Stand-Your-Ground to Justify Abortion.

Our state is in the news this week.  A federal Judge ruled on one of the anti abortion bills passed by our recent North Dakota Legislature.  The Judge not only ruled the bill unconstitutional, he added some critical comments.

Anti abortionists continue to come up with new definitions of ”when human life begins”.  In current bills, it is when a heart beat is detected.  Perhaps in the future it will be something about eyes or hair.  One thing is certain, they will be creative.

Perhaps, those of us who support a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body can be creative as well.  It occurred to me stand-your-ground laws that allow someone to kill another could be used by women to protect their rights.

I don’t know much about the stand-your-ground laws, but I heard this:  The Florida version says a person can kill another if he/she perceives danger to himself.  Note the word, perceives.

We know one thing about pregnancy, it is dangerous.  Giving birth is one of the leading causes of death to women worldwide. Historically, it has been about one death in 100 pregnancies.  Last year in India preganancy to the lives of 56,000 women.

Just as behavior by someone an unarmed person can be perceived as a dangerous threat, it seems reasonable to me a pregnancy, that is, the fetus, can be perceived by some women as a threat to their lives.

Statistics show the threat is there.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/six-week-abortion-ban-halted-temporarily-by-judge-in-north-dakota-100691/

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indmaternalmortality/en/index.html

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Stand-Your-Ground to Justify Abortion.

  1. Henry says:

    Some progressives do not like the progress of technology since 1973, rather relying on the obstetrician’s ability to scrawl on a slip of paper for determination of human or not. This really isn’t about the right to privacy. It is about avoiding the telling tale of new technology so that convenience of lifestyle is exercised. Current technology’s verdict is viability at very early stages, which ND law has changed to embrace.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 12:57 “It’s about technology…”

      In the end, anti abortion is about taking away the rights of the mother. There is no way to avoid that. It would be better if “pro life” people would focus on life issues of people after date of birth. There is no shortage of these issues. They just don’t have the appeal of anti abortion politics.

      • Henry says:

        Jon:“if “pro life” people would focus on life issues of people after date of birth.”

        Jon, your premise implies that pro-abort people hold the high ground on life issues after the doctor’s scrawl. I suspect this is far from universally true. If so, the pro-abort people would have a number of homes available on their dime for expectant mothers who CHOOSE to birth their baby. I am unaware of any. It seems they simply like to fund clinics that terminate the heart beat of the baby.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          “homes ….for expectant mothers”

          It’s not the 1940′s anymore, Henry. People don’t go away anymore like they did when you were young. They just stay home because there is not stigma against women who get pregnant. No special homes needed. Isn’t progress great?

          • Henry says:

            Again, I am unaware of the pro-abort people supporting homes, whether communal or individual, for expectant mothers. That would be progress.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            Henry, I repeat, there are no unwed mothers homes. Plenty of liberals support their daughters who get pregnant and want to keep their babies. What are you talking about, Henry.

          • Henry says:

            r:“I repeat, there are no unwed mothers homes.”

            There are. Is ignorance bliss for you?

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            Is there one somewhere? I suppose, but the vast majority of them closed when it became OK for girls to stay in their own homes and give birth.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      “viability at very early stages”

      The law that was found unconstitutional was to disallow abortions from as early as 6 weeks of pregnancy. At 6 weeks, technology can not keep a fetus alive. North Dakota has embraced radical legislation that has a total ban on abortion as it’s goal.

      “convenience of lifestyle”

      This is cited as the reason most women have abortions, but it is not supported by the facts. Nobody has an abortion for superficial reasons. There is a meme that has gotten started about convenience as a reason, but, again, it is not supported by the facts. If you don’t believe in abortions Henry, don’t have one.

      • Henry says:

        “At 6 weeks, technology can not keep a fetus alive.”

        Nor was that claimed, rather the telling tale of viability.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          Viability when used to refer to a fetus means its ability to live outside the womb. So yes, that’s what was claimed.

          • Henry says:

            A suckling baby can’t live outside the womb without the proper nutrition. With your standard of viability, we would have to move the standard of human life well beyond the doctor’s scrawl, making termination of suckling babies legal. I would disagree with that.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            But it CAN exist for more than 3 seconds outside the womb. We’re not taking about nutrition here. We’re talking ability to breath etc.

          • Henry says:

            r:“We’re talking ability to breath etc.”

            I thought we were talking of viability.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          You’re hopeless, Henry.

          • Henry says:

            Your arguments are inconsistent. Inconsistent argument is what is upheld and is the law of the land. You should pat yourself on the back, being on the winning side of the legal argument.

          • josh says:

            Boom. You are right Henry. Good Win!

      • Wolfy32 says:

        Realist, one of the most outspoken women in support of the abortion clinic was asked “Why do you support the abortion clinic”. Her response, keeping in mind this was portrayed by local news as a very outspoken spokeswoman for the clinic. “I got pregnant during an extramarital affair and decided to have the abortion to save my marriage.” I know another woman that did the same thing, had an abortion to hide her extramarital activities from her husband. What’s funny is her husband found the receipt for the abortion and didn’t have the nerve to ask her why she did it until a year later. And she told the truth and told him yes, she did, then divorced him.

        I agree there are cases where a baby is a threat to a mom. And I would be totally o.k. with trying to save the mom’s life. Or a rape victom, has enough to deal with than raising an attackers baby.

        I understand in some cases it’s necessary. However, I’m sorry but “to save my marriage” doesn’t really cut it for me…

        Then again, I’m anti marriage, so, my own point may be rather moot. :)

  2. Alex says:

    You can’t serious bring up the maternal mortality rates in other countries like India as a reason women should be able to cite “Stand Your Ground” laws as justification for abortion in America. Also, in one of the links you provided, there’s this nugget: “Maternal death is, from an epidemiological perspective, a RELATIVELY RARE EVENT and mortality is difficult to measure accurately.” (Emphasis mine). But yeah…it’s a huge concern, right? And, even though this is kind of a trite argument, if a women is legitimately scared for her life because she’s pregnant, she probably should’ve thought of that before having unprotected sex.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Alex 1:02 Welcome to your first time post.

      “Relatively rare event.”

      Lots of things could be considered “relatively rare”. That is, the majority of time, things work out fine. Driving drunk probably doesn’t hurt anyone most of the time.

      I can only repeat, being pregnant is one of the leading causes of death in women.

      • josh says:

        By your logic John. Then we should use our technology to somehow arm the child in utero so that when some Physician (et I use that term loosely) attempts to kill it, he/she can defend itself (standing his/her ground) in their home (the womb). You conviently leave out the rights of the child in utero and focus soley on the rights of the mother. Though we have proven court cases that defend the child in utero from the mother or father when she/he is attempting either voluntarily or involuntarily to harm the child. I.E. Local, Martina Greywind (Paint huffing during pregnancy.) I suspect that the pro abortion crowds agenda is far more insidious than just “protecting the rights of the mother.”

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      Many of the women who end up having an abortion wanted to get pregnant. Many bad things can happen when a pregnancy has problems. Women should have options when a fetus has no possibility of life. Unprotected sex has nothing to do with many abortions.

  3. Avatar of realist realist says:

    Interesting take on “stand your ground”. I have always thought that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a given. It is truly odd that shooting a living breathing person is legal if you feel threatened by that person, but dissolving the equivalent of a blood clot is so terrible that laws have been passed by those obsessed with keeping women from owning their own bodies. It would be interesting legal case, though in states that allow stand your ground.

    • Dan T says:

      Except that if women truly owned their own bodies, they could have prevented the potentially troublesome “blood clot” in the first place . . .not unlike an argument posed by some that Zimmerman should have been convicted because he was “looking for trouble”.

      • Avatar of realist realist says:

        Many people believe that women having abortions are those who got pregnant accidentally, but actually, many woman who have abortions wanted to get pregnant, but have problems that can not be remedied by medical science.

        • Dan T says:

          Understood. But even the Guttmacher Institute puts mothers health as the primary reason in only about 3% of the cases (the report shows 12% as a contributing reason) – in either case it takes a distant back seat to convenience issues, while I believe is an inadequate reason.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            Reasons for getting an abortion are complex and many, while health-based, are not situations where the mother will die if the pregnant continues. However, the health of the mother can be impacted negatively without having her lose her life. For example, the woman who conceives at 52 and is diabetic; or the woman who has been told that a fourth pregnancy will be very difficult and not a good idea. These things happen all the time. Women don’t just have abortions because it will ruin their trip to Europe next summer, although there are exceptions to everything.

          • Dan T says:

            Most of the reasons I saw in the Guttmacher report “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
            Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives” were things that were in place before the pregnancy began. The data tell me that we (society) are all too willing to take out someone else if it interferes with our idea of what our life should be. Abortion just happens to do that to someone who can’t fight back. That’s an indefensible position when there are less destructive options available.

        • Dan T says:

          It’s interesting how 2nd Amendment and Abortion issues seem to have some common threads. I can see why one would want to protect the right to an abortion to maintain the capability for a minority that may need it to defend their life – it’s the same reason the 2nd amendment protects a last-ditch recourse for a minority that finds itself threatened.

        • StanB says:

          Some are aborted for medical reasons.ess the 5% for incest or rape.

    • josh says:

      You have always assumed would be a better statement. You know what happens when you assume. It’s comforting to know that an idividual who equates a human life to that of a blood clot is living among us. You and Dexter would get along well.

  4. Brad says:

    The Pro-Lifers are in reality Pro-Death. Pro death penalty, pro-stand your ground (shoot first, ask questions later), pro-gun, pro-war, anti-environment, anti-safety regulations, etc.

    Pro-lifer politicians don’t give a rat’s rear end about a fetus. A fetus is nothing more than a political pawn used to manipulate people’s emotions and get them to vote Republican.

    My question is, what point is there is saving a fetus when all you are going to do is throw them under the bus the minute they are born? Force a woman to have a kid she don’t want, and then whine about “welfare queens” with illegitimate children living off the government.

    I think maybe it’s just pure sadism. Bring more people into the world for the sole purpose of having more people to inflict pain and misery on and kill and destroy.

    • Dan T says:

      I can’t believe I’m responding to such a collection of obtuse talking points, but you caught me in a moment of weakness, Brad.

      Another poster to this thread mentioned Lutheran Social Services programs. The post-birth options are there – I have 4 older siblings (and 4 in-laws and 12 nieces/nephews) because that system provided options. There’s little evidence to compel me to believe that there’s a need to duplicate them with another government-managed solution.

      • Brad says:

        “There’s little evidence to compel me to believe that there’s a need to duplicate them with another government-managed solution.”

        I never said that. My only point is that these so-called pro-lifers are actually pro-death based on their policies which are decidedly against human life.

        • Dan T says:

          Then I misunderstood your statements regarding “throw them under the bus the minute they are born” – I’ve only heard that argument used in the context that Conservative pro-lifers don’t provide adequate funding to support kids after they are born. Is there another way you can come to your “pro-life = pro-death” conclusion based on your question?

  5. StanB says:

    I think We should have the same abortion rules as France. None after twelve weeks without approval of a three doctor panel. Or Denmark….twelve weeks.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Stan 2:50 “I think we should have the same rules as France…Denmark.”

      I think we men should butt out.

      • StanB says:

        Jon, I didn’t write the original post…..you did. So why don’t WE butt out? Over 50% of women polled think that abortions after 20 weeks (5 months) should be banned except for when the mother is i physical danger.

      • josh says:

        I think it’s time we manned up and butted in. We provide half the gentic material John. What this whole argument really comes down to is who’s the dominant sex and who should be running the show. Unfortunately weak liberal males like yourself that want to be dominated by a matriarchy have effectively immasculated many of our young men during their eduactional upbringing and you can see the results as society fails. I’m for men running the show. I choose not to be dominated by them.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          Yikes. “Dominant sex”. Really? Aside from questions about what century you currently reside in, because you only provide 50% of the genetic materials, what makes you automatically the one to “run…the show”?

          • josh says:

            Because men are superior. They think rationally and logically. Woman think emotionally and by design are submissive. Ever work with woman? It’s a constant drama show and if left totheir own designs nothing would be accomplished except to make more babies.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            josh 3:20 “Because men are superior.”

            I had not noticed.

          • Matt says:

            your not helping the cause here josh….

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          josh 6:37 “What this whole argument really comes down to is who’s the dominant sex and who should be running the show. Unfortunately weak liberal males like yourself that want to be dominated by a matriarchy have effectively immasculated many of our young men during their educational upbring and you can see the results as society fails.”

          You have hit the nail on the head. Anti abortion is not about “protecting the defenseless” and other such nonsense, it’s about male power over females. Your view that things are better when males dominate is a religious view. It is a religous view shared by many women. The concept of male superiority came along with Christianity. Before Christianity, females dominated the cultures.

          We should adopt reality. Reality is racial segregation was bad for us all. Once we unleashed the ideas, talents and resources of all people by treating them as equals, we all benefited from the conbributions of those who were treated as less than equals. The same is true for gender and sexual orientation.

          • josh says:

            No John. It’s not a religous view. It’s a reality view. It is about protecting the defenseless. Because as the dominant sex who think rationally and logically unlike woman who think emotionally, we have to stand up to defend those who cannot. Men are superior to woman and history proves that. Woman are happier and far more content when men run the show. oh,woman will piss and moan, but that’s the nature of woman. It’s just something you have to deal with.
            Racial segregation was bad for us? Yeah right. All of this diversity is really workiung out well isn’t it. Thank you LSS. We had a paradise in this country and now it’s been pissed away. You think it’s so great John. Go take a walk in the south fargo apt. complex area after dark. Go take a tour of the welfare office some afternoon. Also nobody receives any benefit from some misguided person who’s been mislead by liberal misguided people (for their own pleasure) that prancing around and behaving like a freak in drag is normal.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          I’ve heard it said, that men are more emotional about some things than women.

          I tend to agree with that statement as a man. Men are as emotional as women about some things. You have to include all ranges of emotion, since we feel emotions at all times. Are brains are wired such that the only time we don’t feel emotion is maybe when we’re sleeping. Whether it be pain, boredom, sad, happy, passion, compassion, etc. Men are as emotional beings as women. We just express those emotions in different ways, and if one doesn’t express them at all.. Well, then one has issues because that’s not healthy and should see a therapist or counselor.

          Men are no better or worse than women. They are however, different from women in many ways. And the types and how we express our emotions is different than how women express theirs.

        • Jinx says:

          Josh, I am a woman and I highly resent your medieval backwards uneducated statement. I’m not going to bother refuting your uninformed beliefs with facts. In a relationship, both sexes should be the model of equality. I pity your female partner, if you even have one.

          • josh says:

            That’s because inside you know it’s the truth and there’s nothing you can do about it.

  6. Dan T says:

    That’s not a half-bad concept, if applied the same way. “Perceived threat” issues are addressed thoroughly in classes for concealed weapons permits, and they boil down to this: you must expect to make a judgment call, but a jury will have the final say as to whether the facts of the case warranted that decision. Personally, I think a woman would have a hard time convincing a jury that a normal, uneventful pregnancy threatened “loss of life or “great bodily harm”. I can imagine the ensuing court cases would bring up all sorts of nuances about comparative risks, actual threat capability of the assailant, capability of the “attacked” to retreat (i.e. not get into the situation in the first place), etc.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Someone brought up last week the thought of the fetus being a parasite. Same as getting rid of tape worms I guess. By extension, children continue to be parasites until they move out of home and go on their own. If they know you feel that way about them, they will never return, even for your funeral.

      • StanB says:

        There is now a call in the Netherlands for child euthanasia including up to 2 years old if it threatens the the well being of its mother……..

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          Can’t believe everything you read on the internet. The Netherlands have been accused of a laundry list of transgressions that have their basis in laws not unlike Oregon’s death with dignity laws.

  7. Michael Ross says:

    My mother was a social worker at Lutheran Welfare Society (now Lutheran Social Services) from 1958 until she retired in 1973. She worked in adoption and casework of unwed mothers. There were two homes for unwed mothers supported by LSS: The Florence Kritinen home (now Frazer Hall for developmentally disabled) and Luther Hall at 5th ave. and 15th st. S. Idon’t know what it is used for now.

    It was a stigma to be pregnant and not married in those years so typically if the guy wouldn’t man-up and marry whom he knocked-up the young lady would leave town and seek a home such as those noted here until the baby was born and most often place it for adoption. While not perfect, this system upheld the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage and was a great restraint upon promiscuity.

    • Brad says:

      ” While not perfect, this system upheld the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage and was a great restraint upon promiscuity.”

      That was the era of denial. There were still abortions, and there was still mass promiscuity, it was just denied and pretending that it didn’t exist. The 1960s was the era that pulled mask off the whole ugly mess.

      • Dan T says:

        Denial of what? Adoption doesn’t deny those things are happening, it just provides a way of addressing it that gives both woman and child a chance for a good life without killing one of them. How is that uglier than the current situation?[rhetorical question - I don't expect to get an answer that will further the discussion anymore than we've already heard]

        We are living in the age of denial – one that freely allows women a choice that can scar them far more than knowing their child went to a family that wanted him/her.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          The reality of it is that the number of abortions done in the United States has remained about the same over the years regardless of it’s legal status. That means banning abortions really doesn’t reduce the number; women will find a way as they did in the years before 1973. What does reduce abortions is freely available birth control. A recent study showed a huge reduction of abortions when birth control was freely available to women; a reduction of around 70%. For those people who are pro-life, they really need to be active in women’s health at the local level. So how many of them are? Who know, but I expect most put their energy into banning abortion because it’s a “feel good” sort of effort that actually does very little to stem the number of abortions that are done.

          • Dan T says:

            I can speak only for myself, but my reason for supporting anti-abortion legislation is the same as my reason for supporting tough (almost draconian) DUI laws – I know both still happen, but the consequence of either should be grave enough to give you pause about your actions (both of which can affect another without their consent or ability to react). I’m all for proactive women’s health, but that’s not a reason to forego making a strong statement that threatening the defenseless is wrong, and is not an option that is easily tolerated.

  8. Formerly Fargo Bob says:

    Am I mistaken or are there only men here debating what rights women should have over their own bodies?

    • Michael Ross says:

      I do believe the conversation is open to women.

      According to Gallup, the share of women who thought abortions should be legal under any circumstances varied from 22% to 34% between 1975 and 2009. The share of men who took the same view varied from 21% to 29%.
      What about the no exceptions position? The percentage of women who thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances ranged from 15% to 21%, while the share of men who took the no exceptions pro-life view varied from 13% to 19%. In 2009, 21% of women and 16% of men took the no exceptions position.
      Bottom line: Men and women hold very similar views on abortion and under which circumstances it should be available. Women are slightly more likely to hold an absolutist view — either that abortion should be “legal in all circumstances” or “illegal in all circumstances.

      http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/22/do-men-and-women-view-abortion

    • Dan T says:

      It is a human rights issue, not a women’s rights issue. The right to do what you want with one’s body (male or female) ends when those actions endanger others without giving them a chance to fight or flee.

    • Henry says:

      FFB:“Am I mistaken or are there only men here debating what rights women should have over their own bodies?”

      Why stop there with your sexist bigotry? With your rationale, people past the age of child bearing shouldn’t have a say either. I would disagree with that.

      Strange how the progressives like to limit speech when they hear diverse viewpoints. The way they carry on, they are supposed to be the ones holding the high ground for free speech. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

    • Jinx says:

      Thanks FFB! You men keep your hands off my rights and my body!!!!

      • josh says:

        I’ll bet getting men to keep their hands off your body takes no effort at all. Just one look at you ought to do it.

      • Matt says:

        i do believe it take two people for that baby to be created… my children are every bit mine as they are my wifes… as men we need to take responsibility and stand up for the protection of our children because we are equally responsible for their life ….we wont even go into the terrible negative side effects that an abortion has on the mother…

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Matt 11:23 “We won’t even go into the terrible negative side effects that an abortion has on the mother.”

          You make it sound like abortions universally have terrible effects on women. That’s just not true. It makes it sound like women who have abortions are irrational, taking a risk they are not aware of. The many thousands of women who have abortions every month know about the procedure and make a rational choice. If the outcomes were universally terrible, they would not choose it.

          • Matt says:

            the decisions we make have an effect of us physically as well as spiritually…. sometimes we dont recognize or realize what those effects are… especially when they are spiritual…

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Matt 10:50 “sometimes we don’t recongize or realize what those effects are especially when they are spiritual.”

            A nonbeliever would see these as effects in the human mind–not an independent or separate “spiritual” thing. So far as anyone has been able to determine, there is no such thing as a spiritual effect–although if it helps people to deal with their lives it’s OK to believe it is there.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; your “Although if it helps people deal with their lives it’s OK to believe it is there.” IS a spiritual effect. Making void your …”there is no such thing as a spiritual effect.”

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 2:41 “IS a spiritual effect”

            There you go again, self-made definitions of “grace” and “spirituality, always designed not to be accountable, testable or varifiable. I happy it works for you. As to making such individual concepts apply to all, there is, intellectually, nobody home.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            There you go again” Trying to deny what you said, and verifiable with your own words.

            Grace is not my invention.

            Can’t make it apply to all, (you), if nobody is at home, or accountable.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            This is fun.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 3:10 “This is fun.”

            I agree. When people come up with concepts in the faith, i. e., “spirituality” or “grace”, and various versions of the concepts float around, and, someone claims there are absolutes, it is fun.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; See my 3:00. More funner all the time.

    • David says:

      This is a canard. Are we to say that men can have no opinions on abortion? I’m not a woman but I’m against rape. I’m not a child but I’m against pedophilia. What about the women that are against abortion. How dare you comment in favor of abortion! Roe v. Wade was decided by men! How could they have made such a decision when none of them were women. This is just a silly argument.

  9. David says:

    Jon, that’s not really how stand your ground works. It’s not a question whether someone perceives that they are in risk of losing their life, but rather would a reasonable person believe they are in risk of losing their life. I do think preservation of a mother’s life is a reasonable ground for an abortion. However, giving birth is less risky than having an abortion. Maternal death rates fell in Chile once abortion was banned. Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has the lowest maternal death rate. Thus, in general it would unreasonable to think that having an abortion will lower your chances of death.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      Apples and oranges, David. You got your causes and your effects all mixed up. You are comparing two independent variables as if one depended on the other. No so. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure.

      • Henry says:

        “Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure.”

        Yeah, real safe. You’ll be in good hands.
        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/09/end-road
        At least 50% die from the procedure.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 11:22 “At least 50% die from the procedure.”

          WHAT?? The link does not say that. The doctor says he has never lost a patient. Nearly all were able to have children again.

          The story is about a couple, she is pregnant with a fetus with no brain. Those fetus’ should be aborted, everyone dies shortly after being born.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            josh I did see your post. You can send me a private message at jon.lindgren@redriverfreethinkers.org

            Apparently you made a mistake with your return email address and this needs to be corrected. You are welcome to comment here as soon as this is corrected.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“The doctor says he has never lost a patient.”

            I wouldn’t expect him to have. That would be expected to happen under another doctor’s care in the ER if the procedure didn’t go well.

            The “at least 50%” statistic is from the baby(s) that is crudely expelled each and every time. They don’t survive.

      • David says:

        Not apples and oranges. Having a child is safer than having an abortion. Thus, you wouldn’t be standing your ground or using self defense. Eliminating a threat (having a baby) that you know will put you in a more detrimental situation (having an abortion) is not self defense but rather the opposite – all things being equal. Where there is a threat to a mother outside of the normal range of pregnancy that is a different situation, because in that situation the abortion may be more safe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>