winter wrote: 

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
49,551,703
Total Abortions since 1973

Downward Trend Continues

After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

The CDC ordinarily develops its annual report on the basis of data received from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia). AGI gets its numbers from direct surveys of abortionists.

Because of these different methods of data collection, AGI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Nevertheless, because increases and decreases in CDC and AGI numbers have until recently roughly tracked each other, both sources are thought to provide useful information on abortion trends and statistics. The CDC stopped reporting estimates for some states in 1998, making the discrepancy larger.

Abortions from AK, CA, NH, and OK were not counted in 1998-99 CDC totals, and numbers for AK, CA, and NH were still missing from 2000-2002; CA NH and WV were excluded from 2003 and 2004. For those areas that did report, additional declines were seen between 1998 and 2001, and in 2003-2004. The CDC reported a slight increase in 2002, in contrast with the AGI numbers showing a slight decrease.

AGI's latest survey confirms a continued downward trend, showing just over 1.2 million abortions for 2005, a drop of 8% from its last full comprehensive survey in 2000. This is the lowest number reported by Guttmacher since 1976.

Using AGI figures through 20053, estimating 1,206,200 abortions for 2006 and 2007, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount AGI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 49,551,703.

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't come to this forum, or any forum for that matter, with wholesale make believe numbers. I've been challenged before and I accept those challenges. I'm sure some will quarrel with CDC numbers. They just refuse to believe the human carnage taking place out of sight and they put it, out of mind. There are many other sources. Shall I list them, too? Or would you better satisfy yourself with some self-education on the matter?

 musik_knut wrote: 

Thanks. This is a big point. We need to respect those that have differing opinions, and work within the system that we all agree upon for governance.  If we can't do that, it's a hop/skip/jump to anarchy and civil war. And as much as I disagree with those who disagree with me, I welcome their presence in our shared great land and recognize that it is the presence of both of us and our differing opinions that makes it such a great place.
 musik_knut wrote: 

Is it time to go around on this one again?  Yes RP has a liberal slant. Fox News and Free Republic have conservative slants. There is a whole continuum of opinions and approaches on both sides. I myself like guns, support the death penalty and would bring ~75% of our troops around the globe home to serve and protect our borders and assets. I believe in the smallest government possible with the least intrusion on personal freedoms. I consider myself much more of a libertarian (oddly w/o the crazed support of the right to bear arms), which while sharing the first 5 letters of 'liberal', has much more to do with liberty. RP is a fun place w/ cool people (almost all of them who aren't DD'd) of all persuasions. They value a good debate and an open discourse. Just because a bunch of them line up against you doesn't mean it's a vast left wing conspiracy.

 musik_knut wrote: 

This is my last post about this. I am certainly not going to change your mind, and I like to have the last word. 

If the "pro life" people were truly so, they wouldn't provide support for war, guns, and the death penalty. And since they do not support other means of pregnancy prevention, such as supporting Planned Parenthood, "anti-choice" is a much more fitting term.

Conversely, "pro abortion" isn't necessarily a descriptive term, since the pro choice people may not be supportive of abortion, but support a woman's right to chose whether or not she wants to have a child, abortion being just one of those choices.

The US gov under Bush would not even provide support to women in 3rd world countries for birth control. This is not pro life. OUr gov does not provide support for impoverished women who have babies, wanted or not. This is not pro life. Our gov would not support the morning after pill which would cut down the number of abortions performed in this country. Our gov under Bush refused to teach children how to prevent pregnancy, except through the ridiculous idea of abstinence. This is not pro life.

And who are you to judge the conditions under which women choose to have an abortion? Incest yes, poverty no?

The fact is that women have been aborting themselves since they figured out how. Denying them this support will not stop abortion, it will just promote more death. And until you are willing to support these women to have babies, provide them and the mother with health care, housing, education, emotional support, etc. then you are not pro life, you are anti-choice.

It Stopped Raining!

Oh, never mid - it started again...

 Atman wrote: 
yep  
btw

The number bandied about by so called 'pro-life' folks is completely pulled from the more productive parts of the Equine species (for an organic farmer). And it certainly doesn't take into account all the illegal abortions that took place every year before Roe v Wade (and still would if it were illegal). Or the abortions performed for rich women who just traveled elsewhere. Or the women who died as a result of botched abortions and their fear and shame. Break down anti-choice beliefs and it comes up Misogyny, pure and simple.

BTW, send all that data up here, I need the compost!

 

 ptooey wrote: 
Good point.

Point of order - this news is no longer breaking.
TYVM

YMMV

TTYL

TTFN

 musik_knut wrote: 
I haven't seen numbers supporting this assertion. I'm curious where you came by them. 

 oldviolin wrote: 
Well, on this particular subject, some will probably think so...

 Alafia wrote: 

One thing your opinions ain't is lame, Ray.

Isn't there an "Abortion Discussion" thread y'all could move this to?
I'll gladly chime in with my own lame ass opinions, just not here...

 musik_knut wrote: 
I dont think you're from Mars.  You're not advocating violence, we may disagree on choice/abortion, but I think you're OK....

 islander wrote:  

islander,
Fair. Dr. Tiller acted within the laws of this nation. Dr. Tiller did not deserve to die in the manner he did. Fair? I was more than pleased when Eric Rudolph was finally taken into custody. I don't believe you support life and promote life, by taking the lives of those with whom you disagree. The killer of Dr. Tiller and the actions of Rudolph and those like him, are acts of domestic terrorism.
Oh, how I look to others and you? In this forum? Like I'm from Mars...and do I care? HELL NO! lmao...I know I'm probably seen more often than not as the proverbial skunk at a picnic...in this case, a Conservative at a Liberal's cliquish gathering. Fair? I think so.

mk

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
Let me speak bluntly on the point of war: I've been in one...in a stink hole 10,000 miles away...a hole called Nam. Don't seek to be on a level of that understanding unless you too, saw combat, feared for your very existence, saw buddies depart this world and watched civilians, as is always the case in any armed conflict, absorb the Lion's share of death and misery. And, I believe entering Iraq was a mistake, a mistake that should have been avoided. I'll refer to my opening statement on death and destruction and let that again, speak for me.
I know where I've been and I know that since Roe, 49 MILLION others, mostly destroyed for the sake of convenience, not the mother's health or the cause of the resulting pregnancy, are not among us. You offer the same tired and  maddening reasoning and never touch on the real reasons: abortion as a tool often used as after-the-fact birth control. You can not support the endless nonsense that streams from pro-choice folks on the real reasons behind birth control. If you don't wish to bear a child, don't. And don't starts by avoiding impregnation. That does not require a Sisyphean effort.
I condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller. I don't know how often I must state that. And, I won't, again. I condemned the killing of the Officer at The Holocaust Museum. I detest the maddness of pure hate that drove Mr. Brunn to his actions. I detest that with every fiber of my being. And I detest abortion for the sake of convenience with those same fibers.
I detest war and killings. If there are hypocrites among us, it is those Liberals who wring their worry beads about death and destruction in The Middle East and don't flinch at the deaths of 49 MILLION human embryos, many of which passed the viable stage before being denied due process: they were judged as not wanted and then executed. I will repeat: I have no problem with abortions in the case of the mother's health or the cause of the pregnancy, meaning rape or incest. But unlike you, I can't support abortions owing to social factors and stratus. Sorry, but from my point of view, you're without conscience on the matter of aborting human beings. Please tell me I'm wrong...
mk

 jadewahoo wrote: 
Lou Dobbs, last night. 

Arnold will maintain all programs for illegals as mandated by the Fed at the expense of the citizens of California.  It is the old case of unfunded federal mandates.  Arnold is making the same point that the city / county of Stockton made some 20 years ago when faced with the burden of unfunded federal mandates, the county government stopped prosecuting all misdomeanor offenses.  It could not afford to fund the mandates so they cut expenses by stopping the prosecution of these cases in protest.  You were arrested and promptly released, the end, case closed.  Dan Rather did the story for 60 Minutes back in the day.  Shortly after national exposure on TV, the situation was resolved and quickly and quietly swept way under the rug.  Well now the rug has been rolled up for all to see what was hidden under it.  This stuff just isn't going to go away. 

Once again California is faced with funding unfunded federal mandates and Arnold is like you said, going after a piano with an axe.  There are several Governors including the Governor of Minnesota who are refusing the federal money because of the strings attached to it.  Since there is no discretion allowed in the use of these funds, they are being rejected.  The citizens of California are the pawns in this game of chicken.  Arnold would rather shut down services than cowtow to DC.  This is about state's rights.  I remember back in the day when Arizona refused to lower the state speed limit to 55 mph during the 70's, thumbing their nose at the the Feds and sacrificing federal highway funds in so doing.  Arizona also does not participate in the Daylight Savings program for the same reason.  Arizona used to be a shining example of how to maintain individual state rights and tell DC to basically F off.  Then came the Governor who only believes in man caused disasters, not terrorism.  Now she is in charge of protecting us from the rest of the world.

I see very little difference between Obama and Bush.  Obama to me, is Bush on steroids.  Obama is not in charge, Pelosi and her monkeys who are in some of the safest seats in the country are running the show.  I am pleased that Arnold is drawing a symbolic line in the sand to make his point.  Who is going to pay for these unfunded mandates ?  The citizens are, at their expense, for the benefit of those who have contributed nothing and are not even here legally.  Who gets to sit at the table to eat ?  The pie is only so big and I feel that Americans should have first crack at the pie, not last. 

Again I see this as a protest against unfunded mandates and nothing else. 

 hippiechick wrote: 
Pro-life, if you please. I won't call choice folks, pro-abortion...
Btw, 51% now id themselves as pro-life. Not that that would settle this endless debate but, worth noting indeed.

 kurtster wrote:Oh Kurt... where the hell are you getting your info from? In October, 2008 Arnold Schwarzenegger notified the US Treasury that he was considering asking them for a $7 billion dollar loan.

In a letter sent on Thursday to Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, Mr Schwarzenegger, California's governor, made clear that his state was running out of money because its usual borrowing channels had suddenly closed.

He made clear there would be grave consequences for the ability of American states to keep providing basic services if the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan is not passed by the US House of Representatives.

That even America's richest and most populous state should face such severe financial problems illustrates the extent to which credit markets have seized up in the two weeks since the failure of the investment bank Lehman Brothers.

The US government has not been called on to make such a large emergency loan since New York City borrowed $2.3 billion – equivalent to $9.4 billion today – to stave off bankruptcy in 1975.

In his letter, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Mr Schwarzenegger pointed out that his state planned to issue $7 billion in revenue anticipation notes in the coming days to pay for its short-term cash needs.

He wrote: "Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis, California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal treasury for short-term financing."

A senior Schwarzenegger aide followed up the letter with a call to the Treasury Secretary on Thursday night, said the newspaper.

This turn about on the part of the Guv has nothing whatsoever to do with any Obama program. Arnold is not refusing money from the US Govt's bailout money of some $700 billion. In fact, the Governor of California was in the forefront of insisting that the US House of Representatives pass the bailout:

He made clear there would be grave consequences for the ability of American states to keep providing basic services if the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan is not passed by the US House of Representatives.

Far from being the rebel that you would fantasize him to be, Arnold is a willing participant in Federal monies being allocated to the states.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening the gutting of state funded programs as one waving an axe in front of two peopel fighting over a piano, saying if they (the California Dems and Republicans) will not address the reality of California's monetary crisis, he will destroy th whole f*ckin' thing. It is an internal play.

He is not cutting off funding for the 'illegal aliens' nor any other Federally funded programs (such as highway and dams projects) because, were he to do so, he would lose that infusion of monies into the state coffers. He is threatening the cutbacks on state programs.

Sorry, your anti-Obama glee is, once again, misplaced and is evidence of your pretty obvious bias, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Ok, and this from one (me) who sees a very real danger in the usurpation of our basic choices of life and lifestyle by the forces of Corporate Socialism, of whom GWB was the biggest proponent, and Obama is the one chosen to simply carry the torch forward into wholesale Corporatocracy. As long as you are caught up in this chest thumping lip-snarling anti-Obama frenzy, you are just showing how deep the wool is pulled over your own eyes. C'mon man. You are brighter than that.

This just in.

The Governator is refusing to borrow money to keep California afloat.  He is going to cut services and take money from local governments to keep necessary services in operation.  He will empty the prisons, end welfare for legal residents and lay off state workers.  Obama will not let the states use Federal money for needed purposes.  The states may only use it for Obama's purposes.  Arnold is one of several Governors who are refusing Obama's strings.

Most importantly, he is not cutting welfare services to illegal aliens as required by Federal Law.  The costs of these welfare services for illegals is estimated to be 17% to 20% of the budget deficit or only 4 to 6 Billion dollars.  Some estimate the actual cost to approach 9 Billion.   Legal California citizens should be grateful to have the opportunity to give until it hurts to support the illegals and the sanctuary cities.  Pelosi must be real proud of Arnold for seeing things her way on illegal aliens.

So to all you who support illegal aliens, you can now move to California and pay your taxes to support these poor trespassers and get nothing in return.  Ain't America great !

I love Arnold for having the cajones to put the illegals first as required by law.

GO ARNOLD !!!!

 hippiechick wrote: 
We're cool. I'll make sure that you're not to blame.