The Life-Long Effects of a Woman’s Choice

Ann Nasary April 29, 2012

What channel is this on? I want to hear tonight’s discussion! thanks

Doug April 29, 2012

Hi, I’m having trouble tuning in, is there a technical problem?

Joy April 29, 2012

Is there someway, that this show’s time throughout the listening world, can have the option of find out what the time is in our own time zone. I keep missing the start of these programs
.

Daniel Hagadorn April 29, 2012

Our “pro-choice” politicians reflexively remind the American public that abortion should be kept safe, legal, and rare. (Of course, they are only concerned with the mother’s choice not the baby’s, since the baby would rather live than die).

First, are there any other “constitutional” rights you would like to rarely exercise? Before I digress…

Keep abortion safe? Abortion is NEVER safe because the baby ALWAYS dies. There will never be a safe way to kill a baby. In fact, for pregnant women, ABORTION IS FOUR TIMES DEADLIER THAN CHILDBIRTH, and often results in infertility and breast cancer—commonly referred to as the “ABC link.” Eleven of 12 studies of American women reported an increased risk of breast cancer after having an induced abortion. Women can suffer a number of additional complications such as: injuries to the uterus and cervix; urinary tract infections (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease); hemorrhaging; miscarriages; heart failure; embolisms; sterilizations; ruptured intestines and bowels; comas; subsequent Ectopic (tubal) pregnancies and, in some instances, death.

A study in Finland analyzed the accuracy of statistics in pregnancy-related deaths and discovered that women who had abortions were almost FOUR TIMES as likely to die as women who gave birth. For every 100,000 pregnancies 27 women died from delivering full-term live births, 48 women died from miscarriages, and 101 women died from abortions.

Another article published in the Archives of General Psychology revealed that 17% of women participating in a study on the effects of abortion reported they have experienced physical complications (e.g. abnormal bleeding or pelvic infection) since their abortion. Based on reported abortion statistics, this represents 200,000 women annually experiencing physical complications following an abortion.

Abortion also impacts the healthiness of later pregnancies. Research indicates that women having abortions are more likely to have low-birth weight babies in later pregnancies. There is also evidence that having an abortion(s) increases the likelihood of delivering prematurely or experiencing a miscarriage in later pregnancies.

Aside from the numerous physiological complications, there are also well-documented emotional and psychological consequences stemming from abortion such as post-abortion syndrome (PTSD)—with women commonly experiencing symptoms of anxiety, guilt, anger, depression, nightmares, and hallucinations.

In one of the longest running studies of post-abortion mental health, Swedish researchers discovered that nearly 60% of the women experienced some level of emotional distress following their abortions. In 30% of the women the distress was classified as severe. Researchers in Wales conducted a study on the relationship between abortion and suicide and concluded that, “our data suggests that deterioration in mental health may be a consequential side effect of induced abortion.”

Abortion is “rarely” performed? Although pro-choice advocates correctly state that the number of abortion clinics in the United States declined by 40% between 1994 and 1998, more than a million abortions are still being performed annually because the number of pregnancy crisis centers have significantly increased—from 500 in 1980, to approximately 4,000 today.

Daniel Hagadorn April 29, 2012

Another sanctimonious platitude spewed by our politicians is that “Women have the constitutional right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting legalized abortion.”

To which I would respond, (1) women do not have the constitutional “right” to murder an unborn baby and (2) what is legal is not always morally or ethically right. Remember that slavery was once considered to be “legal.”

The question of whether or not a woman has the legal “right” to end the life of a baby becomes irrelevant in the shadow of the much greater question: is abortion itself morally and ethically right or wrong.

Most rights—except the U.S. Constitution’s guaranteed right to protect innocent life—have limitations. For instance, exercising my freedom of speech does not include shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Likewise, a woman has certain rights to her own body—but there are limitations. In fact, a majority of Americans believe that limits do apply to a “woman’s right” to choose an abortion—according to a Gallup Poll conducted May 10-13, 2007—72% of Americans oppose late-term abortions.

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that black people were not “legal persons,” but rather the “property” of slave owners who were endowed with the basic constitutional “right” to own those slaves. Abolitionists were told that if they disagreed with slavery, they did not have to “own a slave” and were instructed not to “impose their morality on slave owners.”

Similarly, in a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade (1973) that unborn humans were not “legal persons” but rather the “property” of the owners (i.e. mothers) who were endowed with the basic constitutional “right” to kill their unborn baby. Pro-lifers, much like the abolitionists of the past, were told that if they disagreed with abortion, they did not have to “have an abortion” and were instructed not to “impose their morality on women who choose to abort their babies.”

Since it is a proven scientific fact that life begins at conception, the question is becomes whether or not a mother’s so-called right to “privacy” transcends the baby’s right to life. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution ever mentions “the right to privacy” (see Griswold v. Connecticut) which has served as the foundation for the “right to abortion” emanating from the Roe v. Wade decision. Both of our founding documents make it clear the right to life, not the right to death, is the primary objective of our democratic government.

Ironically, pro-choice advocates are usually the strongest voices opposing alternative solutions such as adoption. It might have something to do with the influence of the lucrative abortion industry that actively campaigns against true choice—that is to say, the weighing of various options before arriving at a particular decision.

Daniel Hagadorn April 29, 2012

We should understand when the world chooses evil but sadly, there are “Christians” who either openly support abortion or who have adopted the “I’m-personally-against-abortion-but-I-wouldn’t-impose-my-beliefs-on-someone-else” argument.

To be “pro-choice” is to be “pro-abortion” and therefore “pro-murder.” Would those who claim to be “pro-choice” also be personally opposed to child abuse, but in favor of someone’s “right” to abuse a child?

The position of “pro-choice” legitimizes and condones abortion by supporting a mother’s “right” to have or commit an abortion. Either you believe that all life is sacred and deserves legal protection—or you do not. Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion—period. Likewise, when people shield themselves behind the argument of refusing to “impose your beliefs on someone else” they implicitly promote the legitimacy and social acceptance of abortion.

That said, NO ONE is better than anyone else since we are all sinners in the sight of God who desires that ALL would come to Him.

Christians need to stand for the truth, not stand on someone’s neck. We should remember what we have done to put Jesus on the cross and embrace those who have performed abortions, had abortions, or encouraged abortions with the same love that Jesus gave so freely to us.

Michael April 30, 2012

Song “God Save the Children”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJUpqwU6txM&sns=em