Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill T

Another thing which is rarely talked about, but due to the President's view that a young woman's life is ruined by an unwanted pregnancy, it seems relevant to note that there can be complications from the abortion procedure, and also emotional and psychological trauma after the procedure.

National abortion policy is built upon this judicial “fact” that abortion is a “safe” procedure. If this “fact” is found to be false, then national policy toward abortion must be re-evaluated. Indeed, if it is found that abortion may actually be dangerous to health of women, there is just cause for governments to regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect their citizens. This is especially true since over 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year.

Since the Court’s ruling in 1973, there have been many studies into the aftereffects of abortion. Their combined results paint a haunting picture of physical and psychological damage among millions of women who have undergone abortions.

National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (2%) were considered major.9,11
Over one hundred potential complications have been associated with induced abortion. “Minor” complications include: minor infections, bleeding, fevers, chronic abdominal pain, gastro-intestinal disturbances, vomiting, and Rh sensitization. The nine most common “major” complications which are infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock.

While the immediate complications of abortion are usually treatable, these complications frequently lead to long-term reproductive damage of much more serious nature.
For example, one possible outcome of abortion related infections is sterility. Researchers have reported that 3 to 5 percent of aborted women are left inadvertently sterile as a result of the operation’s latent morbidity.33,23 The risk of sterility is even greater for women who are infected with a venereal disease at the time of the abortion.30
In addition to the risk of sterility, women who acquire post-abortal infections are five to eight times more likely to experience ectopic pregnancies.7,20 Between 1970-1983, the rate of ectopic pregnancies in USA has risen 4 fold.4 Twelve percent of all maternal deaths due to ectopic pregnancy.2 Other countries which have legalized abortion have seen the same dramatic increase in ectopic pregnancies.14,30
Cervical damage is another leading cause of long term complications following abortion. Normally the cervix is rigid and tightly closed. In order to perform an abortion, the cervix must be stretched open with a great deal of force. During this forced dilation there is almost always causes microscopic tearing of the cervix muscles and occasionally severe ripping of the uterine wall, as well.

Cervical damage from previously induced abortions increase the risks of miscarriage, premature birth, and complications of labor during later pregnancies by 300 – 500 percent.12,15,19,33 The reproductive risks of abortion are especially acute for women who abort their first pregnancies

Record based studies in the United States and Finland have shown that the maternal death rate associated with abortion is significantly higher than for women who give birth, who have miscarriages, or who have not been pregnant.36

Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions.3,23,35 Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.3

afterabortion.org...

But I guess all that stuff is just "collateral damage".

reply to post by Rockpuck


Maybe the sons should be taught to keep in their pants and the girls should cross their legs....saying a boy isn't 50% responsible is nonsense...he participated, he pays.

reply to post by Maslo


Better to be dead than suffer from a mother who doesn't want you....interesting choice.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

How about if we insist that every young man get a reverseable vasectomy at puberty?

Sometimes it can't be reversed, often can however... but wouldn't want to have one before puberty. You can't even have your animals "fixed; by a reputable vet until old enough. But I agree its up to guys as well to "deal with" the fact it takes two to tango. And geesh, I'm a guy and why are so many freaked out about a vasectomy? I was stunned to once hear some guy say, "they aint gona castrate me"!

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Maslo

 

Because the embryo is a human and not a tree.

Embryo => Zygot => fetus => newborn human

An embryo is not a human. Otherwise it would be called a human and not called an embryo.

An embryo developing inside a human is a human embryo. You are being quite obtuse.

A tree sapling or seedling is still a tree.

A chicken egg is a developing chicken.

Do you understand that?

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by karen61057

 

I said I am against funding birthcontrol and abortion...your reply is useless and ignorant.

I don't think anyone's sex life is anybody's business....being crass is not cute.

What would you prefer, funding abortion or birth control? So many ant-choicer's howl about an abortion but also want to do nothing to prevent them in the first place. If so called "pro-life" I would think any rational person unless one thinks women are only good as baby machines, would jump at the many benefits of funding birth control. As is said one can pay me now or later, and have to deal w/a major problem. That includes issues of public health which so many Republicans scream about funding as well. And I also agree, stay the hell out of my or anyones bed room.

How about not getting pregnant in the first place without planning it. I understand accidents will happen, but use some contraception geez...

As long as Republicans continue to vote for morons who support war on Iran and pretty much all Middle Eastern or muslim nations, I say kill all the babies you want ladies. 2nd or third trimester, sure do it, even if it is illegal. If it is ok to drop bombs over civiliann neighborhoods on the other side of the world, it should be ok to kill unborn children in this country. At least the unborns will not experience loss. Families are being torn asunder, children who have already begun to experience joy, emotions and love for their parents are being blow apart daily. That however is ok with the general conservative ideology. Preventing a an entity that has yet to experience any memories or emotions of signifigance or make any contribution to society yet is more of a sin to them however. That is why I cannot take many of those people seriously.

To be quite frank, I don't care what anyone elses opinion on Roe vs Wade is. On a personal level I wouldn't consider doing anything past implantation. If it was up to me abortion after the fetus has brainwave activity would be unacceptable. We have to much government interference and regulation of our lives anyway. In this day and time if people can't use birth control they shouldn't be having sex. Abortion as birth control is ridiculous and irresponsible. If the Fed wants to say life begins at point X, I think brainwave activity is a great point, or at the end of the 1st trimester, and say no abortions nationwide can happen after that point, then fine. Define when life starts and anything after that is murder. If the federal government won't define when life starts then I think it needs to be left up to the states.

Problem is our elected officials are creating laws based on their opinions rather than what their constituents want. Integrity and upholding your own beliefs are one thing. Having the integrity to do what the people who elected you want in spite of your beliefs is another. That's what these guys miss. They aren't elected to do what they think is right, because they don't know better than us. That's what a ruler does. A king, an emperor.

If Congress put forth a bill banning all forms of abortion during Obama's 2nd term, and the issue was put to a vote of the American Public and the vote by the public was 95% in favor of the new bill does anyone think Obama would sign it? Or any prochoice politician? Or if it was done to the effect of legalizing all abortion would any prolife president not worried about reelection let it pass? I can't do it for everyone in Washington, but I looked at the voting records of the republican primary entries and compared their voting records to strict constitutional interpretation and general consensus of their constituents. Ron Paul sided with strict constitutional interpretation as opposed to his personal beliefs almost 100% of the time. Mit ROmney sided with the consensus of his constituents more often than not when it conflicted with his beliefs. I question if he did it to get elected again. Ron Paul I don't question in that respect, he's been voting with the Constitution since he 1st was elected. IT's interesting. I like Newt. I'm not a fan of Romney at all. And I think Newt would probably be the right guy to put our house in order, but I'm starting to swing back to Ron Paul. He's not going to vote conservative or liberal, he's going to do what the Constitution says in strict interpretation. I'd love to see him as a buffer between the elephants and asses. But that isn't what this is about. Sorry about getting off topic.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Battleline

"daughters of America" is your spin and I have no idea where you got the "son's" idea. Is this really all you can do to defend Obama....................ya I guess it is.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

you say he was using his own daughters in his speech, and you have no idea where the "sons" came from.

Well, I'm not going to attack your Political views, as it is done commonly as if it bears any significance to this debate.

Perhaps you should read the OP, read what he said , before you "speak , and remove all doubt"

I reread the artical and he does use the term "our" daughters and "our" sons and I see where you are comeing from, but does that mean that "our" does not mean his daughters also, are you really going to nit pick the meaning of a word to defend this clown and tell me you don't see the sexual connotations in the statement he made? is that all you have left is to imply that he is not saying if "our sons" don't have to worry about giveing birth to a "mistake that "our daughters " should not have to worry either..............really?

WOW like minded people go figure, I'm done here.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


I would pick sterilization over murder anyday. I also think if you are on welfare and have 1 mistake...snip. You can be reversed when you pay your own bills. Preventing a pregnancy is alot more responsible than fixing the mistake with murder.

Originally posted by Battleline

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Battleline

"daughters of America" is your spin and I have no idea where you got the "son's" idea. Is this really all you can do to defend Obama....................ya I guess it is.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

you say he was using his own daughters in his speech, and you have no idea where the "sons" came from.

Well, I'm not going to attack your Political views, as it is done commonly as if it bears any significance to this debate.

Perhaps you should read the OP, read what he said , before you "speak , and remove all doubt"

I read the artical, mainly because I could not belive he would use his girls as props in a sexual political statement, but hay you just keep makeing this about me and spin away, the fact remains your messiah is an epic fail.

I give up.
I defer to someone else to help this soul, I clearly am not speaking his language.
This, poster, believes Obama is using his daughters in the speech, not "son" and "daughters" of America.
He seems like a nice chap, but hung on Obama a bit.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No excuse me but you are factually incorrect. A seed is not a tree. If a seed were a tree it would be at the very least 4 feet tall, have a well developed root system that can go several feet or more in the ground and can spread to a diameter much larger than the diameter of the ground it shades.

If an egg were a chicken, it would have feathers, a beak, and would walk around pecking at the ground for seeds and insects. Alas, I can eat eggs every morning for breakfast and there are no baby chickens in them.

If an embryo were a human, it would not lack many of the features a fetus has that nore closely resembles a developed human being. An Ebryo is not a human.

reply to post by arbiture


I don't want to support someone's sex life at all.....it doesn't have to be a either or choice...

So, Roe V Wade empowers our "daughters".
OUR daughters....
Since when are MY daughters, OUR daughters? Oh, I forgot, it is Obama, and the collectivist crowd that believes my kids belong to the state.
This entire abortion issue had divided people for as long as I have been an adult. It seems that Americans love to take sides and vote against someone based upon this issue alone. I can just hear the women that have had abortions, whether they regret it or not doesn't seem to matter, "IT'S MY EFFING CHOICE"!!!
And the militant lesbians join the battle cry as well, why? I have no idea, they are lesbian aren't they?
Abortion. The word itself sounds awful. Let's call it Balance. Abortion is now "balance".
"I got balanced the other day. Now I can pursue my life with balance." (Takes picture of herself for facebook)
Hey Obama! Can your daughter come over for a beer? Don't worry, we are family!
Schmuck.

Originally posted by Battleline

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Battleline

"daughters of America" is your spin and I have no idea where you got the "son's" idea. Is this really all you can do to defend Obama....................ya I guess it is.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

you say he was using his own daughters in his speech, and you have no idea where the "sons" came from.

Well, I'm not going to attack your Political views, as it is done commonly as if it bears any significance to this debate.

Perhaps you should read the OP, read what he said , before you "speak , and remove all doubt"

I read the artical, mainly because I could not belive he would use his girls as props in a sexual political statement, but hay you just keep makeing this about me and spin away, the fact remains your messiah is an epic fail.

Dude, I've stayed outta this debate because it is such a contagious issue, but you are either misinterpreting the quote or being selective in your response. Obama is talking about the "daughters and sons" of America, not his own daughters. Why do you think he mentions sons as well when he has none? If you can't glean that from this quote, then your being disingenuous or slow. Notice how he uses the word "our" for both daughters and sons instead on my or mine.

Quote from the OP

Obama says the 39 th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights,freedoms,and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

[

~ETA~
Also notice Constitutional right.....are you against the Constitution? Do you believe I can tell you how to live your life? The Constitution is written without religious belief in mind. If that's why you are anti abortion (religion), then that's your right, but I have rights as well, that maybe antithesis to yours. The greatness of America Agreed?

reply to post by Tw0Sides
You and your click should reread my post, after I thought about I changed it.

I doubt it will make a difference though, you seem to be stuck on this "Americas daughters" meaning his are not included.As long as you stick to that, the disscussion is mute.

Originally posted by Battleline
The idea that a president defends Roe V.Wade by using his daughters as examples for success by being able to lay anyone anytime and have lawfull access to getting rid of there mistakes speaks volums to this clowns mentality and lack of respect for his daughters and there moral standards.

Another epic fail by this failure of all failures, now he is using his kids on the campaign, you know the ones that were of limits to all others.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

As POTUS he is open for discussion, pro or con.

His wife makes a speech, she is open for discussion.

But to further your agenda , and bring his daughters into it, talking about his mentality and respect for his daughters,

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
So, Roe V Wade empowers our "daughters".
OUR daughters....
Since when are MY daughters, OUR daughters? Oh, I forgot, it is Obama, and the collectivist crowd that believes my kids belong to the state.
This entire abortion issue had divided people for as long as I have been an adult. It seems that Americans love to take sides and vote against someone based upon this issue alone. I can just hear the women that have had abortions, whether they regret it or not doesn't seem to matter, "IT'S MY EFFING CHOICE"!!!
And the militant lesbians join the battle cry as well, why? I have no idea, they are lesbian aren't they?
Abortion. The word itself sounds awful. Let's call it Balance. Abortion is now "balance".
"I got balanced the other day. Now I can pursue my life with balance." (Takes picture of herself for facebook)
Hey Obama! Can your daughter come over for a beer? Don't worry, we are family!
Schmuck.

edit on 24-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)

Our daughters means the nations. This doesn't mean they are the states, infact, it means you make your own choices. Raise and teach them as you like, but remember, eventually your daughters have THEIR own rights as well, and may decide to have one.

The rest of your post is supposition and opinion and the legal / constitutional fact remains....

reply to post by Tw0Sides
AW! now there is the true "hate "you speak of. it's hell when you can't defend this clown and even you see the real picture.

Hate on my liberal friend................hate on.