alan Alda continually telling them what monsters we are in the most entertaining way possible many start to believe the fiction as fact.
Report comment to moderator
At the risk of angering some of you, I agree with Thomas about the Republican Party. It has used us to get votes and then ignored us when it came to actually passing pro-life legislation. I’ve been mildly disgusted for several years and extremely disgusted for the last year with their treating their conservative Christian members and supporters as irrelevant and even as a hindrance to them.
Hence, I decided a few months ago to withdraw my support from the Republican Party. I will vote for Republicans under two conditions: (1) they have a proven pro-life voting record and (2) there is no third-party alternative to vote for. I intend to support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates from now on. No, they are not pro-life for the most part, but they are honest, and they are for economic freedom. If more of us pro-lifers make the switch, then we can move the party in the right direction.
In the presidential election, the most pro-life candidate, strangely enough, was the Libertarian candidate. Think about it.
Report comment to moderator
METANOIA @ 6: Thank you for a well placed, to the point comment.
How sad it is that so many are ready to defend the taking of an innocent human life simply for convenience sake.
Sadder still are those who speak with forked tongue and claim to be ‘against’ abortion, yet argue and nit pick over numbers, reasons, etc.
Abortion is murder, period.
To give even the least indirect support to the practice is an abomination.
Woe to them who congratulate themselves for being wise, but are fools in their hearts.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
As I read each of your entries I knew exactly where you were going with your remarks. Predictable.
Until you go into the schools and find out why abstinence didn’t work, you need to lay off.
If the people teaching abstinence made a mockery of it and taught what they wanted anyway, then calling a program “abstinence only” is just the leftist way of saying anything conservative just fails.
That’s like pointing to a Christian who is not a good example of a Christian and saying that Christianity has failed.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #37
I agree!
Report comment to moderator
Wisconsin and Vt are not on the list.
That is surprising given the “unchurched” status ea state has.
I think in Wyoming is a sparsely populated place. You tend to know folks better and maybe the remoteness makes you much more inclined to know them far longer before you hop in the sack.
Urban densely populated areas are probably saturated with promiscuity messages from the usual sources
I agree with #37 100%
Report comment to moderator
#44
Libertarians are never going to support repeal of Roe.
The Constitution Party, however,..
Report comment to moderator
Teen abortions accounted for only 20% of the total.
Report comment to moderator
From #8, “I can never understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and still support the killing of babies.”
That’s because you’re incorrectly redefining “baby” to include embryos. There are plenty of Christians who accept the fact that the two terms are not synonymous. Now do you understand, or does the “never” in your above statement mean you refuse to understand?
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON, during which week does an embryo become a baby?
Report comment to moderator
News2Me, I don’t even need to read your comments to know where they’re going.
You assume a lot of facts not in evidence, adopt a strident tone, and then drop a gem like this: That’s like pointing to a Christian who is not a good example of a Christian and saying that Christianity has failed.
Good thing I don’t do that! Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
KWatson,
Please answer Nana’s question. I am curious to see your answer.
Report comment to moderator
#42 HRW – Gee, that was a real in-depth analysis. Did you read the article? In your world, married women never have abortions, and there is no correlation between opposition to Roe v. Wade and the size of one’s family.
Report comment to moderator
Other good news about Mississippi is that we have the lowest number of so called “hate” crimes.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
You are a fine person and I agree with you an many moral issues, I’m sure. But in a profoundly practical sense, you are precisely why Obama is our President now and the Democrats are in full control of our future. Thinking like yours is why we now stand to lose sight of the political core of what America was founded to be (something I’m sure you don’t want). There are no checks and balances on the Democrats now because of thinking like yours. People as undistinguished as Al Franken are in congress precisely because of people just like you. You are the reason for the political ills that will result from these current political circumstances.
The Democrats won by trashing the Republican brand and by enjoying the full cooperation of the media in that process. You were the insturment played by the Democrats and liberals to accompany their seductive songs and lull decent people into anger and disdain for the imperfect Republican Party.
Report comment to moderator
The Republican Party exists to get votes (why get cynical about that?) because without votes, nothing can be done or accomplished in politics that is constructive. I am a registered Republican because I want a voice in the primaries and because their values and policies come much closer to reflecting the Constitution of the United States of America.
Kyle A,
When people like you abandon the Republican Party, it only gets worse than it was before and it puts total political power in the hands of leftists–even radical leftists. And the whole country also gets a lot worse.
The Libertarian Party is, for all practical purposes, pro-murder just like the Democrats and you are cutting off your hand to spite your foot.
You clearly are willing to hold the Republican Party to moral standards that you refuse to begin to hold for other parties. Whatis that?
_____________________
Report comment to moderator
Not sure what you mean at #48, Sawgunner.
Wisconsin has 138 abortions per 1,000 and Vermont has a horendous 257 per 1,000.
Report comment to moderator
There is only one abortion clinic in Ms..and its only open half a week at a time apparently.
That certainly helps to reduce Ms numbers.
Thomas, the assertion that abstinence education is failed is poorly correlated. They were teaching both that and condoms when I was in high school. It didnt help much then either, and I think the reason is is that you get maybe a couple hours a week in a health class and even less time on sex ed.
Meanwhile, kids, esp teens are watching hours of tv shows like Scrubs. See the season premier last night? 3 or 4 of em just hook up on screen like its nothing.
Sex ed will continue to lose this battle when the amount of education is far less than what teens are finding on tv and the internet.
Report comment to moderator
I am not pro-abortion. I have never asked for, performed, or been involved with an abortion.
Nevertheless, the evangelical Christian obsession with abortion strikes me as an infantile approach to morality.
Homosexuals, who should be allowed to have legal relationships, whether called civil unions or domestic partnerships, are the cause of very few abortions.
This is a very incoherent website, and a very incoherent and childish variety of the myth you call Christianity. Aside from that, you are splendid people, I am sure. For that matter, I am sure all the comments you post have prevented many abortions and have converted many homosexuals to heterosexuality. Please post twice as many comments by the time I get back from wood ministry. Your time is well spent, and may convince Christ to relent from sending you to Hell, though you can never be sure what He has on his mind in regard to you.
Report comment to moderator
What’s curious to me is how many want to gag the messenger. The ACLU successfully sued in our community to block the Free-to-Be-Me program–donated to the community for no cost and staffed by volunteers–to stop them from discussion abstinence and how to say “no” in our schools.
The program has been in our schools for 18 years with few complaints and only praise from the teachers in 33 schools, but that isn’t enough for the ACLU. The students will not be hearing a “different” side of the story this year.
And while these are volunteers, they’re not rank amateurs. Well trained, including the peer counselors, they know when to answer questions and when to send kids to do their own research. The program was well liked by the students, the teachers and the schools. Just the ACLU and their pals didn’t like anyone with an alternate viewpoint.
So who’s intolerant here? And what about the kids who now won’t have quite the same skill set to say no until they’re ready–whatever that means.
Report comment to moderator
Nana, David L.
An embryo doesn’t become a baby until it first becomes a fetus. In humans, the embryo becomes a fetus around the end of the second month of pregnancy. It’s only then that the body structures start to resemble the adult form (reduced tail, disappearance of “gill slits” etc.). Do you really need to have this stuff explained to you?
Report comment to moderator
Random, I know the story behind the birth of my adopted son. I can’t give you details. I don’t want to risk violating the privacy of the birth mother, but abortion would have been the easy way out for her. The idea that my precious child came so close to being chopped up and thrown in the trash makes abortion very serious and personal to me.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson, so you are against abortion after the second month?
Report comment to moderator
Two questions Kwatson.
1. Would you then agree to no abortion post 2nd month?
2. Does the embryo ever turn into anything other than a human fetus? In other words, why should the morphology of fertilized egg progression be a determining factor?
Report comment to moderator
KWatson,
At what point does the fetus become a baby? I don’t think its passage through the birth canal involves any substantial or essential change on its part, does it? So it must be earlier, right? When?
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to make heads or tails of what Kwatson is trying to say. The terms embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, middle age adult, and senior citizen, are just convenient words or phrases to describe general phases of human development from fertilization on. There is no clear breaking point when one goes from non-human being to human being. Furthermore, he appears to assume that visual resemblance to adult form is the defining characteristic of humanness, a premise for which there is no obvious support in medicine, philosophy, or theology. Also, it is well known that by the time a woman knows she’s pregnant and seeks an abortion, there is already heart and brain activity. Finally, it is worth noting that protection-of-unborn-life statutes (e.g., criminalizing a third party’s [usually boyfriend] act of assaulting the woman so as to kill the unborn child) protects the unborn from the moment of fertilization — making it a separate offense to harm the unborn child. Why would criminal liability attach if there is no victim in such cases?
Report comment to moderator
Thats my point as well Buzzy…morphology shouldnt make a difference if the genetics are still homo sapien…
Report comment to moderator
68, 69. Good point but his logic. A baby is not as human as a teenager and a teenager not as human as senior citizen.
Report comment to moderator
70. should be; by his logic a baby is not as human as a teenager and a teenager not as human as senior citizen.
Report comment to moderator
I am disappointed in Idaho.
Report comment to moderator
Idaho probably gets spillover from Wyoming, looking at the numbers and the fact that Cheyenne is in the extreme southeast corner of the state.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, because of driving across state lines for abortions, looking at the numbers by region, rather than by state, would be more informative.
Report comment to moderator
From The Guardian article comment and
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the U.S., but they under went approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Inst., black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the U.S.
A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 are 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.
The Margaret Sanger manifesto continues.
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting to see whether the abortion rate correlates with the poverty level of each state. Or, perhaps, with the percentage of African Americans in each state. I say that not as a slight against African Americans, but simply acknowledging that the abortion rate is higher among that community (most likely due to the higher rate of poverty). Could also test how well abortion rate correlates with “% Democratic voters”.
Report comment to moderator
75 cont’d – a Margaret Sanger letter re the eugenics movement stated that she wanted to hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. She thought the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
She didn’t want the word to go out that they wanted to exterminate the Negro population and thought a minister was the man who could straighten out that idea if it ever occurred to any of their more rebellious members.
We know that this evil attitude also led to sterilizations of those who didn’t match up to their kind of human beings.
Either all people have a right to life, or some do and some of don’t.
Report comment to moderator
#64
KBells I admire you for adopting a baby, and I am glad the baby was not aborted. Nevertheless, in overall context of worldmagblog and the discussions here, abortion and homosexuality are way out of proportion and obsessive and infantile.
I do not post this as an insult to you personally, but if you choose to take it that way, I am not much worried about it.
Again, I think much of the obsession about abortion reflects deflected anger at God about miscarriages. I have been close to people who have suffered miscarriages, but if you (individually or collectively) want to rail at me about the topic, be my guest.
Report comment to moderator
so you are against abortion after the second month?
No, I don’t think there is anything special about the moment an embryo has started to take on features that allow you to identify what species it is, after all, we already know what species it is.
why should the morphology of fertilized egg progression be a determining factor? At what point does the fetus become a baby?
Because the longer you wait the more human the fetus becomes.
I agree that there is no clear point when a fetus becomes a human being. Ants have heart and brain activity, and my sloughed off skin cells are genetically identical to me. Big deal. There’s more to being human than electrical activity in the brain or fluids circulating in a body. Ask yourself what makes you uniquely human. I doubt any of your answers could apply to a embryo or a unviable fetus.
Personally I would support a ban on abortions after some agreed upon point of fetal development, if the anti-abortion movement would agree to allow unfettered 1st trimester abortions. I think this would eliminate any question of “baby killing”, while not forcing women to carry babies they don’t want. Unfortunately, one of the tactics of the anti-abortion camp is to delay abortion as long as possible such that the moral dilemma becomes more pronounced.
Report comment to moderator
Random, I wasn’t railing at you. I was trying to explain why abortion is important to me the way a mother whose child was nearly run over by a drunk driver might become obsessed with drunk driving.
Do always see someone trying to communicate with you as railing?
Report comment to moderator
#79:
What?!?! Kwatson, are you some kind of closeted Christian? Of course there’s nothing more to being human than electrical activity and fluids! Or so atheists believe. The entire point of atheism is that there is nothing special about humans. We’re a cosmic accident. We have no soul.
As a Christian, I say what makes us special is that we’re God’s creation, and indeed were made in His Image. You bet that applies to embryos and fetuses.
Report comment to moderator
#79: And… What’s your description of being human that doesn’t apply to babies?
Of course, I’m still blown away that you seem to think there’s more to being human than chemistry.
I thought you were an atheist …?
Report comment to moderator
#80
If one person at worldmagblog said, “abortion is important to me because I adopted a child that might have been aborted,” I can understand that statement. One person railed at me because someone close to them had a miscarriage and thought I was indifferent. People close to me have had miscarriages, and I understand the shock and heartbreak. Topic after topic at wmb rails against abortion; comment poster after comment poster rails against abortion.
Comment poster after comment poster tells about how God works in their lives. Comment poster after comment poster tells about how they have experienced and observed miracles. Comment poster after comment poster tells about how miscarriages are simply accidents of nature. So when God changes your spouse to stop drinking or stop cheating, that is an act of God. When God lets your child be miscarried instead of doing a miracle, that’s just the way the universe works, or it is just God’s mysterious will.
This is method of arguing is known as “Heads we win; tails you lose.” Whatever happens, good or bad, is God’s will and God’s purpose. This strikes me as infantile philosophy and morality.
Report comment to moderator
#83: It’s “infantile” compared to what, exactly? Remember, you don’t have any morality. Or at least you shouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
If someone kills a child one day before it is born, it is fairly easy for me to regard that as murder. If someone takes a “day after pill,” that it not clearly murder to me. Birth control pills are not clearly murder to me.
Two consenting adult humans engaging in sexual relations while taking precautions against disease and pregnancy strikes me as somewhat dangerous, but not as dangerous or harmful as people engaging in sexual relations without taking those precautions.
Life has its good points, but to be born a human being at best involves suffering and the knowledge of mortality. If you are unlucky, being born a human being involves horrendous suffering.
Given the situation and the odds, what human being (if they had the intelligence to evaluate it) would choose to be born if there were some other choice and possibility?
If the child is innocent, would it not go straight to Heaven and miss the suffering of life?
If the child, no matter how young, is not innocent, then does it go to Hell because it had not had a chance to choose to believe in Jesus and be Saved?
If the child is not innocent, what is the deal if the child dies of a miscarriage?
Your theology doesn’t meet the most elementary standards of logic when examined under a microscope.
Report comment to moderator
This is totally true. And, if you believe that that is all there is, I can certainly understand why you’d support abortion. In fact, I’d be confused if you didn’t support something like abortion, that offered an escape from all that. In fact, I’d be confused if you didn’t support suicide….
Did you miss CT, a few months ago? S/he argued something very similar. Many people, myself included, spent several threads arguing the issue. If you really want, I could find what I wrote there.
On the other hand, all it takes for your “theology” is the naked eye.
Report comment to moderator
Random, there is no Christian theology of “luck.” Suffering is universal, personal and subjective. We must not override God in choosing life or Heaven for innocent human beings. Standards of logic are made by men; you can’t use a microscope to understand God’s values.
Report comment to moderator
TJS,
Atheism is not dogmatic. If someone tells me they are an atheist the only thing I can be sure of is what they don’t believe. Here at WMB I’ve certainlly witnessed plenty of conservative Christians telling other conservative Christians what atheists believe, and to me it almost always comes off as divisive and insulting. I can’t pretend to speak for all atheists, but I know allot of atheists, and I’ve never heard one of them express beliefs as ridiculous as those attributed to them here; yours included.
There is no point to atheism, it’s simply a lack of belief in God or gods. The fact that Atheists share many opinions isn’t a result of their atheism; their atheism is a result of their opinions.
Of course there is more to being human than electrical activity and fluids, that’s my whole point. Anybody who doesn’t object to abortions early in a pregnancy probably agrees with me. I believe the traits that make us uniquely human probably don’t arise until relatively late in a pregnancy. I’m talking about hoping and dreaming about the future like no other animal can, about appreciating beauty and art and music. If there is anything like a soul that makes us human, this is it, and it’s nothing we share with an embryo.
If you think abortion is bad because embryo’s are made in your god’s image, that’s fine, but it’s not really an argument, it’s an assertion. Prove it, and then you have the makings of an argument. When you can demonstrate the existence of a God given soul entering the freshly fertilized egg, I’ll be happy to reconsider my position.
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON 88 – You seem to think there’s nothing wrong with robbing a human life of the potential to hope and dream. Could my one-day-old baby do that? If not, prove it.
Report comment to moderator
#88: It is my understanding that atheism rejects belief in the supernatural. “Hoping and dreaming about the future?” “Appreciating beauty and art and music?” How exactly are these not chemical processes in the brain? How exactly did it happen, then, if not through natural evolution, (evolution of the chemical processes of life)?
And to extrapolate on what Nana said: how exactly do you claim to know that babies hope, or dream, or appreciate art and music? How can you claim to know that fetuses don’t? Or that animals don’t? Are you saying that we can somehow measure these things, (as you seem to want me to do with God), and prove that they exist in one thing but not another?
Report comment to moderator
#87
Comes across to me as “You can’t understand God’s values, but I am sure I do, so you must believe what I tell you about God.”
I don’t believe you know any more about what God wants then I do. Why should I think you do?
Report comment to moderator
#89 and #90
As far as I know, our thoughts and emotions are nothing more than chemical processes in our brains. This is quite consistent with the wide variety of human behavior and communication.
Most people believe what they are raised to believe. Some don’t. In Hindu countries, most people grow up to be Hindus. In Buddhist countries, most people grow up to be Buddhists. In Muslim countries most people grow up to be Muslims. Not only that, they most grow up to hold to the exact flavor of their belief system.
Among Christians, most raised to be Protestants grow up to be Protestants. Most raised to be Catholics grow up to be Catholics.
In all cases, there are variations. Humans are immensely complicated, and it is not yet possible to completely control and shape them, but as soon as you depart from individual cases and deal with statistically significant numbers, most follow the designated path.
It is quite amusing to see so many people talking about children becoming Christians at 5 or 6 or so, in age. This is not consistent with adult decision making and choice; this is consistent with indoctrination of a young mind before it can make intelligent decisions. Most people do not want to raise children who are autonomous, intelligent evaluators of possibilities. Most parents want to raise children who will little intellectual and clones of themselves. As there is no guarantee that we survive after our death, the more likely way to feel immortal is to produce little copies that reflect and perpetuate our values and behavior.
This is probably one of the reasons why so many evangelical Christians are so obsessed with reproduction and producing as many children as possible. If you produce five children, the odds increase the chances that at least one will be a satisfying reproduction of yourself in terms of perpetuating your appearance, your values, your behavior, and so on.
There is no evidence there is a God. The human enthusiasm for believing there is one is based to a large extent on wishful thinking.
The constant repetition at this web site does not exude confidence. It projects doubt and desperation. Worldmagblog is like a huge hall of shaky mirrors.
Report comment to moderator
Random 91 – that’s what you got out of my post #87?? No wonder you’re confused. Doubt and desperation seem to be where you’re coming from. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. This blog just seems to upset you all the time.
Report comment to moderator
83. Random, I make rules for my son. One rule is if he want a toy or a treat and it is not his birthday or Christmas, he buys it with his allowance. If he uses up all his allowance and sees something he really wants, he’s just our out of luck. But occasionally I might break the rules myself and pick up a little gift that I want him to have just because I love him. I don’t do this often. If I did he would grow up to be a spoiled brat who treated me like an ATM.
That’s kind of the way God works. The universe has rules. Rules of Science, rules of logic. But God made the rules and he can occasionally break them. That’s what a miracle is. God breaking his own rules just to let us know he’s there and he loves us.
I am trying to keep my voice down so you won’t think I’m railing at you.
Report comment to moderator
For the statistically minded…
I grabbed data for “% of voters who voted for Obama”, “% of population that is African American” and “% of population living under the poverty line” for 47 states. I had to omit California, Louisiana and New Hampshire since they don’t report abortion statistics.
Then I checked how well each of those statistics correlates with “abortions per 1000 live births”. Percent poverty and percent African American didn’t correlate at all. Percent voted for Obama correlated fairly well, though there were some big outliers.
Another thing to consider- the number of abortions in a given state received by non-residents also varies HUGELY from state to state:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/out_of_state_94.asp
2% of abortions in Texas were by non-residents. 40% of abortions in Kansas were by non-residents. Kansas, by the way, was one of the “outlier” states in that its abortion rate was much higher than one would expect given the % of Obama voters.
Report comment to moderator
#51 Unfortunately, among people identifying themselves as Christians, there are many who don’t regard the fetus as human. I’ve read most of the responses to KWatson and have appreciated them; one even mentioned the fact that we are created in the image of God. God leaves us free to form our many opinions, but there is only one source of truth and that His word (we should know because He has miraculously fulfilled the many prophecies mentioned in the scriptures–only a few remain unfulfilled). The answer to this argument about when a embryo or fetus becomes a human is well said in Psalm 139. After the description of God forming the life in the womb, verse 16 says “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: I am not an atheist, but I know a few. I think they would tell you that life has meaning because they choose to invest it with meaning and enjoy their passage on the earth even if there is no larger purpose to it. Many atheists are civic-minded and interested in helping others, and eager to be engaged in activities that better society. And if you asked them why they bother, you’d get a variety of answers, but none would reflect the bleakness you are so sure simply must be their lot.
In short, you may think you’re being clever, but the way you consistently describe atheists does not match my experience with them. In a way, they may get more out of life than many Christians; since they believe it is all they have, they are determined to wring every bit of fulfillment and joy out of it that they can.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm. If this were true, then I wonder why they shackle themselves to silly ideas of altruism or helping the group/society. Hedonism would be the way to go, or so I gather from imagining my behavior under a similar circumstance. Plus, investing your life with meaning yourself is so pointless. Besides the fact that you are then the only thing keeping yourself from doing anything, you simply have no meaning yourself to start with or give to life. I’m thinking you can’t give something you don’t have. And an atheist, like anyone else, realizes his or her own mortality. What meaning can anything have for you once you no longer exist?
This is what strikes me as inconsistent. I simply can’t imagine a reason why this should be the case. The vast majority of atheists talk about this phenomenon of helping society and others as an evolutionary survival method on the species level. I don’t see that this idea works. Your actions aren’t dictated by genes, at least for the most part. You could still overcome it, and there’s plenty of reasons to. And, I don’t see that it could have come about in the first place. Humans should have died out upon acquiring reason.
I don’t know, Random is pretty bleak sometimes.
Seriously though, I have asked, and I have gotten a few answers, (mainly the one I referenced above), and none of them seem to work very well.
Mine either, for the most part. This is why I refer to it as inconsistent, and talk about being confused by it.
Seems to me to be a perfect reason to be hedonistic and totally unethical. Of course, I’ve said before, once you realize that it is all you have, and that it can be so filled with suffering and stress, I’d imagine suicide would be tempting. When I ask myself, for example, “TJS, why have you not committed suicide?,” the answers I give myself revolve around religion. God has a plan, or God has said it’s wrong, or I care about my friends and family, (which I’d have no reason to as an atheist), or some such. Atheists don’t have that.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: Seems to me to be a perfect reason to be hedonistic and totally unethical.
Well, that’s you.
But most atheists are apparently better than that.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!