Rival political parties in Sweden are split over the prospect of establishing a registry of women who have had abortions, party officials said.
Christian Democrats favor reporting the identities of women who have had abortions but the Moderate, Centre and Liberal parties oppose the move on integrity grounds, the Swedish News Agency reported.
Integrity from theocrats?
Anders Milton, who was commissioned by the government to investigate the issue, suggested inclusion of personal identification numbers of women who had an abortion because he said it would help in follow-up of complications and improve prevention.
“The register always awakes feelings of unease, but I definitely think the idea is worth a try,” Chatrine Palsson Ahlgren, Christian Democrat Member of Parliament said to the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper.
Gee. They could even make it mandatory for these women to sew little patches on their coats. It worked before.
I just wish that retrospective abortion was legal…
There are too many idiots in this world that should never have been born.
I have always been fearful of Christians behind me after reading their list of torture devices.
#61–Dallas==gruesome. Interesting that waterboarding makes the list. How advanced they were.
So==Alfie==what punishment would you like to see the law dish out to these offending wymen?
For myself, I would give each aborting Mom a $5,000 check. We need fewer nitwits on this earth, $5000 per would be cheap even if some wymen would get preggers just to get the cash. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad either?
I think it is in the public interest to know who has had an abortion. I don’t want to get sucked into having sex with any woman that has aborted a fetus and a registry would help prevent more unwanted pregnancies this way. If public monies are used it is even more in the public interest.
#63 5 Days said: “I don’t want to get sucked into having sex with any woman…”
Or maybe you could take some personal responsibility and your actions?
Somewhat/almost related: newscast about the guy in florida who might get charge with “something” for having a pet python that got out and crushed his baby.
What is the appropriate “punishment?”
Am I just a big ol’ softie thinking that the loss of the baby is punishment enough? Does the same notion apply to aborting Mom’s? My mother had an abortion years ago and still cries on the anniversary of my brothers birth/death. She says she would still do it over, still cries.
Maybe I just don’t like babies? Or maybe just “your” babies?
That list of torture devices really could include having to attend church?
In response to #21’s comment, go to that link for this comment.
I would love to debate you on this topic. You say abortions are fine due to the quoted death rates of women that go full term. Your stats may be correct but you are avoiding the issue. You must first answer the question “What is the unborn?” if it is not human then kill it, no problem, no justification is needed. If it is human then no justification is adequate.
As for the argument by others between what constitutes a fetus vs. a baby they are one in the same, traveling 8 inches down a birth canal does not change the nature of the fetus/baby it only changes the location in proximity of the mother.
Scientifically baby in the womb:
- has unique DNA, even as small as a few cells
- is alive and growing
- is human by nature (see embryology)
- While not fully developed has all of the parts to fully mature. (Don’t confuse construction with design)
- Life is not measured by size
- is a result of specific external events thus not an accident.
**All of these reasons equally apply to a 3 year old and you wouldn’t kill an unwanted 3 year old.
Some may say the only reason an abortion may be justifiable is if the baby goes full term and will definitely kill the mother with close to 100% certainty. In this instance a life is being saved (the mother). Personally I must admit that I’m not entirely satisfied with that scenario but that I all that I can come up with right now.
Note I have not brought religion into this conversation at all. I’m just drawing logical conclusions based on the some elements of biology including DNA and embryology.
Now that the nature of the unborn has been brought into the open, the unborn is human; no justification is adequate for abortion, not even the stats that you offer.
Abortions usually occur by some justification by the mother. I can not think of any place in the animal kingdom where this occurs other than humans. So I’m not sure how Darwin’s theory would apply or be brought into the discussion
Picture this, you are standing a sink doing some dishes and your son or daughter walks up behind you and says, “Can I kill this?” You would not answer in the affirmative or negative unless you turned around and saw exactly the object of that question. If it were a mosquito you may say go ahead, if it were the neighbors cat then you are more apt to say no. You first had to ascertain the nature of the thing being killed.
#63 – 5 Days,
Those of us who take responsibility for our actions (i.e. use birth control) do not share your opinion. Perhaps you should consider using a condom … or getting a vasectomy. That way, you wouldn’t have to worry about having your mini-mes aborted.
#64 – qb,
Great minds fall into the same gutter. I hadn’t read your post when I replied in a similar way.
#66–King==Scott will respond in good time==although he may have quit for the evening. He’s spotty like that.
But I just want to congratulate you for assuming all the relevant out of your purview WHILE claiming not to have brought religion into it. HAW, HAW!!!!
Note how I don’t bring religion into this statement: If you aren’t baptized, you can’t go to heaven. See–religion is never mentioned.
I’ll stop because I have lost interest. Just ignore anyone who disagrees and you have an ironclad position. Bravo.
#66 – KingTester,
The unborn is a human fetus. I see no reason that the government should stop anyone from killing him/her. S/he has no legal status. S/he has no rights in this or any other civilized society.
Certainly, said fetuses rights, if any, do not trump the rights of the born. When you accidentally knock over a pregnant woman who is not even showing yet and she miscarries, will you be OK with being sentenced for manslaughter as you would if the woman died?
Humans aren’t special. We weren’t specially created by any deity. We are part of a vast continuum of life on this planet.
Scientifically, a fetus in the womb is not a baby. As bobbo has rightly pointed out, use words correctly, as they are defined in the dictionary and you will not be harassed for being a total asshole twisting words into false meanings to make invalid points.
Regarding the bullet points you attempt to make under your false claim that a fetus is a baby:
- has unique DNA, even as small as a few cells
This is also true of mosquitos.
- is alive and growing
This is also true of mosquitos.
- is human by nature (see embryology)
So what? So are convicted criminals. So are the terminally ill.
- While not fully developed has all of the parts to fully mature. (Don’t confuse construction with design)
Incorrect and irrelevant. Said fetus has all of the instructions to build all of the parts in order to mature. This is also true of my hair and fingernails and I regularly cut them.
- Life is not measured by size
Then you must be horrified at those who kill flies or take antibiotics.
- is a result of specific external events thus not an accident.
No birth control is 100% effective. Therefore this is not only irrelevant, but false as well.
**All of these reasons equally apply to a 3 year old and you wouldn’t kill an unwanted 3 year old.
There must be a point at which we do outlaw killing. And yet, there are exceptions to it as well. We regularly execute criminals, and all too frequently the innocent as well. I think drawing the line at birth is a long time-honored tradition. I would be fine with outlawing infanticide and allowing abortion.
Some may say the only reason an abortion may be justifiable is if the baby goes full term and will definitely kill the mother with close to 100% certainty. In this instance a life is being saved (the mother). Personally I must admit that I’m not entirely satisfied with that scenario but that I all that I can come up with right now.
Then you are a total nutjob. Congratulations for being such an extremist that you would sacrifice a full grown woman for the life of a fetus. I can now say with complete and utter certainty that you are truly devoid of all reasonable morals.
Picture this, you are standing a sink doing some dishes and your son or daughter walks up behind you and says, “Can I kill this?” You would not answer in the affirmative or negative unless you turned around and saw exactly the object of that question. If it were a mosquito you may say go ahead, if it were the neighbors cat then you are more apt to say no. You first had to ascertain the nature of the thing being killed.
And yet, if it was a pig or a cow, you would likely be fine with it despite their greater brain power than any fetus. I think you make arguments that seem logical to you, though not to me. Based on such arguments you determine that women are not free to decide either their own fates or the fates of the horrifically deformed or the fetuses of their rapists or even the fetuses created while on drugs.
You do not even seem satisfied with allowing a woman to have an abortion when her own health may be at risk. You want to wait ’til she dies, then you might or might not say that it would have been OK if she had had an abortion to save her life, but we couldn’t know until she was dead. Oh well.
You sir are among the most sick and twisted induhviduals I have ever had the misfortune of debating.
You, like Alfie, are among the many reasons I blog anonymously.
#69 – bobbo,
#66–King==Scott will respond in good time==although he may have quit for the evening. He’s spotty like that.
I’ve been a lot busier at work lately.
Bobbo, there are lots of countries in Europe wth parties labeled Christian or Christian Democrat, and they have widely varying views.
I will make it express: other people disagree with every point pro-lifers make. What should society do? Ignore one position or the other is the position the two extremes take. The Supreme Court provided one of only a few compromises possible.
Many of the terms/conditions/assumptions/history/morality of the contesting sides is reviewed by the court in Roe v Wade. If you discuss the issues of abortion/pro-choice outside of the guidance this case gives the reader, you proceed in a very uniformed ignorant fashion. Admirable, only to those of your clique who likewise don’t want to admit they live in a society where people are free to disagree.
Scott–its good to be busy. Wishing you little time to post here===spend it on your own website, although recent discussions there not much better? But we do the Lords work by shining light onto dark abscesses.
#72–MikeN==actually, I know that. The ideas may vary but they circle the same drain. Is that any better?
#60
Funniest and about the truest statement in an otherwise thoroughly boring rambling of posts by authors who would fit well into your idea.
Taking that thought and what a couple of others touched on….and assuming national health care will be enacted….
What’s to keep – or more exactly – Who will stop the government from determining which baby will be kept and which will be aborted?
1st step is already done with government paid, on-demand abortions.
2nd step: Will the government want to take the medical responsibility for care of a baby that is predicted to be physically and/or mentally challenged? No,duh.
So who’s going to argue with that bureaucrat when the faceless no-body decides the population needs more or less of any particular mental or physical attribute….which the government ‘thinks’ they can predict?
How quickly will your congressman or senator respond to your baby or potential grandchild that’s been ‘chosen’.
What’s to keep – or more exactly – Who will stop the government from determining which baby will be kept and which will be aborted? /// “We” the people. Don’t you believe in representative Democracy?
All government programs should be DESIGNED to be as voluntary as possible within conflicting interests ((almost always other people’s money)). But yea==no system has 100% agreement.
You post as if everyone is happy with what the government is doing now!
xxxxxxxxxxx
1st step is already done with government paid, on-demand abortions. /// Federal Gov doesn’t pay for on demand abortions. Don’t think most states do either.
xxxxxxxxx
2nd step: Will the government want to take the medical responsibility for care of a baby that is predicted to be physically and/or mentally challenged? No,duh. /// I certainly hope not. Thats what our stupid government does today. Hopefully, getting a government bureaucrat between patients and their doctors will stop this crap.
xxxxxxxx
Congress doesn’t respond to kiddies, and hardly responds to their parents. What an army of straw men you set forth.
Silly Rabbit.
#57
The problem with that sentiment is that you force the woman to carry the child to term against her will. Further, pregnancy causes substantial physiological changes in a woman. After the rapist has imposed his will on the woman, you are suggesting that the State be allowed to take its turn.
#63
I suppose simply asking the woman would be too difficult? Some call that mutual respect.
#66
Most reasonable people agree that a just fertilized egg is not human and that moments before the child exits the woman’s womb it is human. Where that moment happens precisely is the core of the debate. Related to that argument is the fundamental question of whether the government should be authorized to criminalize people for a decision on which at least 50% of the populate feel it is not criminal.
Not all fetuses (“unborn” in your parlance) are human beings with all the same rights as actually born human beings.
# 57 Cursor
“What we really need is a law that states life and death ends with brain activity.”
You realise that we would have to declare Alfred1, and most other dittohead ‘lifers’, legally dead!
I was hoping that most of these loons would drop dead when a black man became president, but unfortunately they have survived.
For the record, I believe abortions are not a trivial issue, but it’s right of the parents to make the hard choice, not some twit with a placard in one hand and a bible in the other. It is certainly no business of the state, and keeping a public register is just obscene.
Alphie,
How many children brought to term,saved from an abortion, have you adopted? Every State has a registry of children waiting for a foster home. If you are going to talk the talk, then be prepared for what comes after