More abortions performed last year in Minnesota

Audrey, I do hope that means you're against the war in Iraq, which has taken away hundreds of thousands of lives!

Julia, to me, this means that we need to educate teens MUCH MORE on the perils of sex without protection (STDs as well as unwanted pregnancies). Many folks say "leave it up to the parents," but I believe many parents are too embarrased to have frank discussions about sex with their kids, or they may not have a thorough, educated understanding of teenage sexual activity and related issues.

We need to get through to kids. They aren't going to stop having powerful sex drives, and they aren't going to stop having sex. Yeah, I know there are some kids out there who can and do hold off on their "urges," but there are many more who don't. It's a fact of life, plain and simple. Education is key.

It means there were 5% more abortions in 2006 than there were in 2005.

That's a lot of children.

Thank you for sharing your feelings in reaction, Audrey.

Zeldapie, I have to wonder about the course of sex education. Who cares what some old fogey has to say? (And frankly, we are old fogies to kids that age.) So much of it is peer-to-peer - is there a sex ed equivalent of D.A.R.E.?

Do you have any other thoughts, James B.? I'm just curious.

That's a lot of children.

Gary, I agree: that's a lot of children who might have had children.

We have to remember that these are teenagers -- children themselves, basically -- who, if they'd not had abortions, would most likely have dropped out of school, gone on welfare, or had their own parents raise the baby.

Well ,This is sad BECAUSE i DON'T BELIEVE IN TAKING A LIFE AT ANY LEVEL!

What about capital punishment or this:

Audrey, I do hope that means you're against the war in Iraq, which has taken away hundreds of thousands of lives!

You state that there was an increase in abortions but you dont state if they were medically necessary or not. Just an increase.

I think if you are willing to try and save all unborn fetus' you should also be willing to feed and clothe and pay for that childs education for the next 18+ years....if you are not then frankly it is none of anyone's business but the woman getting the abortion.

...it is none of anyone's business but the woman getting the abortion.

Agreed, although the "father" should be consulted, but it essentially is the woman's call...

Onan I struggle with that one. I personally would notify the father but can we impose this on others? Would it even work. Say I wanted to get an abortion and I was mandated to notify the father....I could just pick a male friend...name him as the dad and get the abortion.

I heard about this statistic on this news this am. Very sad, sounds like suburban kids.

What does this mean?
----------------------------------------

Has anyone posed the question of residency? I know that South Dakota has passed some pretty harsh restrictions on abortion over the past year.

Plus our population has risen both naturally and with increased immigration (Hmong, Somali, Latino) which might be contributing factors as well.

What does it mean? I don't think it means anything other than more pregnant women made a legal choice other than delivery.

I'd say it is always the woman's call, as it's her body.

In general, and if circumstances are right, the woman or girl should infom the father, at least out of common decency. In other words, if she has a normal, healthy relationship with the father, is not afraid of him, was not raped, and so on... then she should tell the man. The problem then arises if the man insists that she carry the baby to term. What then? Should he have the right to force her to continue with the pregnancy? I wonder how that would play out?

Why is it sad that someone doesn't want to bring an unwanted baby into this world?

Have you examined the current state of adoption in this country? It's in shambles. Out of at least 10 friends of mine, all 10 of them have adopted babies from other countries in the past 3-4 years. What does that say?

'What does this mean?'

That one can't get an abortions in North Dakota or South Dakota, I forget which, so they come to Minnesota for the procedure.

Must be a banner year for Planned Parenthood! Business is up!

Audrey, I do hope that means you're against the war in Iraq, which has taken away hundreds of thousands of lives!

Yeah right where do you get your misinformation?

www.iamastupidliberalspoutingbullshitleftistpropaganda.com?

Planned parenthood will kill more people this year than the war in Iraq.

I think the South Dakota abortion ruling was overturned. Business as usual in SD.

It is true that the abortion ban in SD was overturned--abortion remains legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason throughout the United States. In fact, most of the out of state abortions are performed on women from Wisconsin--just an issue of convenience because Minnesota's abortion clinics are closer for Wisconsin women living near the western border of the state. Convenience also seems to be the number one reason (by far) women choose abortion in Minnesota, as most women reported "does not want children at this time" as the reason for having an abortion. Also very interesting that more than 5700 women had had at least one previous abortion with 23 having had 9 or more.
Lack of information about birth control doesn't really seem to be the issue here, either, since only 431 women reported that they had never used contraceptives before and over 13,000 reported that they had.
Get educated--view the full report and reports from previous years at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/abrpt.htm

to me it says that there are more women who are thinking logically in both MN and the surrounding states/areas. i'm pretty sure that the majority of the women having these abortions did not want to be pregnant anyway. to me, it's worse to give birth to a child that you never wanted and don't want to care for (thus making it a burden on the state) than terminating it's "life" in order to save the woman (and taxpayers) the stress of having to pay for another human that was never wanted in the first place.

if you couldn't tell, i'm 100% pro abortion, no matter how late term the woman is. i don't believe a fetus is "life" until it takes it's first breath outside the womb. and no one should tell a woman what she can or can't do with the ball of cells growing inside her. after all, it's HER decision, not mine or anyone elses.

You're not alone in your thoughts there about the woman's choice for giving birth or not and to the first breath bringing life.

For thousands of years a baby wasn't deemed to be a person till a week after birth because so many died during that time. Actually in many areas, during the first week after birth, a woman could even put the new-born in a trash heap if she didn't want it.

For thousands of years we also didn't have the technology we do today. Now that we are no longer living in the dark ages we need to act responsibly with the knowledge we have:
At the moment of conception the embryo has its own unique DNA, separate from that of its mother or father. At 19 days gestation the foundation for the entire nervous system has been laid. At 24 days gestation the heart has begun to beat regularly. At eight weeks all organs are functioning and systems are intact--all future development is refinement and growth until full maturity at approx. 23 years.
"Ball of cells"? That's just irresponsible. Your ignorance is no excuse for ending a human life.

In my personal opinion it means that we are doing a bad job of sexual education. If people are not smart enough to avoid getting pregnant then they will have an abortion or get stuck with an unwanted pregnancy. I look to Washington DC and St. Paul and I can tell we already have an overabundance of bastards in this country so why not nip this in the bud and teach people how to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

I am happy to report that I had a part in absolutely none of that 14,000 abortions though because I was smart enough not to get anyone pregnant in the first place.

As for the "Oh its horrible to end a human life" argument. Human lives end everyday, and all of these human lives would have ended anyway, life is temporary, your not saving a life by preventing an abortion, your just altering the end date. We already have far too many people on the planet so I think that 14,000 apparently is not nearly enough, maybe 140,000 would be more like it, but that part is just my opinion.