PDA

View Full Version : Abortion Debate Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ballguy
24 Dec 05,, 22:27
what are your beliefs on it?

BenRoethig
24 Dec 05,, 22:51
I support the right, but not the act. Government has no right to regulate morality.

THL
24 Dec 05,, 23:00
I think that it should definitely be an option. I do not think that it should be used as an alternative to birth control though. I think that we should follow the laws of baseball - on the third abortion, the woman has proven that she is not capable of even taking a simple pill so her tubes get tied.

bonehead
25 Dec 05,, 01:49
I think that it should definitely be an option. I do not think that it should be used as an alternative to birth control though. I think that we should follow the laws of baseball - on the third abortion, the woman has proven that she is not capable of even taking a simple pill so her tubes get tied.

Sounds good to me.

Confed999
27 Dec 05,, 01:03
Pro-choice for early term abortions. Anti-abortion personally. ;)

THL
27 Dec 05,, 01:24
Pro-choice for early term abortions. Anti-abortion personally. ;)
My question to this pro-choice is this:

Do you think that this should include unlimited abortions or should there be some sort of restrictions or limitations?

Confed999
27 Dec 05,, 01:33
My question to this pro-choice is this:

Do you think that this should include unlimited abortions or should there be some sort of restrictions or limitations?
Personally I don't think there should be abortions for any reason other than medical. i.e. Mom has a good chance of death. My tiny pro-choice side is based simply on my inability to figure out how the Federal government should have any say in this procedure at all. For that, and that alone I am willing to concede that until the child has a reasonable chance of surviving on it's own, at around 500 grams, I should have no say in it. I do think all of the materials should be required to be used for research though. Something good has to come from all the bad.

dalem
27 Dec 05,, 05:11
My opinion has changed over the years. The biggest factor is that no one I know who has kids or is going to have one (I have no interest in this area myself) likes the idea of abortion. I guess that seeing the ultrasound does something, and I have nothing to counter that. That has become an important datum to me.

Then again, I remember the scare me & my girlfriend went through back in college. I wasn't about to stop putting my peepee in her birth-controlled po-po, but I also was in no way interested in or ready for fatherhood.

-dale

Somaton
27 Dec 05,, 15:27
I think it should be optional, but not totally free. Abortion as contraceptive is ruthless, and if there are no boundaries the method will most certainly be abused.

A ban calls for desperate actions by desperate women, like the pregnant Irish sailing in to international waters in small boats getting the surgery done.

Bluesman
27 Dec 05,, 16:20
That a living thing is being killed is beyond dispute. That the living thing in question is human is likewise beyond dispute.

The meaning of "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." is plain, and it is equally plain that an abortion clinic conducts no legal proceeding that sanctions said life.

This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that SOME human being's rights are getting violated during an abortion, and that human ends up dead, having committed no offense whatsoever.

So, really, what we're talking about is not sanctity of life, nor due process of law. It comes down to to personal convenience, and living one's life regardless of the impact of one's decisions on anybody else. If a pregnancy inconveniences you due to your own bad choices or a refusal to take responsibility for those choices, a human being can be killed, so that you may continue to live as you have. 'Pro-choice', my ass. 'Anti-consequence' should be the new term we use for groups and individuals that favor abortion-on-demand.

That whole paradigm doesn't work for me.

And don't even bring up the rape/incest/mother's life foils; the instances of those among the 1.5 MILLION American abortions every single year is to the vanishing point, so we'll not make WAB case law based on those rare occurrences.

In a country where hopeful adoptive parents-to-be wait sometimes for years for a healthy baby to bring into their lives, it is absolutely a scandal and a national blot every bit as bad as slavery to countenance legal abortion-on-demand.

Oh, and all of you that want SOME restrictions on abortion: HOW can you legally justify it? The way the law works is, you either make it legal, or you outlaw it. Three strikes and you're out? WHY? Were those first three kids less deserving of their lives than subsequent children?

The ironically-named 'pro-choice' [snort] argument says that the government should have no right to regulate any woman's body. True; but what of that unborn child's body? If it survives the attempt to kill it (and there is no dispute that this is what happens in an abortion procedure), it will develop into a being that enjoys those same rights as its mother. So when does this occur, this gaining of legal status that will protect it? Presumably, then, the question turns on when life begins, because as we already know, the thing being aborted is undeniably human.

A high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins, and the nonsense that we've endured since 1973 about that question is too stupid for debate, but debate has raged over that question for precisely this reason: the truth of the answer is inconvenient for the pro-abortion side. And anytime one side shrinks from acknowledging a self-evident fact, it means that their cause is intellectually bankrupt. Life begins at conception, and the life that was begun by an act of choice is without a single doubt HUMAN, and therefore deserving of protection.

This doesn't affect morality in any way. Notice I didn't bring God into this issue; I'm an atheist, and I argue this position from a secular angle. I believe law (in the form of the US Constitution) and science are both on my side.

I'm an absolutist: NO ABORTION. It's wrong.

Julie
27 Dec 05,, 16:48
I support the right, but not the act. Government has no right to regulate morality.I second that. :)

Bluesman
27 Dec 05,, 17:38
Explain how prevention of murder is legislating morality.

For if innocent life is being taken, define it as anything other than murder. I dare you.

And if you're uncomfortable with the ACT, ask yourself WHY you do not support the act. And supporting the RIGHT is morally no different than supporting the ACT. You are intellectually and morally certain that the former will lead to the latter, which it does, 1.5 MILLION times every year in this country. NO DIFFERENCE.

So, what is it about the act that you don't like? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know why this isn't just another medical procedure, with the same moral signifigance as having a wart removed. I await your answer: WHY are you of the same opinion as Hillary, that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare'? Why should it be 'rare'? Is it an acknowledgement that there IS a moral dimension to abortion, and that the moral component has to do with innocent life being deliberately targeted and terminated?

You don't get to take that stand, I'm afraid. Either abortion is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing it, or it is no big deal, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on its practice.

You're pro-choice? Then CHOOSE: which is it?

astralis
27 Dec 05,, 18:55
bluesman,

problem with your absolutist position is simply that people are going to be irresponsible, whether abortion is on the table or not. do you really think, that if abortion was banned today, that people would all of a sudden just...stop? that illegal abortions would not exist, child dumping would not exist, that a million other evils that would lead to a slower, more painful death for the baby or the mother would not exist?

and we're not even talking about rape, where the mother must bear the consequences of having been attacked.

in fact, it has been conclusively linked- not just correlation but causation- that since abortion was legalized, the US crime rate has fallen. what about the morality and ethics of that?

to think about it in another way, we allow cars to be driven (in most places) at 55-65 mph. this results in thousands of fatalities every year, as innocent drivers/passengers/pedestrians get killed. in your terms, then, how can the state sanction something that will inevitably lead to the killing of innocents?

by the way, not every high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins. plenty of definitions for it. which definition would one use in this case? that's a question that has been debated for years among bio-ethicists.

bonehead
27 Dec 05,, 19:52
First of all, lets not forget that abortions are legal. The highest court in the land has said so. The law has held up against tirades such as yours for decades. As such, abortion clinics , and the people who use them, are acting within the law. That the fetus is living and is a human is not the dispute. The dispute is exactly what rights the unborn have (if they have any at all.) Rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, are valid reasons and they happen enough to be a consideration. Additionally, we now can do testing to see if the fetus has some dibilitationg disease that would mean when born, the child will be in constant pain and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care befor dying a few months later. Many parents do not have that kind of money and an abortion would save them the agony of seeing their own child suffer. Religions also give people a choice. They can follow the teachings of their religion or not. If you tell a lie are you automatically struck down by a bolt of lightning? The key is the choice. When that person dies and meets his maker is when he has to reconcile all that he has done.

When I say I'd rather we have less abortions it is not the act itself, but the actions, inactions and attitudes that lead up to the abortion that I would rather see changed so the parents would not have to use the abortion choice as often. The bottom line is that abortion is a personal choice and it really is not our business if our neighbors, or someone across the country has one. We all have enough of our oun problems to work through with out sticking our noses in someone elses problems. I'd rather that we have less wars, but I do not think that the world will change, and become peacefull because of what I believe in.

Adoption is laughable. There are many healthy children in the U.S. who are waiting to be adopted but aren't. Until these kids are adopted, we don't need any more unwanted children. We already have millions of abandoned, neglected and abused children, which is a huge strain on the goverment's and local community's resources, and another 1.5 million unwanted children a year more won't make things any better.
So in conclusion, the law says people have a right to choose and religions give the right to choose. Bluesman, you have no legal or moral right to stand on when you rail against choice.

THL
27 Dec 05,, 22:03
My opinion has changed over the years. The biggest factor is that no one I know who has kids or is going to have one (I have no interest in this area myself) likes the idea of abortion. I guess that seeing the ultrasound does something, and I have nothing to counter that. That has become an important datum to me.
I have a daughter and I still think abortion should be an option. Not for me, of course, since she is nearing 4 that would be waaaaayyy past that late-term abortion. ;) KIDDING!!


Then again, I remember the scare me & my girlfriend went through back in college. I wasn't about to stop putting my peepee in her birth-controlled po-po, but I also was in no way interested in or ready for fatherhood.-dale
LOL

THL
27 Dec 05,, 22:08
Oh, and all of you that want SOME restrictions on abortion: HOW can you legally justify it? The way the law works is, you either make it legal, or you outlaw it. Three strikes and you're out? WHY? Were those first three kids less deserving of their lives than subsequent children?
I dont at all think that those 1st three kids were less deserving. I am going off the assumption that the majority of women that would be having multiple abortions should not be mothers and should not be forced to have the children. My assumption is that they are low-income, welfare most likely, and to expect them to give a child up for adoption is unlikely as that would cut back on their welfare checks. My attempt here is to keep them from getting pregnant at all but if I were to say that they should be on mandatory birth control the human rights activists would be hunting me down (those darn Liberals! ;) )

Ballguy
27 Dec 05,, 23:07
Explain how prevention of murder is legislating morality.

For if innocent life is being taken, define it as anything other than murder. I dare you.

And if you're uncomfortable with the ACT, ask yourself WHY you do not support the act. And supporting the RIGHT is morally no different than supporting the ACT. You are intellectually and morally certain that the former will lead to the latter, which it does, 1.5 MILLION times every year in this country. NO DIFFERENCE.

So, what is it about the act that you don't like? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know why this isn't just another medical procedure, with the same moral signifigance as having a wart removed. I await your answer: WHY are you of the same opinion as Hillary, that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare'? Why should it be 'rare'? Is it an acknowledgement that there IS a moral dimension to abortion, and that the moral component has to do with innocent life being deliberately targeted and terminated?

You don't get to take that stand, I'm afraid. Either abortion is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing it, or it is no big deal, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on its practice.

You're pro-choice? Then CHOOSE: which is it?


Okay, almost exclusively, medical associations do not view it as murder. It is not just legislating morality, but making abortion legal is the same as practicing medicine without a license.

Bluesman
28 Dec 05,, 05:15
bluesman,

problem with your absolutist position

There is no problem with my absolutist position, and if you can get through the next few sentences that answer yours, you'll see why.


is simply that people are going to be irresponsible, whether abortion is on the table or not.

Well, of course they are going to be irresponsible. And there should be a cost to that. See, you don't really understand freedom. There really is only one human right: to do as you dam' well please. And to accompany that there is but one duty: to take the consequences. BUT YOU would have an innocent life pay for your fun, right? WRONG. Why can't you see that this is WRONG?


do you really think, that if abortion was banned today, that people would all of a sudden just...stop?

Certainly not, don't be stupid. Murder (the commonly-held legal definition, not presently including abortion) is illegal, but humans keep wrongly killing each other, don't they? Yes, they do. And it is still wrong. Do you propose to take capital murder off the statutes, bein' as how folk just won't stop doin' it? Sure would cut down on 'crime'.


that illegal abortions would not exist, child dumping would not exist, that a million other evils that would lead to a slower, more painful death for the baby or the mother would not exist?

I see your point: let's kill 'em quickly and out-of-sight, so your exquisite conscience doesn't trouble you.

No, wait a second...that's a hypocritical and evil stand to take, now that I've put one moment's thought to it. But you stake it out as your position as long as you don't get any personal nightmares about your lack of morality.

I've heard that particular argument until I can now see how the most civilized nation on earth at the time could fill up cattle cars with their own citizens, this 'better to die than live a yucky life' canard. You're a rather revolting specimen of humanity, ain't ya, Herr astralis?


and we're not even talking about rape, where the mother must bear the consequences of having been attacked.

No, we're not, as I said in my post. One doesn't make law on such cases, one makes EXCEPTIONS to the law in such cases.


in fact, it has been conclusively linked- not just correlation but causation- that since abortion was legalized, the US crime rate has fallen. what about the morality and ethics of that?

Okay, I think I'm following you, here, and it goes something like this: if we say murder in the form of abortion is LEGAL, then ALL crime goes down, because unloved and lower-class babies are more likely to be law-breakers sometime in the future. Or they could be George Washington Carver...but the hell with HIM, right?

Let's just go all the way, and start driving the crime rate down by killing probable law-breakers based on actuarial tables. Dude, you're WARPED. Instead, I propose that we start imprisoning people that break the law IN ACTUALITY, not at some indeterminate point in the future (where even that uncommitted crime gets a death sentence without trial).

And I challenge your assertion that crime rates fall in proportion to abortions performed, instead of as the ACTUAL result of effective policing and incarceration. THAT is the positive and proven correllation, NOT the incidence of abortions performed, and I had better see some stats if you come at me with that crap again, Professor. (DAYUM, the stupid things some people will put their name to... :mad: )


to think about it in another way, we allow cars to be driven (in most places) at 55-65 mph. this results in thousands of fatalities every year, as innocent drivers/passengers/pedestrians get killed. in your terms, then, how can the state sanction something that will inevitably lead to the killing of innocents?

They do; have you never gotten a speeding ticket? In other words, there are laws in place that keep people from being RECKLESS with other's lives, by keeping speeds reasonable. Note how I'm not arguing that every single child's in utero death is a murder, only the ones that are deliberately killed. Can you see the difference? Do you see why that analogy is a complete non sequitor?


by the way, not every high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins.

True; retards abound, particulalrly among the half-educated high schoolers. You seem to be one. There is simply no question about when life begins.


plenty of definitions for it.

But only one is correct. And that one is plain. As much as you'd like to believe that YOU or anybody else gets to decide, this is an iron FACT: at conception, nothing needs to be added for that combination to fit all definitions of HUMAN LIFE, and its processes will continue, if not interfered with, to result in a human being.


which definition would one use in this case?

See above.


that's a question that has been debated for years among bio-ethicists.

Let 'em debate, because that's what this whole thing is about: ETHICS. What value do we place on inconvenient human life? (In your case, the answer seems to be 'Not much'.) But the question of Biology 101 is definitively CLOSED.

Philosophy is hard, folks and subject to interpretation. Biology is LOTS more straight-forward. You want to argue the merits of your side? FINE, do it on the ground where we can split the difference. Science is MY ally.

Bluesman
28 Dec 05,, 06:07
First of all, lets not forget that abortions are legal.

Second of all, let's not forget that at one time slavery was legal, too. But it was never moral, and it came to be seen in more enlightened times as the indefensible shame that it always was.


The highest court in the land has said so.

Ditto slavery. Too easy...


The law has held up against tirades such as yours for decades.

The first slaves arrived in America in 1619. The last ones were freed in 1865. How many decades is THAT?


As such, abortion clinics , and the people who use them, are acting within the law.

Selling other human beings and whipping them for a whim was legal for the entire span of slavery, as well. But it was always WRONG.


That the fetus is living and is a human is not the dispute.

We agree on THAT.


The dispute is exactly what rights the unborn have (if they have any at all.)

Well, as the Consitution is silent about WHEN rights accrue...I win. If they're human, and you concede that they ARE, then they benefit from the same right to life as you or I do.


Rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, are valid reasons and they happen enough to be a consideration.

Not for purposes of abrogating Consitutional rights on a broad basis to persons not in any way connected with any of those circumstances, they aren't.


Additionally, we now can do testing to see if the fetus has some dibilitationg disease that would mean when born, the child will be in constant pain and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care befor dying a few months later.

Okay, knock it off. These aren't the cases we're talking about, and you dam' well know it. Well over 99% of abortions performed are simply methods of birth control, done for the convenience of one or both parents. You want to get into the other 1%, let's talk about THAT. I'm talking about abortion-on-demand. THAT is the law of the land, NOT the difficult and wrenching cases that are properly considered to be the exception to the law.


Many parents do not have that kind of money and an abortion would save them the agony of seeing their own child suffer.

Let's kill every single child found in a homeless shelter, then. No difference. Mom and Dad didn't know they were going to fall on hard times, and not be able to raise the young'uns like Wally and the Beav, so sell the little corpses to science.

NO, and I cannot BELIEVE anybody would try to sell me the utterly contemptible argument that a bad life (POTENTIALLY a bad life; poverty-stricken doesn't mean 'worthless', you know) is worse than no life.


Religions also give people a choice. They can follow the teachings of their religion or not. If you tell a lie are you automatically struck down by a bolt of lightning? The key is the choice. When that person dies and meets his maker is when he has to reconcile all that he has done.

Not even sure where you're going with all of that. If you're attempting to buttress your point, I fail to see it.


When I say I'd rather we have less abortions it is not the act itself, but the actions, inactions and attitudes that lead up to the abortion that I would rather see changed so the parents would not have to use the abortion choice as often.

So, all the dead kids don't bother you, it's really just the carlessness, laziness and immorality of the baby-makers (you used the word 'parents' but of course, that word is completely the wrong word to use - for so many, many reasons - for people that abort their child(ren)) that you have a problem with.

But why WHY WHY is abortion troubling to you AT ALL? It's like saying, 'I wish so many men didn't wear earrings', or 'There shouldn't be all those silver cars on the road.' It's a matter of moral insignificance, right? Why not have THREE MILLION abortions per year in America? FIVE MILLION? What, EXACTLY, troubles you enough that you'd like to see their numbers reduced?


The bottom line is that abortion is a personal choice and it really is not our business if our neighbors, or someone across the country has one.

It's my business if they kill their children POST-natal. Why is it not my business if they kill 'em in utero? See, I happen to believe that they are endowed with all of the rights that you and I have to life, and their placement in reference to Mom's womb is really immaterial to the application of those rights.


We all have enough of our oun problems to work through with out sticking our noses in someone elses problems.

Then let's make ALL infanticide a matter of choice for the parents. Their own bidness; not my concern.


I'd rather that we have less wars, but I do not think that the world will change, and become peacefull because of what I believe in.

Adoption is laughable.

IS IT, now? Personally, I think it's an exalted and selfless act, but I sure see how somebody that's pro-abortion would sneer at it. If you'd countenance 1.5 million murders of children a year, I can sure see that the welfare of the luckier survivors would be a joke to you.


There are many healthy children in the U.S. who are waiting to be adopted but aren't.

I doubt that, but you get me a figure, and I'm willing to be corrected. But even if what you say is true, PLEASE try to sell me on how their pre-natal deaths would've been better for them than their sub-par lives vainly waiting to go home with Ward and June.


Until these kids are adopted, we don't need any more unwanted children.

NOW we're down to it. UNWANTED. And from this, YOU or a court or some other man-made and fallible structure will dispense or withold their humanity, decide who's worthy of their right to life. NO. THAT IS WRONG.

Human life is inherently valuable, actually it is THE most inherently valuable thing, and you don't get to 'grant' it, like it was a party favor reserved for your pals.


We already have millions of abandoned, neglected and abused children, which is a huge strain on the goverment's and local community's resources, and another 1.5 million unwanted children a year more won't make things any better.

And I think they WILL make things better. Remember when human beings were actually thought of as, well, as fellow human beings? Instead of being competitors for government largesse and spoils, they actually had value and reflected in their protection and inclusion the values of a society that had as its prime concern things more cosmic and deep than how much of your stuff you'd have to give 'em? Keep in mind WHO you advocate killing: the least able to defend themselves, the ones who need protection the most.

And I reject the argument that 1.5 million children a year are all future orphans or abuse/neglect cases. Ask for my phone number, call me sometime, and I'll let you speak to three reasons why I feel this way.


So in conclusion, the law says people have a right to choose and religions give the right to choose. Bluesman, you have no legal or moral right to stand on when you rail against choice.

In conclusion, I'd say you'd be right if I was as blase about the rights and lives of my fellow Americans as you seem to be. Because it's not ME who's against choice, chief: it's YOU that tries to prevent the most defenseless and voiceless from ever exercising ANY choice, instead of the people responsible for exercising THEIR choice, and failing to live with the consequences of those choices.

Bluesman
28 Dec 05,, 06:21
I dont at all think that those 1st three kids were less deserving. I am going off the assumption that the majority of women that would be having multiple abortions should not be mothers and should not be forced to have the children. My assumption is that they are low-income, welfare most likely, and to expect them to give a child up for adoption is unlikely as that would cut back on their welfare checks. My attempt here is to keep them from getting pregnant at all but if I were to say that they should be on mandatory birth control the human rights activists would be hunting me down (those darn Liberals! ;) )

Well. That post is quite the philosophical and legal dog's breakfast. No offense, but that is a completely indefensible stand you've taken, there, and represents some of what is so wrong with the 'kinda-sorta-for-abortion-but-not-always' crowd. It is confused and incoherent, and needs to thought through, because it is simply unsustainable intellectually.

Confed999
28 Dec 05,, 06:27
I really like you Bluesman. :)

Bluesman
28 Dec 05,, 06:29
Thanks, dude, back atcha. :biggrin:

I'm really rollin', here...

astralis
28 Dec 05,, 08:12
haha bluesman,

aren't we a mite sensitive on this issue. :)

in any case,

the main point of contention is that you believe that all the sanctity/rights that a living, breathing, fully-formed innocent human being should be given just when sperm meets egg.

i do not believe so. and neither does the vast majority of scientists/bio-ethicists. nor your average american, right or left (including current and the presumed future members of the US supreme court). you will find your position still rarer if the sample size enlargens to other people of the world.

the basis of your position lies, then, not in science but in your personal philosophy of when this sanctity should be granted.

in other words, by condemning me as being immoral and equivalent to a fascist goon, you are doing the same if not worse to most of your fellow countrrymen (whom you've defended valiantly all these years).

so...do try to attack the argument without descending into a personal level.

also,


And I challenge your assertion that crime rates fall in proportion to abortions performed, instead of as the ACTUAL result of effective policing and incarceration. THAT is the positive and proven correllation, NOT the incidence of abortions performed, and I had better see some stats if you come at me with that crap again, Professor.

i will. in fact, there is a book written for the layman about statistics that deals with this, and it has been quite popular.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073132X/104-0499249-2702355?v=glance&n=283155

it is certainly a compelling book, and not just for its take on the abortion issue as well. they use various references and sources for their calculations in the matter that may be of interest to you.

astralis
28 Dec 05,, 08:45
an interesting site that lays out the argument for both sides.

http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/abortion.html

sparten
28 Dec 05,, 10:25
I agree with Bluesman. Human Life begins at conception. Hence, abortion should be illegal (never mind that; it should be murder).

Let me ask you one question; most common law countries (of which the US is one) hold that if say "a man deliberatly stabs a pregnant women's womb with intent to kill the child, and the Child is determined to have died of said stroke", the man would have committed murder. This has been the position going back to old Billy Blackstone.

Most (I daresay all) people would agree that it is murder. So Tell me, if abortion is oka, than why not that act? Why permit the doctor, and not the idiot with the knief? Pretty flawed logic.

THL
28 Dec 05,, 13:42
Well. That post is quite the philosophical and legal dog's breakfast. No offense, but that is a completely indefensible stand you've taken, there, and represents some of what is so wrong with the 'kinda-sorta-for-abortion-but-not-always' crowd. It is confused and incoherent, and needs to thought through, because it is simply unsustainable intellectually.

No offense taken.

I think it would be great to be able to keep everyone from ever needing to have an abortion. As you mentioned, there are plenty of people in the US alone that cannot have kids and would LOVE to adopt these babies. If it were possible, I would sign that petition by lunch...but it is not possible I don't think.

Given the choice between telling a woman to have an abortion or make her have that child which will end up in a dumpster somewhere or hungry and crying while the mother and father (if he is in the picture or even known) are off at the local bar - I would fight for that woman to have an abortion. Even with IL's law where a parent can bring a baby to a police station, fire station or hospital and leave it there - NO QUESTIONS ASKED, this is still something that happens often...too often. Anyone can get pregnant and have a baby without the state stepping in and "taking away that right".

This is a lesser of two evils situation. Which is better? Aborting the baby when it is a zygote or letting it go full term, risk it being born addicted to who knows what, let it go through withdraw symptons after being born and then left to die, or at best have a horrible upbringing being neglected, anyway?

THL
28 Dec 05,, 14:04
Let me ask you one question; most common law countries (of which the US is one) hold that if say "a man deliberatly stabs a pregnant women's womb with intent to kill the child, and the Child is determined to have died of said stroke", the man would have committed murder. This has been the position going back to old Billy Blackstone.
Fetal Homicide is governed by the state. I know IL has a fetal homicide law and, at least when I was in college, it was any fetus more than 7 weeks old would be eligible for a homicide charge.


Most (I daresay all) people would agree that it is murder. So Tell me, if abortion is oka, than why not that act? Why permit the doctor, and not the idiot with the knief? Pretty flawed logic.

General question, not just directed at you, sparten:
At the risk of starting a whole new twist to this thread, and that is not at all my intention so try and stay with me here, folks, I ask this:

There was a thread where I had said that I thought the government should be able to "govern" or monitor who has and who does not have a gun. I was outnumbered on this to say the least. Why then, would it be okay for the government to "govern" what a woman can and cannot do with something that is affecting her own body and would not be able to survive outside her own body (assuming early term abortions)?

I know that someone will answer because is murder and murder is illegal - but why would the government be able to say what is and is not legal. Down to it, why should the government only be able to govern certain things and not everything?

(again, I am not trying to turn this into a gun legality debate - we have already been there and done that. I am only using this as an example)

Monk
28 Dec 05,, 14:06
I see that Bluesman has made this thread his own and he seems quite angry. :biggrin:

Anyway to the question at hand, Bluesman's assertion that abortion for convenience/demand is wrong seems to be largely correct since he has made exceptions for Rape/Incest/Mother's ill health etc however I would also like to add underage immature mothers and economically weak parents who already are taking care of several children to this list. If these exceptions are in place then yes the remaining cases shouldn't be allowed.

But Bluesman I have a specific caveat to my concurrence with you, the point that the the foetus on attaining life signs has legal rights is an absolutely untenable stand. You cannot acquire constitutional rights unless you are a distinct individual i.e. the mother has given birth to the child. Then and only then can the child attain constitutional rights. An anti-abortion law with suitable exceptions is a fairly good idea but I will certainly not support punishment and most certainly not a murder rap.

One final question for Bluesman, If the anti-abortion law comes into force, the mother is being forced to do her moral duty of having the child she conceived but what about the father and what if he intends to abandon the mother and child. How are you going to regulate him or is it only a mother's job to have a child, care for it etc?

THL
28 Dec 05,, 14:16
I see that Bluesman has made this thread his own and he seems quite angry. :biggrin:
I think that this is just something he feels strongly about - can't hold that against a guy, lord knows I have mine. :tongue:



One final question for Bluesman, If the anti-abortion law comes into force, the mother is being forced to do her moral duty of having the child she conceived but what about the father and what if he intends to abandon the mother and child. How are you going to regulate him or is it only a mother's job to have a child, care for it etc?
fighting for the opposition, and I hope no womens right groups are lurking around reading this, but this is what I think:

Yes the father should be held responsible, he was there, too after all.

But prevention, ultimately, I think comes down to the woman. We all know it is the woman that can get pregnant, we all know how it happens, and we all know how to prevent it from happening. If a woman REALLY does not want to get pregnant and does not trust the conventional means, there is a minor surgery that most insurance plans will pay for. Snip, Nip, All Done.

sparten
28 Dec 05,, 14:27
7 Weeks in IL? Thanks for the info THL!
Over here its whenever the person is aware that a women is pregnent.

Julie
28 Dec 05,, 14:44
Bluesman

Every individual doesn't live in your perfect little world, nor will the children they conceive. Have you ever seen a baby born to a crack-addicted mother? I have further seen these mothers selling their children's bodies for dope.

You take away the choice of the situation of the individual, and you will be subjecting these unwanted children to a fury of hell.

There is more to the morality of the situation than just the choice Bluesman.

Monk
28 Dec 05,, 15:07
Yes the father should be held responsible, he was there, too after all.

But prevention, ultimately, I think comes down to the woman. We all know it is the woman that can get pregnant, we all know how it happens, and we all know how to prevent it from happening. If a woman REALLY does not want to get pregnant and does not trust the conventional means, there is a minor surgery that most insurance plans will pay for. Snip, Nip, All Done.


I don't agree with this. A man is as responsible in this whole affair as a woman.

Shek
28 Dec 05,, 15:19
2 points brought up previously that I would like to cover:

1. The Donohue and Levitt (DL) study, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf) has been discounted, not fully, but to a degree by Foote and Goetz's "Testing Economic Hypotheses with State-Level Data: A Comment on Donohue and Levitt" (http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf). Basically, they found omitted variable bias within DL's calculations as well as a programming mistake. After correcting for the programming error and fixing the omitted variable bias, they debunked DL's conclusion that the fetuses aborted had a higher propensity for crime than the average population (this conclusion was the source of Bill Bennett's highly controversial remarks this past summer about hypothetically aborting all black fetuses, which in the same breath he renounced as repugnant) and that the remaining effect was that the only reason there was less crime was because the population had been lessened by the number of abortions.

EDIT: Another way of stating the above effect is that abortions have zero effect on the crime rate. The following assertion is therefore false


in fact, it has been conclusively linked- not just correlation but causation- that since abortion was legalized, the US crime rate has fallen.

In other words, if abortion didn't exist, you would get the exact same effect by randomly killing 1 year olds to an amount equal to the number of legal abortions that had previously been conducted.

I haven't read through the entire DL study, but one thing that concerns me about their data is what effect legalization had on the number of abortions performed - that is, to what extent did abortion become the primary method of birth control due to being readily available, thereby artificially increasing the rate of abortion - and how they discounted this effect.

2. There is a 2 year waiting list for adoption of newborns according to the sites I saw yesterday. The numbers for the kids who haven't been adopted are for older kids.

THL
28 Dec 05,, 15:22
I don't agree with this. A man is as responsible in this whole affair as a woman.
Of course he is, I am saying. But one can only do so much to make him be responsible. If he takes off, she can search for him and possibly find him, but then what? If he is not working, she cannot get any help financially. If he runs, would she want his help taking care of the child after that?

If a woman does not want to get into this situation, she has the power to prevent it is all I am saying.

Monk
28 Dec 05,, 15:57
Of course he is, I am saying. But one can only do so much to make him be responsible. If he takes off, she can search for him and possibly find him, but then what? If he is not working, she cannot get any help financially. If he runs, would she want his help taking care of the child after that?

If you can't make the man responsible, then what right do you have to just shove it down the woman's throat and say "Abortion is Wrong"?

THL
28 Dec 05,, 16:00
If you can't make the man responsible, then what right do you have to just shove it down the woman's throat and say "Abortion is Wrong"?
I dont think abortion is wrong if done early enough. I dont think it should be used as a means of birth control, however. I think there should be a limit on the number of abortions a woman should be able to have in one lifetime.

All I am saying about not being able to force the man to be responsible is that the woman has no control over what the guy will do after a situation is created, she does have control over what she does to prevent a situation she would rather not be in.

sparten
28 Dec 05,, 17:45
All I am saying about not being able to force the man to be responsible is that the woman has no control over what the guy will do after a situation is created, she does have control over what she does to prevent a situation she would rather not be in.
Exactly, my point! You habve a situation where (mostly) on one side there is an adult women women, who chose a ceratin action, knowing fully the possible consequences, while on the other had there is a blameless, defenceless unborn child, who may be deprived of his life (or chance at life which is even worse).

If the state should ever restrict personal liberty, it should do so for the benefit of the weaker party.

THL
28 Dec 05,, 18:57
Exactly, my point! You habve a situation where (mostly) on one side there is an adult women women, who chose a ceratin action, knowing fully the possible consequences, while on the other had there is a blameless, defenceless unborn child, who may be deprived of his life (or chance at life which is even worse).

If the state should ever restrict personal liberty, it should do so for the benefit of the weaker party.
But sparten, who is going to care for that "defenseless unborn child" ? In the instances that this "defenseless unborn child" is going to be born to some woman on welfare, or some drug addict, or some woman that already has a dozen kids and cannot possibly take anymore and that "defenseless unborn child" will be at risk of physical, mental or emotional abuse - would you rather not see that "defenseless unborn child" not be born at all instead of being born into poverty, abuse or neglect? Is it better to force that woman to have this "defenseless unborn child" and let the child live a horrible life than to abort it when it cannot hear, feel (we don't know if it can feel, I know) see, etc etc? Assuming the fetus can feel - would it not be better to have it endure a few minutes of pain while being aborted than potentially an entire childhood of pain and neglect?

What about all these kids in impovershed (is that even a word?) countries? Kids that are guaranteed a life of hunger and disease? These women should be allowed to keep having kid after kid just hoping one makes it to adulthood? That is better than an abortion?

astralis
28 Dec 05,, 18:57
shek,

interesting stuff!! this is what i'd like to see.

however, DL have a reply, not directly to foote and goetz, but to joyce (whom was mentioned in the foote and goetz article).

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittReply2004.pdf

happy reading :)

Shek
28 Dec 05,, 19:01
shek,

interesting stuff!! this is what i'd like to see.

however, DL have a reply, not directly to foote and goetz, but to joyce (whom was mentioned in the foote and goetz article).

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittReply2004.pdf

happy reading :)

Yeah, I saw that. They crushed Joyce, which is why I didn't cite his work in trying to analyze DL's work, or even try to find Joyce's paper for that matter. It's fascinating stuff, and it's interesting to see all the interest group websites that attack DL's work and post generic graphs and then try to make sweeping inferences from them. I am still very much a beginner in econometrics, but I at least know enough to have some capacity at critical analysis.

What I liked about the FG paper is that they also provided all the data with the paper, allowing others to peer review it. That's something that I haven't found with many other papers that get cited.

astralis
28 Dec 05,, 19:06
shek,

yes, i find that less with most political science and economics papers; my old colleagues in the biosciences dept have it better on that aspect.

anyhow, the articles that you've brought up are still quite interesting. all i can say is that i'm glad i'm not an econometric guy- stats was not my favorite course in either my undergraduate or graduate education :biggrin:

Shek
28 Dec 05,, 19:12
shek,

yes, i find that less with most political science and economics papers; my old colleagues in the biosciences dept have it better on that aspect.

anyhow, the articles that you've brought up are still quite interesting. all i can say is that i'm glad i'm not an econometric guy- stats was not my favorite course in either my undergraduate or graduate education :biggrin:

Econometrics is not my friend, nor the friend of my GPA. :frown:

Ballguy
28 Dec 05,, 23:06
This is what Charles A. Fager, M.D., F.A.C.S, has to say about "unborn children"

The sanctimonious politicians who pass laws to protect the lives of "unborn children" do so without any knowledge or understandin of maternal health or fetal dimorphism. There has seldom been such blatant disregard for the cherished patient-physician relationship as the recent law passed by Congress and supported by President Bush abolishing "late term" abortions. It contains no provision for a hopelessly deformed fetus or the state of the mother's health and was passed under the guise of preventing a rarely used procedure.

sparten
29 Dec 05,, 06:11
But sparten, who is going to care for that "defenseless unborn child" ? In the instances that this "defenseless unborn child" is going to be born to some woman on welfare, or some drug addict, or some woman that already has a dozen kids and cannot possibly take anymore and that "defenseless unborn child" will be at risk of physical, mental or emotional abuse - would you rather not see that "defenseless unborn child" not be born at all instead of being born into poverty, abuse or neglect? Is it better to force that woman to have this "defenseless unborn child" and let the child live a horrible life than to abort it when it cannot hear, feel (we don't know if it can feel, I know) see, etc etc? Assuming the fetus can feel - would it not be better to have it endure a few minutes of pain while being aborted than potentially an entire childhood of pain and neglect?

What about all these kids in impovershed (is that even a word?) countries? Kids that are guaranteed a life of hunger and disease? These women should be allowed to keep having kid after kid just hoping one makes it to adulthood? That is better than an abortion?
Ma'am, it is not a perfect world. And even if that child is born into "poverty, abuse, neglect" he at least has a chance top make something out of himself. Abortion does not give him that chance.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 14:03
Ma'am, it is not a perfect world. And even if that child is born into "poverty, abuse, neglect" he at least has a chance top make something out of himself. Abortion does not give him that chance.

800 million people in the world are currently living with hunger or the risk of hunger. 13 million of these are children living in the United States
http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html

So these 13 million children are better off living like this rather than to not have to have grown up this way? This is abuse. This is absolutely absurd. Saddam Hussein is being treated better than this.

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect were contributing factors.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

Currently:
Fatal child abuse or neglect is the fatal physical injury or negligent treatment of a child by a person who is responsible for the child’s welfare. It is reported that more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of child abuse and neglect each year, and the actual number of abuse and neglect deaths is estimated to be much higher than that reported by vital statistics data.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesCAN.htm

This is better than abortion? 2000 kids being killed by abuse and neglect is better for them? It is better that their life ends this way; scared, hurt, abused, hungry and in most cases at the hands of their parents, than to have been aborted?!

Bring this a little closer to home: do you have kids? Think about your child, your infant, your toddler, your nephew, your niece, even your neighbors kid going through this. Now think about them going through this immediately before their death. Would it not be better that the child not have been born at all?!

There is no way I am ever going to be convinced that these 2000 kids each year should not have been aborted or that their lives were better because they were born. Their lives were HELL because their parents selfishly chose to have them.

Monk
29 Dec 05,, 14:13
I dont think abortion is wrong if done early enough. I dont think it should be used as a means of birth control, however. I think there should be a limit on the number of abortions a woman should be able to have in one lifetime.

This is life not a baseball game, you can't have strike outs.


All I am saying about not being able to force the man to be responsible is that the woman has no control over what the guy will do after a situation is created, she does have control over what she does to prevent a situation she would rather not be in.

This is an apologist way of saying, "What can the poor guy do?". He is as responsible as the woman, if you can't make him repsonsible under law, then you have no right to pressurise the woman to do anything. A man also knows the consequences of what happens when you have intercourse, just because a woman plays host doesn't mean she is repsonsible for everything. If you can't get the guy to do the right thing, then a woman can do whatever is best.

Monk
29 Dec 05,, 14:16
Exactly, my point! You habve a situation where (mostly) on one side there is an adult women women, who chose a ceratin action, knowing fully the possible consequences, while on the other had there is a blameless, defenceless unborn child, who may be deprived of his life (or chance at life which is even worse).

If the state should ever restrict personal liberty, it should do so for the benefit of the weaker party.


Just because the woman is the host to the child, doesn't make her anymore responsible or the man any less responsible. If you want to load everything on to the woman's head, thats a very medieval thought process. If you can't get the legal process to make the man repsonsible, then you have no right regulating the woman through legislation. All humans are equal in front of law, male or female. Ensure that the guy who contributes the sperm without which nothing can happen is held as responsible as a woman. Then and only then can you attempt to legislate the woman.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 14:24
This is life not a baseball game, you can't have strike outs.
:tongue: This is my proposition - Who are you, dear Monk, to tell me how proposed laws in my fantasy world can run? ;)

Seriously, I am saying as a way to prevent a woman from using abortion as birth control. I am pro-choice, absolutely, but I do not think that a woman should be premitted to just carry on like so.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 14:32
Just because the woman is the host to the child, doesn't make her anymore responsible or the man any less responsible.
Monk, I agree again that the male should be held responsible. All I am saying, and all sparten was agreeing to, is that if she does not want to get pregnant, she has the tools available to prevent this; she can go every few months and get a shot, she can get up and take a pill, she can say no, whatever.

I am only saying women should own their lives, take control of their own destinies. Women have the means available, they should be taking advantage of those means. She has the option of not getting pregnant, so if she does and the dude splits, she should not be surprised, but accept that she, too, could have prevented this from happening to her. Ultimately, it is the womans life and body that is going to be affected and she needs to take control of that.

sparten
29 Dec 05,, 14:55
The man should be held reponsible and indeed is, by paying child support. If he does not pay child support, than well then since the child is his legal heir, than simply sieze his bank accounts, or paychecks, or whatever you can get from his estate and pay it into court/ or hold in trust for the child. We do it all the time for loan defaulters, why not for them?


THL,
1)Saddam was actually born into poverty and abuse.
2) A Human life span is what, 60 years. Even if a child is born into poverty, he/she has a chance, no matter how small of improving their station in life.
3) To prevent abuse, you have state services don't you.

And I am fully aware of people who are born in absoute poverty. Please remember that I live in a third world country. Yet I have seen people rise from the ashes. My own boss at the law firm I am a trainee at, well he was illegitamate, yet he grew up to be able to join the army (he was with 25 Cav at Chawinda) and than later take a law degree and now he is the head of an international law firm, with offices all over (including your city; Sears Tower). If he had been aborted.......

Shek
29 Dec 05,, 15:06
Let's bring some stats into play:


http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Abortion Statistics - U.S.

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").


Abortion Statistics - Demographics

Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young. 52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.

Shek
29 Dec 05,, 15:10
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect were contributing factors.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm



At this rate, eliminating every single abortion (>1.3 million) would increase the number of child fatalities per year by 26. It is certainly sad that there is child abuse, but I don't see abortion as an effective solution for reducing child abuse.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 15:33
THL,
1)Saddam was actually born into poverty and abuse.
I don't understand the point. This information really only makes me smile.



2) A Human life span is what, 60 years. Even if a child is born into poverty, he/she has a chance, no matter how small of improving their station in life.
If the child is not one of the 2000 that are being killed each year.

Are you really okay with 2000 kids being killed because of neglect? Do you really think it is better that they were born and died horrible deaths?



3) To prevent abuse, you have state services don't you.
Sure we do. And I cannot tell you how many times DCFS leaves children in homes they should not be in because there is no where else to put them or how many times they "misplace" kids. I am going to the library at lunch, I will see what I can find.

sparten
29 Dec 05,, 15:54
I don't understand the point. This information really only makes me smile.
Oh, you said Saddam Hussein was treated better tha the abused kids. Pointing out that he was in fact; an abused kid. Not that I have any thing good to say about him



Ma'am their are people who are suffering from disabilities. Maybe we should "abort" them as well, since no doubt they will be better off. I know a kid with terminal cancer, yet in hios short life he has lit up every room he has ever been in.

That a Child "might" suffer from child abuse, has to be one of the least convincing arguements I have ever heard spoken in favour of abortion.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 16:19
At this rate, eliminating every single abortion (>1.3 million) would increase the number of child fatalities per year by 26. It is certainly sad that there is child abuse, but I don't see abortion as an effective solution for reducing child abuse.

A choice of not having a child born at all or having even one child born into abuse and negelct - I am going for not at all. Who is going to take care of these 1.3 million kids that were not wanted? The parents that did not want them? Let's see how far we can raise that child mortality rate, shall we? Because if parents that do not want a baby are forced to have one, that child is done for. Or should we just add them to the 523,000 that are already in foster care? (http://www.fostercaremonth.org/NR/rdonlyres/20811A92-3458-433C-83CD-1F288EEA6538/0/1f_Facts_fcm05.pdf ) Who is going to pay for DCFS to take care of these kids? Me. Because I am working and I pay taxes.

IL has a safe haven law which is that a parent can leave an unwanted baby under 72 hours old at a hospital, police or fire station with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. The parent can walk in, hand over the child and walk out and no one is going to do so much as ask the persons name. Sounds like a good idea, huh?

""The law has more than proven its effectiveness by saving 16 infants since it was passed in August, 2001," said Rep. Coulson. "Sadly, during the same period that 16 infants were saved, a total of 36 infants that were unsafely abandoned were recorded, and of those only 17 were found alive. It's clear that the more the word gets out, the more infants can be saved."
Written in 2003 (http://www.state.il.us/DCFS/library/com_communications_pr_Jul142005.shtml)

I don't see 16 babies being saved while 19 are not as effective.

We cannot expect these women that would be having these 1.3 million babies to do the right thing. We cannot assume that they would give the babies up. The majority of these people I am assuming would try and raise the babies...how many would be unsuccessful? Out of the 1.3 million abortions - how many would then be homicides? How many parents forced to have a baby they do not want and killing their babies each year is an acceptable number?

THL
29 Dec 05,, 16:20
That a Child "might" suffer from child abuse, has to be one of the least convincing arguements I have ever heard spoken in favour of abortion.
If someone is forced to have a child they don't want, who is going to have that anger taken out on them? People who make the laws or that defenseless child?

Shek
29 Dec 05,, 16:51
We cannot expect these women that would be having these 1.3 million babies to do the right thing. We cannot assume that they would give the babies up. The majority of these people I am assuming would try and raise the babies...how many would be unsuccessful? Out of the 1.3 million abortions - how many would then be homicides? How many parents forced to have a baby they do not want and killing their babies each year is an acceptable number?

BIRTH CONTROL
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.

MEDICAL
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Looking at the reasons that abortions are performed, the vast majority are performed as a primary or backup form of birth control. Therefore, using the 1.3 million stat is misleading, as legalized abortion encourages abortion as a form of birth control.

Next, if the women and/or men don't want to be responsible for a child, then they can choose to abstain from sex, use condoms, diaphrams, get tubes tied. Taking legalized abortion away doesn't take away choice.

THL
29 Dec 05,, 16:57
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

Looking at the reasons that abortions are performed, the vast majority are performed as a primary or backup form of birth control. Therefore, using the 1.3 million stat is misleading, as legalized abortion encourages abortion as a form of birth control.
Don't assume that because some girl walked anonymously into a family planning clinic and said that she wants to postpone childbearing or cannot afford it, that she would not have abused or killed this baby.

I agree that it should not be used as birth control. I am not at all saying that women should be allowed to have abortions just to have them. But making people have a baby that they do not want is just asking for trouble for these kids. Assuming the child lives to adulthood - what kind of emotional damage would be done knowing you were not wanted? Sure, some may prevail (as in the case of the boss) but not all or even most will.

Ballguy
30 Dec 05,, 01:06
BIRTH CONTROL
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.

MEDICAL
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Looking at the reasons that abortions are performed, the vast majority are performed as a primary or backup form of birth control. Therefore, using the 1.3 million stat is misleading, as legalized abortion encourages abortion as a form of birth control.

Next, if the women and/or men don't want to be responsible for a child, then they can choose to abstain from sex, use condoms, diaphrams, get tubes tied. Taking legalized abortion away doesn't take away choice.

Please, cite your statistics.

Shek
30 Dec 05,, 02:40
Please, cite your statistics.

I did. Scroll up the screen. LOL.

sparten
30 Dec 05,, 08:08
If someone is forced to have a child they don't want, who is going to have that anger taken out on them? People who make the laws or that defenseless child?

2000 kids killed a year, of that how many do you think were unwanted, and how many were wanted. I'd say the majority were "wanted".

Being unwanted does not mean the child will be mistreated. Just look in you social group and you will find many "unwanted" children, children their parents did not plan to have. We have a saying here, "First Child is born in love, the second through business and the third through accident." So ma'am believe me that the vast, vast majority of the "unwanted" kids end up beimg loved.

THL
30 Dec 05,, 13:23
So ma'am believe me that the vast, vast majority of the "unwanted" kids end up beimg loved.
Right now they do, but if you are adding a million or so kids to that number of unwanted kids, the number of mistreated kids is bound to go up. Right now, unwanted kids that are born, are at least wanted a little bit or they'd have been aborted. If you force the people who would not have had kids to have them, there are going to be a lot more abused kids.

My daughter is a good kid 99.9% of the time, but let me tell you, that if I had not gone through what I went through to get pregnant and then stay pregnant 4 years ago - last night would have sent me over the edge. If she had been born to someone else because the law said she HAD to and not that they WANTED her to be, she would have really pushed their limits, and someone who already resents a kid for HAVING to be there, is not going to have very high limits set. Her tantrum that went on from 1:30 until 6 this morning (and was actually still going on at 6, but I left her with her nanny) would have been the end of it for someone who did not want this kid anyway. It was hard enough for me and I went through hell getting her here.

Point is that if we force people to have kids that they would have chosen not to have, sure some of those kids will turn out okay, I'll even give you that most of them would be okay, but not all of them. And that small group of kids, to me anyway, is much much worse than abortion.

porsteamboy
30 Dec 05,, 13:48
But sparten, who is going to care for that "defenseless unborn child" ? In the instances that this "defenseless unborn child" is going to be born to some woman on welfare, or some drug addict, or some woman that already has a dozen kids and cannot possibly take anymore and that "defenseless unborn child" will be at risk of physical, mental or emotional abuse - would you rather not see that "defenseless unborn child" not be born at all instead of being born into poverty, abuse or neglect? Is it better to force that woman to have this "defenseless unborn child" and let the child live a horrible life than to abort it when it cannot hear, feel (we don't know if it can feel, I know) see, etc etc? Assuming the fetus can feel - would it not be better to have it endure a few minutes of pain while being aborted than potentially an entire childhood of pain and neglect?

What about all these kids in impovershed (is that even a word?) countries? Kids that are guaranteed a life of hunger and disease? These women should be allowed to keep having kid after kid just hoping one makes it to adulthood? That is better than an abortion?THL, I have 7 brothers and sisters and our parents abandon us in our early years and left us with my grand parents. The story is to long and complicated to tell but after my grandfather died my grand mother let a second grade school teacher adopt my 4 younger brothers and sisters(2 girls, 2 boys) she was sick at the time and was worried about the welfare of the younger kids!We older kids were considered un -adoptable. We found out later, the school teacher and her husband were boozers. The husband molested my sisters but they never told anyone until later later in life. Btw My Mother and Father didn't abandon together, my younger brothers and sisters were born after they were divorced, She was around for awhile then took off! let me tell you, my childhood was an emotional roller coaster, you go from blaming yourself to finally realizing your parents didn't love you, they were just having sex and you were the result of that act. Myself esteem was rock bottom, so I joined the Navy in hopes that I could build some self esteem and I thank the navy for squaring away a floundering kid. If my mother had decided on abortion it would have been a hell of alot easier on me and alot of other people but then I would have never met my 2 sons! Sorry for rambling but life is always better than not!

Monk
30 Dec 05,, 14:14
THL, I have 7 brothers and sisters and our parents abandon us in our early years and left us with my grand parents. The story is to long and complicated to tell but after my grandfather died my grand mother let a second grade school teacher adopt my 4 younger brothers and sisters(2 girls, 2 boys) she was sick at the time and was worried about the welfare of the younger kids!We older kids were considered un -adoptable. We found out later, the school teacher and her husband were boozers. The husband molested my sisters but they never told anyone until later later in life. Btw My Mother and Father didn't abandon together, my younger brothers and sisters were born after they were divorced, She was around for awhile then took off! let me tell you, my childhood was an emotional roller coaster, you go from blaming yourself to finally realizing your parents didn't love you, they were just having sex and you were the result of that act. Myself esteem was rock bottom, so I joined the Navy in hopes that I could build some self esteem and I thank the navy for squaring away a floundering kid. If my mother had decided on abortion it would have been a hell of alot easier on me and alot of other people but then I would have never met my 2 sons! Sorry for rambling but life is always better than not!


Your life is very moving. I hope you find the solace you seek so much. But your story just bolstered my point that irresponsible people have no right to bear children. Thank you and all the best.

Monk
30 Dec 05,, 14:19
Monk, I agree again that the male should be held responsible. All I am saying, and all sparten was agreeing to, is that if she does not want to get pregnant, she has the tools available to prevent this; she can go every few months and get a shot, she can get up and take a pill, she can say no, whatever.

I am only saying women should own their lives, take control of their own destinies. Women have the means available, they should be taking advantage of those means. She has the option of not getting pregnant, so if she does and the dude splits, she should not be surprised, but accept that she, too, could have prevented this from happening to her. Ultimately, it is the womans life and body that is going to be affected and she needs to take control of that.


You are not getting the point. Unless you can make the male as reponsible as the woman don't bother legislating the woman. And no Sparten, making the guy pay child support wont work. Ask the guys who grew up without their fathers, what a tough life it is. I know a couple of guys, one whose father died, the other father took off. They had a very very tough life. Money doesn't square up for that.
THL, I can't believe you are saying that the woman has the option of not getting pregnant etc. Pregnancies happen by accidents too, thats when people want to go in for an abortion. True, if the man is around then they have no right to abort but if the woman is alone then there is a lot more to consider.

THL
30 Dec 05,, 14:51
If my mother had decided on abortion it would have been a hell of alot easier on me and alot of other people but then I would have never met my 2 sons! Sorry for rambling but life is always better than not!
This is going to sound cold and cruel, but no matter how one looks at it, it is the truth.

Had you not been born, you would not have met your sons, but you would not have known that. It can be looked at this way, too. Had I not ran off with my ex, I would not have my daughter. Can I imagine life without her? No. But if I had never met her, I'd be able to imagine life without her.

sparten
30 Dec 05,, 14:52
And no Sparten, making the guy pay child support wont work. Ask the guys who grew up without their fathers, what a tough life it is. I know a couple of guys, one whose father died, the other father took off. They had a very very tough life. Money doesn't square up for that.
I also know a couple of kids like that. Sad :frown:
There are lots of "wanted" kids who grow up without a father; Divorce, orphaned etc. But you know something life is not fair.

THL, as the good Capt Shek pointed out, that even if abortion was banned, than the total number of new deaths would be 26. Death of a child is always a horrible thing, whether through abuse, or through a medical procedure.

Julie
30 Dec 05,, 15:05
If I, as a child, had the choice of a life of misery of being beaten and molested, I would rather have not even been born at all. If that is what humans have to offer me, then forget it. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

sparten
30 Dec 05,, 15:08
Finally wanted or not almost all people care for and love their children. It is an inbuilt human instinct, without which we would have not survived 500,000 years of evoloution. You make it sound that ending abortion would start o pandemic of abuse. Well before Roe vs Wade (United States), the Abortion Act 1967 (United Kingdom) or the addition of Sec 338 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code), there were your unwanted children being born. And there was no pandemic of child abuse.

THL
30 Dec 05,, 15:14
You are not getting the point.
Au Contraire, Monk.

It is actually my point that you are not getting. ;)


THL, I can't believe you are saying that the woman has the option of not getting pregnant etc. Pregnancies happen by accidents too, thats when people want to go in for an abortion.
I understand this and I thought of mentioning it, but since a couple using some sort of birth control has a less than 1% chance of her getting pregnant (or so says Trojanman) I decided not to.

Let me put this in a different context:
If I am going to be going out and sleeping with someone, anyone, whoever. Since I know that I have all the child (and more sometimes) I could possibly want in my smaller room mate, I am going to take whatever precautions need to be taken to do my best to prevent getting pregnant. There is no way I would put that responsibility on the man. How could I? If I were to end up pregnant, though he shouldn't, he would still be able to leave the situation. That would be an option for him. Immoral and wrong, but an option none the less.

I, on the other hand, would not have that option. I am the one that would be stuck with the next 9 months of relentless nauseating tiresome hell. Not him. I am the one that would then have to go in and hang out (though you do get some pretty good legal drugs :) ) while some butcher with a doctorate and a scapel saws open my abdomen and rips the little ALF out. Not him. And who would have to continue to wait as the seamstress comes in to sew it all up? Nope, not him.

So as an adult female that knows that she does not want to be personally responsible for acting as a doorway to the world for more children, why would I allow some man to decide how, why and when to prevent this? I completely accept this responsibility on myself to prevent me and my body from having to endure something I don't want to endure.




True, if the man is around then they have no right to abort but if the woman is alone then there is a lot more to consider.
If the man is there or not, I think the abortion option should still be there.

Ballguy
30 Dec 05,, 23:37
I did. Scroll up the screen. LOL.


I meant where you got them from.

Shek
30 Dec 05,, 23:58
I meant where you got them from.

I say again, I posted the hyperlink on message #51, I believe. Go to your original request to cite the source and scroll up.

Monk
31 Dec 05,, 14:16
I understand this and I thought of mentioning it, but since a couple using some sort of birth control has a less than 1% chance of her getting pregnant (or so says Trojanman) I decided not to.

Let me put this in a different context:
If I am going to be going out and sleeping with someone, anyone, whoever. Since I know that I have all the child (and more sometimes) I could possibly want in my smaller room mate, I am going to take whatever precautions need to be taken to do my best to prevent getting pregnant. There is no way I would put that responsibility on the man. How could I? If I were to end up pregnant, though he shouldn't, he would still be able to leave the situation. That would be an option for him. Immoral and wrong, but an option none the less.

I, on the other hand, would not have that option. I am the one that would be stuck with the next 9 months of relentless nauseating tiresome hell. Not him. I am the one that would then have to go in and hang out (though you do get some pretty good legal drugs :) ) while some butcher with a doctorate and a scapel saws open my abdomen and rips the little ALF out. Not him. And who would have to continue to wait as the seamstress comes in to sew it all up? Nope, not him.

So as an adult female that knows that she does not want to be personally responsible for acting as a doorway to the world for more children, why would I allow some man to decide how, why and when to prevent this? I completely accept this responsibility on myself to prevent me and my body from having to endure something I don't want to endure.

We were discussing abortion not birth control. My point is very simple, if you can't make the guy a responsible father then the woman has a right to abortion. Finis.




If the man is there or not, I think the abortion option should still be there.

Nope. Only in the circumstances that bluesman stated should abortion be permitted if both parents are present. No pro-choice BS, if both parents are available. And I really know that you are going to come with both fists swinging over this statement of mine. ;)

Monk
31 Dec 05,, 14:17
I also know a couple of kids like that. Sad :frown:
There are lots of "wanted" kids who grow up without a father; Divorce, orphaned etc. But you know something life is not fair.

Yup its really sad when someone has to grow up without father or mother. One really needs both parents and as long in their life as possible. :frown:

porsteamboy
01 Jan 06,, 01:56
This is going to sound cold and cruel, but no matter how one looks at it, it is the truth.

Had you not been born, you would not have met your sons, but you would not have known that. It can be looked at this way, too. Had I not ran off with my ex, I would not have my daughter. Can I imagine life without her? No. But if I had never met her, I'd be able to imagine life without her. I'm talking with the benifit of hind site, if i was conceived and prevented from full term as a result of abortion, then not only did my mother prevent my life, she also prevented the life of my 2 sons and their sons. If I was never conceived, that would be a different story. My life played out the way it did as yours did and will, the only thing that could have prevented it would be an abortion. Your life could have played out differently but one thing is sure, without life it couldn't have played at all!

THL
01 Jan 06,, 06:17
Nope. Only in the circumstances that bluesman stated should abortion be permitted if both parents are present. No pro-choice BS, if both parents are available. And I really know that you are going to come with both fists swinging over this statement of mine. ;)
Wait a minute. (no fists, Monk) If the woman is pregnant and the guy cannot be found then no abortion for the woman? Are You Serious?

Monk
01 Jan 06,, 13:46
Wait a minute. (no fists, Monk) If the woman is pregnant and the guy cannot be found then no abortion for the woman? Are You Serious?

Read what I said, "If both parents are present then no abortion". If the guy can't be found then the woman may decide what she wishes.

THL
01 Jan 06,, 17:22
Read what I said, "If both parents are present then no abortion". If the guy can't be found then the woman may decide what she wishes.
Phew

Definitely no fists then! :)

I disagree, but at least I don't feel like I want to slug you. ;)

Praxus
01 Jan 06,, 18:03
Read what I said, "If both parents are present then no abortion". If the guy can't be found then the woman may decide what she wishes.

Why is that a legitimate differentia?

Monk
02 Jan 06,, 15:07
Why is that a legitimate differentia?

Well if both parents exist and none of the preconditions which Bluesman set exists then abortion becomes secondary/fall back birth control, hence the differentiation and my opposition to it.

Ballguy
02 Jan 06,, 16:54
Well if both parents exist and none of the preconditions which Bluesman set exists then abortion becomes secondary/fall back birth control, hence the differentiation and my opposition to it.


I applaud you for defending your position without resorting to calling us all dumbasses and whatnots, though I don't support it.

Monk
03 Jan 06,, 14:40
though I don't support it.

Why so? What are your reasons?

Ballguy
03 Jan 06,, 16:42
Why so? What are your reasons?

1: Because medical opinion supports abortion as a necessity.

2: Because I can never have one, and therefore, should never make decisions concerning one.

3: Because legislating away abortion is equivalent to practicing medicine without a license.

4: Because women ARE raped.

5: Because some CANNOT support a child.

6: Because some did not intend to become pregnant.

7: Because in some cases the mother's life IS threatened.

Lionslamb
03 Jan 06,, 17:10
what are your beliefs on it?


Thou shall not kill. Unless medically nessacary, abortion is murder, period

Lionslamb
03 Jan 06,, 17:13
I think that it should definitely be an option. I do not think that it should be used as an alternative to birth control though. I think that we should follow the laws of baseball - on the third abortion, the woman has proven that she is not capable of even taking a simple pill so her tubes get tied.


OK so what if a guy get three women pregnant and causes them to get an abortion he should loose his nuts for not useing a condom? Why do you put the responsibility on the woman, after all it is the sperm that completes the process.

Peace...

Shek
03 Jan 06,, 18:11
1: Because medical opinion supports abortion as a necessity.

2: Because I can never have one, and therefore, should never make decisions concerning one.

3: Because legislating away abortion is equivalent to practicing medicine without a license.

4: Because women ARE raped.

5: Because some CANNOT support a child.

6: Because some did not intend to become pregnant.

7: Because in some cases the mother's life IS threatened.

Legislating away abortion as birth control, allowing it only for the medical safety of the mother or child eliminates your reasons 1, 3, 4, and 7. Beyond medical safety, medical opinon means nothing.

Your reason #2 means that you have no right to have your own child after having consensual sex without effective birth control, even though you are financially obligated to pay for one even if you wished your partner to get an abortion. To me, that's a double standard.

Reasons 5 and 6 deal with responsibility, and abortion on demand as a form of birth control presents a moral hazard of encouraging irresponsible behavior.

Ballguy
03 Jan 06,, 18:15
I personally don't know of anyone that has used abortion as birth control. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure such people exist, I just haven't met any.

Here's a quote from a doctor, I don't know his name but I will try to find it:

"No one walks out of the abortion skipping."

Shek
03 Jan 06,, 18:28
I personally don't know of anyone that has used abortion as birth control. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure such people exist, I just haven't met any.

Here's a quote from a doctor, I don't know his name but I will try to find it:

"No one walks out of the abortion skipping."

By definition, abortion controls birth. Unless there is a compelling medical reason, then its primary motivation is to prevent the birth of a child. What makes abortion different is it controls birth following conception, as opposed to other forms of birth control that prevent conception in the first place.

As far as not walking out of the abortion skipping, maybe there's an implicit moral statement from that quote, unless the doctor was referring only to the medical recovery required when vacuuming a fetus out of the womb. What do you think?

THL
03 Jan 06,, 18:48
OK so what if a guy get three women pregnant and causes them to get an abortion he should loose his nuts for not useing a condom? Why do you put the responsibility on the woman, after all it is the sperm that completes the process.

Peace...
Here we go again....

As a female, I take complete control over what does and does not happen to my body when I am a willing participant. Yes the man is needed to "complete the process" but as the one who would ultimately be the most affected by "the process" I am fully capable of preventing (or doing my best to prevent) any pregnancy that I do not want. The man does have a certain responsibility, but if I seriously do not want to get pregnant, I am not going to leave that responsibility up to someone else. I am going to make sure it does not happen on my own. Then I do not have to worry about if someone else is doing their job correctly.

THL
03 Jan 06,, 18:49
I personally don't know of anyone that has used abortion as birth control. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure such people exist, I just haven't met any.
If you are ever in Chicago, call me up. We'll take a walk through the housing projects and you can meet some.

Shek
03 Jan 06,, 18:58
If you are ever in Chicago, call me up. We'll take a walk through the housing projects and you can meet some.

THL,
Have you seen any studies on the effect of welfare reform during the 90s (i.e. decreasing returns for increasing child births as opposed to the old system of rewarding more child births)? I'd be curious to see what effects the welfare reform has had on abortion levels within the low income demographics.

THL
03 Jan 06,, 19:20
THL,
Have you seen any studies on the effect of welfare reform during the 90s (i.e. decreasing returns for increasing child births as opposed to the old system of rewarding more child births)? I'd be curious to see what effects the welfare reform has had on abortion levels within the low income demographics.
I looked a little and did not see anything. I will keep looking and see what I come across.

Shek
03 Jan 06,, 19:25
I looked a little and did not see anything. I will keep looking and see what I come across.

I did a quick Google and Rand had two studies, but they weren't electronic. They were free, but I'm sure S&H is probably $20, so I wasn't motivated to sign up and get them. I'd be curious to see if the welfare reform lowered the amount of children that welfare recipients had, and whether that was done through abstinence/birth control or abortion.

As far as the projects in Chicago, I know that the huge apartment towers were torn down several years ago. Where did they relocate the low income housing? I hope they didn't just find some other place where they just concentrated it so you can look out and not feel pressure to go out and achieve.

THL
03 Jan 06,, 19:39
I did a quick Google and Rand had two studies, but they weren't electronic. They were free, but I'm sure S&H is probably $20, so I wasn't motivated to sign up and get them. I'd be curious to see if the welfare reform lowered the amount of children that welfare recipients had, and whether that was done through abstinence/birth control or abortion.

As far as the projects in Chicago, I know that the huge apartment towers were torn down several years ago. Where did they relocate the low income housing? I hope they didn't just find some other place where they just concentrated it so you can look out and not feel pressure to go out and achieve.

They did pull down Cabrini Green and built new condos there. The people that lived in the housing projects were encouraged to buy into the new condos at a discounted rate.

"What will happen in the future as the Cabrini buildings are torn down? Where will residents live? Many have taken section 8 certificates, some will move to the suburbs, a few will moved back to the area, and many more will be homeless. The question always remains...how many residents will move back, and what happens to everyone else?

Mixed Income Communities being built in the Cabrini Green Area:

North Town Village is a mixed-income development consisting of 261 units, 79 of which are CHA units. This site is located on North Avenue and Halsted. Holsten Real Estate Development Corporation and Kenard Development Corporation are the developers for this site. Source: thecha.org

Old Town Square is 113-unit development of which 16 units are reserved for CHA residents. Developed by MCL Companies, construction for this site began in 1998 and was completed in 2001. Source: thecha.org

Renaissance North is a mixed-income community containing 59 units. Public housing residents will occupy 18 of these units. The Renaissance Company is the developer for this site which is located on North Avenue. Source: thecha.org

Orchard Park Townhomes The CHA purchased 13 units (in the Orchard Park Townhomes) which were formerly owned by the Chicago Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation in a 54-unit mixed-income town community built on 2.75 acres of CHA land. CHA residents occupy these 13 units. Source: thecha.org "
http://www.voicesofcabrini.com/future_pics.html

Monk
04 Jan 06,, 19:29
1: Because medical opinion supports abortion as a necessity.

2: Because I can never have one, and therefore, should never make decisions concerning one.

3: Because legislating away abortion is equivalent to practicing medicine without a license.

4: Because women ARE raped.

5: Because some CANNOT support a child.

6: Because some did not intend to become pregnant.

7: Because in some cases the mother's life IS threatened.


Bud. You haven't read what I have been posting. I said subject to Bluesman's exceptions and if you read Bluesman's post he has already listed most of your reasons.

THL
04 Jan 06,, 20:05
Bud. You haven't read what I have been posting. I said subject to Bluesman's exceptions and if you read Bluesman's post he has already listed most of your reasons.
Go easy on him, Monk
I think he has gotten hit in the head by one too many out of control golf balls.

nickshepAK
08 Jan 06,, 01:54
I like Clinton's position. "Safe, legal, and rare."

Personally, Id never advise anyone I know to have an abortion. It is a completely barbaric act, especially late term abortions.

I also support restrictions on abortions like... No abortions after 8 weeks unless the mothers life is in grave danger. Parental notifications are good thing too.

Ballguy
08 Jan 06,, 17:08
I like Clinton's position. "Safe, legal, and rare."

Personally, Id never advise anyone I know to have an abortion. It is a completely barbaric act, especially late term abortions.

I also support restrictions on abortions like... No abortions after 8 weeks unless the mothers life is in grave danger. Parental notifications are good thing too.


As a teen, I know kids whose fathers would probably beat them senseless if they were notified. And yes, they are christians. :rolleyes:

THL
08 Jan 06,, 18:05
As a teen, I know kids whose fathers would probably beat them senseless if they were notified. And yes, they are christians. :rolleyes:
I am really torn on this. I think that a minors parents should be notified of whatever it is that minor is doing. On the other hand, there are many many parents that would react badly and end up damaging that relationship between parent and child. There are too many parents that would not see the situation as already having been created and now needing a resolution (wether that be abortion, adoption or raising the child) instead of acting on emotion to the situation.

nickshepAK
09 Jan 06,, 18:36
As a teen, I know kids whose fathers would probably beat them senseless if they were notified. And yes, they are christians. :rolleyes:

Minors cannot receive a basic checkup without a parent present... They obviously should not be allowed to abort a pregnancy without at least notifying the parent. However, Im open to a provision that would allow teens to bypass the notification if they can prove notifying the parent would result in severe physical or emotional harm.

THL
09 Jan 06,, 18:45
Im open to a provision that would allow teens to bypass the notification if they can prove notifying the parent would result in severe physical or emotional harm
How does one prove that? And if the kid can prove that the parent would cause emotional or physical harm, wouldn't DCFS intervene to look into abuse?



Minors cannot receive a basic checkup without a parent present... They obviously should not be allowed to abort a pregnancy without at least notifying the parent.
Easier than one would think:

"Twenty-six states enforce parental involvement laws that fit the Teen Endangerment Act's restrictive definition of a parental involvement law. These states require consent from, or notification of, a parent or legal guardian or court authorization before a minor is able to obtain an abortion.

The states that are in this category are:
Alabama Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Wyoming"
http://www.reproductiverights.org/hill_ciana1.html

Julie
09 Jan 06,, 18:45
The parents SHOULD be notified. It is their grandchild ya know. Shouldn't they be aware of the decision?

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 19:57
My tiny pro-choice side is based simply on my inability to figure out how the Federal government should have any say in this procedure at all.

If the gov't has the ability to legally legislate murder, then to MANY, it has the ability to also legally legislate abortion, which again- to MANY- is not only murder, but 1st degree murder against a helpless victom.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:06
The ironically-named 'pro-choice' [snort] argument says that the government should have no right to regulate any woman's body. True

I would postulate that the gov't does indeed have the right to regulate a woman(or a man's body), they do it everyday when they arrest someone for illegal drug use.

If they can tell you that you can't use heroine, they can certainly tell you that you can't have an abortion.

Right?

Ballguy
10 Jan 06,, 20:07
If the gov't has the ability to legally legislate murder, then to MANY, it has the ability to also legally legislate abortion, which again- to MANY- is not only murder, but 1st degree murder against a helpless victom.


A, this is a bandwagon fallacy. And b, if a woman dies because an abortion was denied to her, is that not negligent homicide?

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:09
I support the right, but not the act. Government has no right to regulate morality. :)

But Gov't does that everyday.

Drugs are illegal cause of morality, so is polygamy, so is incest, and so is a 22yo banging a 14yo.

SO GOV'T DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.

This is a fact beyond any reasonable attempt at debate.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:12
A, this is a bandwagon fallacy.

Explain. Because the above response is completely inadequate to refute my contention.

You're going to have to do MUCH BETTER than that young fella.


And b, if a woman dies because an abortion was denied to her, is that not negligent homicide?


Nope, it's a complication of child birthing, it happens everyday at all levels of nature, in all warm blooded creatures.

And even dismissing that, it is no more negligent homocide than not unplugging someone from life support is unlawful imprisonment.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:15
"Originally Posted by bonehead
Rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, are valid reasons and they happen enough to be a consideration."

I agree with that conclusion as well.

Abortion on demand is a moral travesty beyond all words however. It is also a blight on the US legal system. It is also a BLATANT violation of the equal protection under the law clause of the US Constitution.

I reckon that it'll all be fixed within a decade though. For better or worse...

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:17
"Originally Posted by astralis
do you really think, that if abortion was banned today, that people would all of a sudden just...stop?"

By that line of thinking Murder should be legal.

I mean seriously, wtf?

Talk about a completely untenable debating position, Kudos astralis, you just found one. ;)

Julie
10 Jan 06,, 20:26
But Gov't does that everyday.

Drugs are illegal cause of morality, so is polygamy, so is incest, and so is a 22yo banging a 14yo.

SO GOV'T DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.

This is a fact beyond any reasonable attempt at debate.No they don't, otherwise there WOULD NOT BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. :)

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:33
No they don't, otherwise there WOULD NOT BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. :)

Morality is not only a religious construct miss, it is also a societal one.

There is no separation between society and state.

Care to try again? :)

Or, you could just try the following experiment: Go outside and run around naked singing the star spangled banner on the side of the highway. You say the gov't can't legislate morality....try that stunt, you'll find that you are quite wrong.

Public indecency is a big time morality driven law dear. :)

Julie
10 Jan 06,, 20:38
Morality is not only a religious construct miss, it is also a societal one.

There is no separation between society and state.

Care to try again? :)

Or, you could just try the following experiment: Go outside and run around naked singing the star spangled banner on the side of the highway. You say the gov't can't legislate morality....try that stunt, you'll find that you are quite wrong.

Public indecency is a big time morality driven law dear. :)Will the FBI come to arrest me, or the local STATE police? :)

astralis
10 Jan 06,, 20:46
By that line of thinking Murder should be legal.

that's a false analogy, equivalent to one that states- "if the state has the right to ban abortion, then it has the right to ban freedom of speech".

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:56
Will the FBI come to arrest me, or the local STATE police? :)

Anyone one of them that sees you miss.

Public indecency laws exist at the local, state, and federal levels.

So do child pornography laws....another clear cut example of the state legislating morality.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 20:57
that's a false analogy, equivalent to one that states- "if the state has the right to ban abortion, then it has the right to ban freedom of speech".

Nope, it is a completely sound analogy.

I can also replace murder with drug use, prostitution, or anything else that's illegal.

"________ should be legal because if not people will just do it anyway"....applies equally to anything that's illegal, and it is a completely ridiculous argument.

Sorry.

lwarmonger
10 Jan 06,, 20:58
But Gov't does that everyday.

Drugs are illegal cause of morality, so is polygamy, so is incest, and so is a 22yo banging a 14yo.

SO GOV'T DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.

This is a fact beyond any reasonable attempt at debate.

I would also add laws against murder and theft to the list. Are they commandments? Absolutely. But the state legislates against them because we as a society have determined that they are immoral acts. Murder in self-defense (as long as self-defense can be proven) is a moral act. However these are all moral judgements that society has made. Nearly every felony is a moral judgement enforced by the government against individuals who would break societies moral code.

THL
10 Jan 06,, 21:02
"________ should be legal because if not people will just do it anyway"....applies equally to anything that's illegal, and it is a completely ridiculous argument.

Sorry.
To make sure I understand you: The government should be able to "govern" and make determinations about what is and is not legal?

Julie
10 Jan 06,, 21:10
Now yall are confusing me as to the "government" we are speaking.

What I object to is the FEDERAL government regulating morality laws. Federal government is to retain an adequate military to defend this country, and to handle international affairs, and to collect taxes to pay for same.

I'm referring to State Governments - regulating ordinance/morality laws....NOT the federal government.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 21:11
To make sure I understand you: The government should be able to "govern" and make determinations about what is and is not legal?

Yep. Not only should it be able to, but it does so EVERY DAY. The only exception is that it has no authority to legislate against our 'inalienable rights'.

Abortion is not an inalienable or 'natural' right enumerated in the US Bill of Rights...and for obvious reasons.

There is simply no right to murder except in case of immediate self-defense.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It does not say "among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to a speedy abortion".

In fact, the above preamble specifically speaks against exactly what abortion does. It denies human beings from the RIGHT to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

RvW is toast, just a matter of time before SCOTUS makes it official IMO.

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 21:12
Now yall are confusing me as to the "government" we are speaking.

What I object to is the FEDERAL government regulating morality laws. Federal government is to retain an adequate military to defend this country, and to handle international affairs, and to collect taxes to pay for same.

I'm referring to State Governments - regulating ordinance/morality laws....NOT the federal government.

Is it illegal at the federal level to possess child pornography Julie?

If so, why?

It is. Because it's immoral. ;)

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 21:13
I would also add laws against murder and theft to the list. Are they commandments? Absolutely. But the state legislates against them because we as a society have determined that they are immoral acts. Murder in self-defense (as long as self-defense can be proven) is a moral act. However these are all moral judgements that society has made. Nearly every felony is a moral judgement enforced by the government against individuals who would break societies moral code.

To quote the legendary Arthur Fonzarelli,

"Correctamundo!" ;)

THL
10 Jan 06,, 21:25
In fact, the above preamble specifically speaks against exactly what abortion does. It denies human beings from the RIGHT to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
But what about the person who would be having the abortion? Liberty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty) is defined as: "The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor, Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control, The condition of being free from restriction or control."

So not allowing a woman an abortion is not taking away her liberties?

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 22:11
Nope, because no one forced the woman to get pregnant.

She has denied herself her liberty all by her lonesome.

And if you think you should be free of all forms of control and regulation(i agree it's a nice sounding concept), you better move to another planet, lol. ;)

Julie
10 Jan 06,, 22:19
But what about the person who would be having the abortion? Liberty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty) is defined as: "The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor, Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control, The condition of being free from restriction or control."

So not allowing a woman an abortion is not taking away her liberties?Well, you can't argue the "forced labor" issue as to pregnancy Sniper. :biggrin:

And, I would also like to add...wouldn't birth control be a "denial of the right to life as well?" Or, would that be setting the boundaries to broadly? ;)

Bill
10 Jan 06,, 22:23
Not to me, no, because there is no life present to deny.
Once a child is concieved they can be scientifically proven to be a living, breathing organism. So life is present. To deny it at that point is to deny life, liberty, etc. To deny the same before life is present is to deny nothing, because there's no one to deny.

I am very mixed wrt abortion. From some standpoints i support it as a useful and neccesary thing, from others, i view it as the most morally repugnant of all common practices in our society.

Julie
10 Jan 06,, 22:27
I am very mixed wrt abortion. From some standpoints i support it as a useful and neccesary thing, from others, i view it as the most morally repugnant of all common practices in our society.As am I...very well said. :)

Parihaka
10 Jan 06,, 22:58
Of course he is, I am saying. But one can only do so much to make him be responsible. If he takes off, she can search for him and possibly find him, but then what? If he is not working, she cannot get any help financially. If he runs, would she want his help taking care of the child after that?

Here is where (shudders) I advocate the intervention of the state (more shudders, did I just say that?) The state has the resources to find him and take his money for child support.

Parihaka
10 Jan 06,, 23:02
There is no way I am ever going to be convinced that these 2000 kids each year should not have been aborted or that their lives were better because they were born. Their lives were HELL because their parents selfishly chose to have them.
Sorry, but you're suggesting killing them for what MIGHT happen to them.

Parihaka
10 Jan 06,, 23:10
Not to me, no, because there is no life present to deny.
Once a child is concieved they can be scientifically proven to be a living, breathing organism. So life is present. To deny it at that point is to deny life, liberty, etc. To deny the same before life is present is to deny nothing, because there's no one to deny.

I am very mixed wrt abortion. From some standpoints i support it as a useful and neccesary thing, from others, i view it as the most morally repugnant of all common practices in our society.
I used to be pro-choice, then as you say mixed, now I fall with Bluesman. Just look at the number of adoptions of children from third world countries to first world countries and the solution becomes obvious.

THL
10 Jan 06,, 23:55
Once a child is concieved they can be scientifically proven to be a living, breathing organism.
Actually they are not able to breath as soon as they are conceived. :)

Bill
11 Jan 06,, 00:41
Actually they are not able to breath as soon as they are conceived. :)

OK, Good eye, i'll settle for living organism.

1 point for you. ;)

Bill
11 Jan 06,, 00:43
I used to be pro-choice, then as you say mixed, now I fall with Bluesman. Just look at the number of adoptions of children from third world countries to first world countries and the solution becomes obvious.


You are quite right. That, however, is not what i worry about.

What i worry about is that the kids WON'T be put up for adoption.

That is a significant cause for concern, and IMO, the most likely reality.

THL
11 Jan 06,, 01:04
OK, Good eye, i'll settle for living organism.

1 point for you. ;)
I am speechless.

No fight.


No argument.


No explanation.


Nothing.


Wow.


Sniper, just wow.
;)

Bill
11 Jan 06,, 01:14
Hey, right is right.

The little weasel is still alive though. ;)

Parihaka
11 Jan 06,, 02:42
You are quite right. That, however, is not what i worry about.

What i worry about is that the kids WON'T be put up for adoption.

That is a significant cause for concern, and IMO, the most likely reality.
Yeah, I've been looking at this for a while. A couple of years ago my wife and I were considering adoption. At the time (and I'm quoting from memory here) there were about 120 adoptions in NZ of NZ born children that year and tens of thousands of couples on the waiting list. A couple of hundred adoptions of children from overseas (average cost NZ$40,000) from Rumania, China, Russia and such like. On top of this surrogacy had just been approved. At the same time there were about 18,000 abortions every year.
So I've been thinking, what's wrong about paying the mothers for the children under the supervision of the adoption agencies, who have very strict criteria? Sure, buying children can be seen as reprehensible but isn't it better than killing them?

Bill
11 Jan 06,, 03:02
It's infinitely better than killing them.

Ballguy
11 Jan 06,, 03:55
It's infinitely better than killing them.

For god's sake man, fetuses are not children.

Parihaka
11 Jan 06,, 04:00
For god's sake man, fetuses are not children.
Ah but if you feed and water them for 5 months, they will be

Julie
12 Jan 06,, 14:46
I want to revive this issue with this article:

2006-01-09 10:38:50
Newborn in trash critical; mom charged with attempted murder
BERGENFIELD, N.J. (AP) - As a newborn boy found in a trash can struggled for life Monday, his 15-year-old mother was at the same hospital, charged with attempted murder. The freshman at Bergenfield High School managed to hide her pregnancy, and gave birth in the bathroom of her home Friday night. She took the body, placed him in a gym bag and dumped it in a trash can outside a deli near her house, police Sgt. Brian Monaghan said. Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor James Santulli said the mother will be prosecuted as a juvenile. Her son was in critical condition Monday on life support at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, hospital officials. News of the abandoned infant shocked residents of this community, which is still reeling from a natural gas explosion shortly before Christmas that leveled an apartment complex and killed three people. "She had a choice, to give birth and dump the baby in a trash can," said Jeffrey Lower, a patron of the deli where the baby was found. "She knew what she was doing." Another customer, Carol Baumuller, said she could not judge the mother. "You don't know what that child is going through," she said. "She must have been so scared. She probably had no support system. It's a terrible thing to happen to a 15-year-old. She's a child herself." In June 2000, New Jersey approved the Safe Haven Infant Protection Act, which allows parents to leave unwanted newborns at a police station or hospital without disclosing their names or subjecting themselves to criminal charges. As of last August, 21 newborns had been surrendered in such a manner. The Bergenfield case marks the 18th baby that was either abandoned or killed since the law was enacted. Six of those infants have been found dead.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--babyintrash0109jan09,0,984366.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

Now, what I would like to ask is how is this newborn supposed be pursue "life, liberty and happiness" if he is in the bottom of a trash can?

THL
12 Jan 06,, 15:21
The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act (http://www.saveabandonedbabies.org/qa.shtml) (which is available in states other than IL, I just don't have time to get a whole list right now) is something I am not sure why more people don't use.

This is so frustrating to me.

This girl should never have had this baby to begin with, as was mentioned in the story "she is a child herself." For whatever reason she could not go to her parents. I am not sure of the abortion laws in NJ, but this should have been an option for her. If it were not, or if she did not have the means to obtain one, she should have known that she could have left this baby with a cop, a priest, a hospital and it would have been taken care of. I doubt this girl even knew about this option. I never see this being advertised, which it should be.

THL
12 Jan 06,, 15:44
I cannot tell you how many times DCFS leaves children in homes they should not be in because there is no where else to put them or how many times they "misplace" kids. I am going to the library at lunch, I will see what I can find.
I have not found anything (okay, I have not really looked) but saw this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/12/child.death.ap/index.html) distrubing story in the news today:



Girl, 7, killed in N.Y. apartment
Evidence she was bound; stepfather, mother charged

NEW YORK (AP) -- A 7-year-old girl found dead in an apartment she shared with five siblings was apparently bound and held captive before her stepfather killed her with a vicious blow to the head, authorities said Wednesday.

The girl's stepfather was charged with murder and sexual abuse, and her mother was charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment, police said.

Nixzmary Brown died amid an investigation by the Administration for Children's Services into reports of abuse in the home. The case followed recent reports about troubling holes in the city's safety net for abused children.

The death was ruled a homicide after an autopsy found the child died from a brain hemorrhage caused by blunt impact to the head, said medical examiner's office spokeswoman Ellen Borakove.

Names of the mother and stepfather, who is believed to be the father of at least two of the other children, were not immediately made public.

A law enforcement official said there was evidence the girl had been held captive in a room where she was bound by her ankles to a chair.

The mother told authorities she found the girl unconscious in the Brooklyn apartment early Wednesday and called 911. The child was pronounced dead at the scene by emergency medical technicians.

The five other children, ages 6 months to 9 years, were removed from the home for examination at an area hospital.

Caseworkers already were investigating an allegation of abuse against the girl reported on December 1. Another allegation from earlier last year proved unfounded, the agency said.

ACS Commissioner John Mattingly said in a statement he was "deeply disturbed" by the death. He and Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was reviewing how it investigates claims of child abuse.

Last month the agency released reports criticizing its handling of the cases of two children who ended up dead. Both cases involved children who had been removed from their homes following allegations of abuse but were allowed to return.

THL
12 Jan 06,, 15:53
I never thought of it this way, but technically if we are going to deem a fetus as a living, breathing, viable "person" that should not be aborted due to that being murder, then this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/index.html) woman should be left alone. :)



Judge: Baby on board is no excuse
Pregnant woman claimed she was driving for two

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Fetuses do not count as passengers when it comes to determining who may drive in the carpool lane, a judge has ruled.

Candace Dickinson was fined $367 for improper use of a carpool lane, but contended her unborn child qualified to use the lane. Motorists who use the lanes normally must carry at least one passenger during weekday rush hours.

Municipal Judge Dennis Freeman rejected Dickinson's argument Tuesday, applying a "common sense" definition in which an individual is someone who occupies a "separate and distinct" space in a vehicle.

"The law is meant to fill empty space in a vehicle," the judge said.

Sgt. Dave Norton stopped Dickinson's car November 8. When asked how many people were in the car, Dickinson said two, pointing to "her obvious pregnancy," the officer said.

Norton said Dickinson's theory "would require officers to carry guns, radios and pregnancy testers, :eek: and I don't think we want to go there."

Julie
12 Jan 06,, 15:56
I do not question the legality within the Constitution which was Sniper's point.

The REAL issue to that is the responsible party exercising that right stated in the Constitution, which would be the mother. Will the mother recognize the right of the child provided within the Constitution, and will she respect it and/or exercise it? If not, where does this child(ren) end up? In the bottom of a trash can, or chain to a chair with a brain hemmorage?

The 15-year old girl in my article obviously hid, very well, her pregnancy, AND went through child labor, and disposed of the baby, without ANYONE knowing about it. Now, I would say that was an extreme, and I stress the word extremely unwanted child.

If she could not face her family, how would anyone assume she would face strangers when dropping off the baby using the option of the law? She won't. Neither would many teenagers her age.

THL
12 Jan 06,, 16:14
If she could not face her family, how would anyone assume she would face strangers when dropping off the baby using the option of the law? She won't. Neither would many teenagers her age.

Hell, neither do many adults. I think, though, that if this program were more widely discussed and promoted it would be used more often. If high schools at least mentioned it during their sex-ed classes (which are joke btw) and colleges had information/brochures being posted around campus I think that it would be used more. I can ask almost any teenager and they know nothing about it. Chances are when this was enacted they were not watching the news and did not hear anything about it. Since it is rarely mentioned, how can they know it is an option?

I think that most adults probably think that, while the program says there is no retribution, the gov't is somehow tricking them and they will be detained when they try to give up the baby. That would be my fear if I were in that situation.

The "pro-life" groups do not mention this much at all either. A family planning (and abortion) clinic can be found every 6 blocks or so in Chicago and there are at least 3 in each larger suburb. The "pro-life" groups stand outside these clinics harrassing the people going in and out, and even those just walking by. I never see them with information about this Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. All I ever see are posters with obscene photos of aborted fetuses and a lot of Christian scriptures. If I were a teenage girl - I'd be terrified to walk past all that.

Julie
12 Jan 06,, 17:45
I think that most adults probably think that, while the program says there is no retribution, the gov't is somehow tricking them and they will be detained when they try to give up the baby. That would be my fear if I were in that situation.Probably her fear as well, if of course, she even knew about it.


The "pro-life" groups do not mention this much at all either. A family planning (and abortion) clinic can be found every 6 blocks or so in Chicago and there are at least 3 in each larger suburb. The "pro-life" groups stand outside these clinics harrassing the people going in and out, and even those just walking by. I never see them with information about this Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. All I ever see are posters with obscene photos of aborted fetuses and a lot of Christian scriptures. If I were a teenage girl - I'd be terrified to walk past all that.Education, is definitely the answer. :)

Bill
12 Jan 06,, 17:52
For god's sake man, fetuses are not children.

No, they are human beings though.

Bill
12 Jan 06,, 17:52
I want to revive this issue with this article:

2006-01-09 10:38:50
Newborn in trash critical; mom charged with attempted murder
BERGENFIELD, N.J. (AP) - As a newborn boy found in a trash can struggled for life Monday, his 15-year-old mother was at the same hospital, charged with attempted murder. The freshman at Bergenfield High School managed to hide her pregnancy, and gave birth in the bathroom of her home Friday night. She took the body, placed him in a gym bag and dumped it in a trash can outside a deli near her house, police Sgt. Brian Monaghan said. Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor James Santulli said the mother will be prosecuted as a juvenile. Her son was in critical condition Monday on life support at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, hospital officials. News of the abandoned infant shocked residents of this community, which is still reeling from a natural gas explosion shortly before Christmas that leveled an apartment complex and killed three people. "She had a choice, to give birth and dump the baby in a trash can," said Jeffrey Lower, a patron of the deli where the baby was found. "She knew what she was doing." Another customer, Carol Baumuller, said she could not judge the mother. "You don't know what that child is going through," she said. "She must have been so scared. She probably had no support system. It's a terrible thing to happen to a 15-year-old. She's a child herself." In June 2000, New Jersey approved the Safe Haven Infant Protection Act, which allows parents to leave unwanted newborns at a police station or hospital without disclosing their names or subjecting themselves to criminal charges. As of last August, 21 newborns had been surrendered in such a manner. The Bergenfield case marks the 18th baby that was either abandoned or killed since the law was enacted. Six of those infants have been found dead.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--babyintrash0109jan09,0,984366.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

Now, what I would like to ask is how is this newborn supposed be pursue "life, liberty and happiness" if he is in the bottom of a trash can?


The same way any other victom of violent crime is supposed to.

"Originally Posted by Julie
If she could not face her family, how would anyone assume she would face strangers when dropping off the baby using the option of the law? She won't. Neither would many teenagers her age."

And a hell of a lot of people still commit any number of crimes everyday despite the act being illegal. Should we ban all laws?

To me, "The criminals are gonna do it anyway" is no argument for the justification of ANYTHING.

Bill
12 Jan 06,, 17:56
All I ever see are posters with obscene photos of aborted fetuses

Yeah, it sucks to be confronted with one's own handiwork...

Ballguy
12 Jan 06,, 18:11
The same way any other victom of violent crime is supposed to.

"Originally Posted by Julie
If she could not face her family, how would anyone assume she would face strangers when dropping off the baby using the option of the law? She won't. Neither would many teenagers her age."

And a hell of a lot of people still commit any number of crimes everyday despite the act being illegal. Should we ban all laws?

To me, "The criminals are gonna do it anyway" is no argument for the justification of ANYTHING.


But you love it when it refers to guns.

THL
12 Jan 06,, 18:15
But you love it when it refers to guns.
(since I have already been down this road with Sniper and government/police and gun laws I cannot wait to say...)


OH GOSH!! THIS IS GONNA BE GOOD. :) :)

Bill
12 Jan 06,, 18:35
Wrong thread for that. If you wanna argue gun control switch to the thread where we're already doing that. ;)

As far as Ballguy's comment, i really don't know what motivates you to alledge i feel that way. I am all for convicted felons not having guns....even knowing full well they'll still get them.

My problem is when you restrict/ban a constitutionally guaranteed right in the name of 'crime control'. It's a flat lie, just like gun control in general.

What i believe in is criminal control. :)

THL
12 Jan 06,, 18:52
Wrong thread for that. If you wanna argue gun control switch to the thread where we're already doing that. ;)
Just speaking for myself...No thank you. I accepted that we disagree (is that even a strong enough word for it? :) ) and have moved on.

Bill
12 Jan 06,, 19:00
Well, i will agree that you were completely unable to back your position with fact. ;)

I understand your phobia miss, but that's all it is. Any accounting of all the available evidence strongly suggests that A) gun control does not reduce crime, that B) it actually increases crime, and C) that law abiding Americans routinely use guns to legally defend themselves from criminals on a regular basis. We also know that D) the single greatest fear criminals have is being confronted by an armed citizne, and E) that criminals totally ignore any law that is inconvenient to them. And finally F) that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is constitutionally protected.

There are a ton of facts out there, and they almost universally support my pro-gun position(which is why i HAVE a pro-gun position to begin with!).

Julie
12 Jan 06,, 20:09
Ahem...back to abortion.

Abortion would deter the crime of throwing babies in trash cans. :)

Ballguy
12 Jan 06,, 20:16
Wrong thread for that. If you wanna argue gun control switch to the thread where we're already doing that. ;)

As far as Ballguy's comment, i really don't know what motivates you to alledge i feel that way. I am all for convicted felons not having guns....even knowing full well they'll still get them.

My problem is when you restrict/ban a constitutionally guaranteed right in the name of 'crime control'. It's a flat lie, just like gun control in general.

What i believe in is criminal control. :)


And how, exactly, do you control criminals?

Parihaka
12 Jan 06,, 20:22
Ahem...back to abortion.

Abortion would deter the crime of throwing babies in trash cans. :)
No, they just end up in trash cans sooner.

Did this girl have access to abortions? Or are they outlawed in her state?

Parihaka
12 Jan 06,, 20:23
And how, exactly, do you control criminals?
Shooting them?

THL
12 Jan 06,, 20:47
And how, exactly, do you control criminals?
By taking a sharp right turn out of the abortion thread, going about a half a mile and turning left into the gun laws thread.


Unless, of course, you are referring to criminals having abortions or abortions being done criminally. :)

THL
12 Jan 06,, 20:57
No, they just end up in trash cans sooner.
Aborted fetuses can be used for medical science so they don't all just get discarded.

Fetal Tissue Heals Burns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701777.html)

Fetal Tissue Cell Research (http://www.ascb.org/publicpolicy/ftfacts.html)

Restore Peoples Sight (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6580)

Biomedical Research (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_10_171103/tuc10195_fm.html) "Our understanding of the pathogenesis of human diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, retinopathy of prematurity and osteoporosis has been advanced because of such experiments, and better drug treatment of disorders such as osteoarthritis has been made possible with the use of human fetal tissue."

Good things can come from this. Other peoples lives can be improved when a woman is not forced to have an unwanted baby.

Parihaka
12 Jan 06,, 21:08
Good things can come from this. Other peoples lives can be improved when a woman is not forced to have an unwanted baby.
Finally, after much beating about the bush we get down to brass tacks, women being forced to have unwanted babies. Sorry for the crudity but I'm forced to have a bowel movement pretty much every day. I can't opt out of it, It is the nature of my condition of being human, as is that of women having babies.

THL
13 Jan 06,, 03:22
Finally, after much beating about the bush we get down to brass tacks, women being forced to have unwanted babies. Sorry for the crudity but I'm forced to have a bowel movement pretty much every day. I can't opt out of it, It is the nature of my condition of being human, as is that of women having babies.
But are you forced to go through with it or can you use modern science and medicine to put a stop to the effects created by what you had for lunch?

Bill
13 Jan 06,, 22:20
And how, exactly, do you control criminals?

By killing and or incarcerating them.

Bill
13 Jan 06,, 22:23
Good things can come from this. Other peoples lives can be improved when a woman is not forced to have an unwanted baby.

Well miss, i will give you this.

That is the best possible justification for the cold blooded murder of human beings i've ever seen.

Almost makes auschwitz sound like a humanitarian institution...

Bill
13 Jan 06,, 22:30
But are you forced to go through with it or can you use modern science and medicine to put a stop to the effects created by what you had for lunch?

I would highly suggest that one would watch what one eats. ;)

THL
13 Jan 06,, 22:59
Well miss, i will give you this.

That is the best possible justification for the cold blooded murder of human beings i've ever seen.

Almost makes auschwitz sound like a humanitarian institution...
Why thank you, Sniper ;)

Bill
13 Jan 06,, 23:03
Why thank you, Sniper ;)

Hehehe, no problemo senorita. ;)

Bulgaroctonus
23 Jan 06,, 23:03
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23cnd-abortion.html?hp&ex=1138078800&en=b10dbd1517c6c56e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
January 23, 2006
Abortion Opponents Rally, Saying the End of Roe Is Near
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 - As they have every year since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents flooded the capital today with an energetic rally featuring speeches, prayers and signs that urged an end to abortions across the country.

In most respects, the rally was similar to the 32 that preceded it as tens of thousands packed several blocks of the Mall before marching toward the Capitol and the Supreme Court. For the sixth consecutive year, President Bush was out of town at the time of the rally but offered strong words of encouragement and support to the crowd through an amplified telephone line.

Many in the crowd said they detected a major shift in spirit and tone this year, even if Mr. Bush made no explicit mention of the reason why: his nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court.

"You can see it everywhere," said Gus Holzmiller, a Coast Guard comptroller from Virginia Beach, Va., nodding toward the throngs around him. "Every time someone says Judge Alito's name, a roar goes up."

Helen Sandor, a retired elementary school teacher from Pittsburgh, said: "We've made so many strides, waiting to get to the end of Roe v. Wade. Now, it's like there's a light through the darkness. We feel stronger now."

While Mr. Bush voice his support for what he called "such a noble cause," he only vaguely alluded to matters of abortion that might come before the Supreme Court.

"You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," he said. "These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, and all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children."

"By changing laws," he added, "we can change our culture."

Despite Mr. Bush's decision to address the issue only broadly, the expectation that Judge Alito will soon win Senate approval and join a majority in overturning Roe was clearly the uber-message of the rally.

Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican who has addressed the rally for a dozen years, told the crowd, "There needs to be a special justice for overruling a prior precedent." Suggesting that Judge Alito fits the definition, he referred to a number of abortions that opponents claim have occurred since Roe was decided and said, "If the killing of 46 million babies isn't sufficient justification for overruling that awful case, I don't know what is."

Nelly Gray, the founder and president of March for Life, the rally organizers, said overturning Roe was the theme for the rally and, in fiery tone, predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremburg trials for "feminist abortionists."

"Roe v. Wade has brutalized our country," she said. "The feminine abortionists, look at the evil they are doing. From that will come an accountability."

Her words were met with strong support, and more than a few supporters held a sign that compared abortions in the United States to "Hitler's Holocaust."

THL
24 Jan 06,, 00:47
Almost makes auschwitz sound like a humanitarian institution...
Well that's a little overblown don't you think...how about the term "day camp"? ;)

Julie
24 Jan 06,, 14:32
Roe will never be overturned....it's been a law for too long.

And, if it were, more children would be at the hands of Medicaid, and the Government knows it. ;)

Bill
24 Jan 06,, 18:48
Well that's a little overblown don't you think...how about the term "day camp"? ;)

LOL, as you wish, M'lady. :)

Bill
24 Jan 06,, 18:48
Roe will never be overturned....it's been a law for too long.

And, if it were, more children would be at the hands of Medicaid, and the Government knows it. ;)

I'd be shocked if it's 'never' overturned.

"never" is a very, very, long time.

Bluesman
25 Jan 06,, 01:34
Roe will never be overturned....it's been a law for too long.

And, if it were, more children would be at the hands of Medicaid, and the Government knows it. ;)

Luckily, the test for whether a law is constitutional or not is NOT how long it's been a law (and now seems a good time to remind everybody that it's not the job of the USSC to make laws, regardless of what they did in 1973), but whether there is any support for it in the ACTUAL DOCUMENT.

Find it in there. I dare you. I won't accept any 'emanations from penumbras', either.

As for the unfortunate children that will somehow have to earn their humanity with the enormous burden of being supported by the government, let's just keep on placing their cold, lifeless and vivisected tiny little bodies in the dumpster, and THAT way, the people responsible for starting and then ending their lives can keep on living just as irrespsonsibly as before, m'kay?

Or were you going in another direction with that ridiculous statement?

Roe is BAD LAW, and whether abortion ever becomes illegal in this country or not, that case was wrongly decided, and indefensible on its legal merits. The original decision is what happens when OUTCOME matters more than LAW.

It will be overturned. If legal abortion is re-affirmed at some future time, at least it has a chance of being based on something more legally solid than five justices thinking, 'There oughta be a law...'

EricTheRed
25 Jan 06,, 01:41
I was to dumb to use a condom so I am going to kill a human being. Makes sense....

Bulgaroctonus
25 Jan 06,, 02:44
Bluesman,

Is your objection to abortion primarily a legal one, or a philosophical one?

Shek
25 Jan 06,, 02:55
Roe will never be overturned....it's been a law for too long.

So you concur with Plessy v. Ferguson and disagree with Brown v. Board of Education? After all, separate but equal was the law of the land for much more than 3 1/2 decades.

EDIT: The flip side to the "it's been a law for too long" is that Roe v. Wade wasn't the law of the land for nearly 20 decades. Thus, by your reasoning, Roe v. Wade is bad law because it changed law that had been around for "too long."

Shek
25 Jan 06,, 03:08
Here's a dissenting opinion from a 1992 case to chew on -
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html


PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., PETITIONERS 91-744 v. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc., PETITIONERS 91-902
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
[June 29, 1992]

Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

My views on this matter are unchanged from those I set forth in my separate opinions in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520 (1990) (Akron II) (Scalia, J., concurring). The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. As the Court acknowledges, "where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other." Ante, at 8. The Court is correct in adding the qualification that

this "assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty," ante, at 9--but the crucial part of that qualification is the penultimate word. A State's choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a "liberty" in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example--which entire societies of reasonable people disagree with--intrude upon men and women's liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially "protected" by the Constitution.


That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a "liberty" in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ibid. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected--because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. [n.1] Akron II, supra, at 520 (Scalia, J., concurring).

The emptiness of the "reasoned judgment" that produced Roe is displayed in plain view by the fact that, after more than 19 years of effort by some of the brightest (and most determined) legal minds in the country, after more than 10 cases upholding abortion rights in this Court, and after dozens upon dozens of amicus briefs submitted in this and other cases, the best the Court can do to explain how it is that the word "liberty" must be thought to include the right to destroy human fetuses is to rattle off a collection of adjectives that simply decorate a value judgment and conceal a political choice. The right to abort, we are told, inheres in "liberty" because it is among "a person's most basic decisions," ante, at 7; it involves a "most intimate and personal choic[e]," ante, at 9; it is "central to personal dignity and autonomy," ibid.; it "originate[s] within the zone of conscience and belief," ibid.; it is "too intimate and personal" for state interference, ante, at 10; it reflects "intimate views" of a "deep, personal character," ante, at 11; it involves "intimate relationships," and notions of "personal autonomy and bodily integrity," ante, at 15; and it concerns a particularly " `important decisio[n],' " ante, at 16 (citationomitted). [n.2] But it is obvious to anyone applying "reasoned judgment" that the same adjectives can be applied to many forms of conduct that this Court (including one of the Justices in today's majority, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) has held are not entitled to constitutional protection--because, like abortion, they are forms of conduct that have long been criminalized in American society. Those adjectives might be applied, for example, to homosexual sodomy, polygamy, adult incest, and suicide, all of which are equally "intimate" and "deep[ly] personal" decisions involving "personal autonomy and bodily integrity," and all of which can constitutionally be proscribed because it is our unquestionable constitutional tradition that they are proscribable. It is not reasoned judgment that supports the Court's decision; only personal predilection.


We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

Bluesman
25 Jan 06,, 04:26
Bluesman,

Is your objection to abortion primarily a legal one, or a philosophical one?

Both. Refer back to my post #10, #12, #18, and #19 on page 1 of this thread, where I lay out my arguments. Some legalistic, some philosophical, and some scientific.

I simply reject that a person can be allowed to kill an innocent American that came into being because of an act of theirs, an act of sovereign free will. The Consitution is explicit in the protection of life, but NOwhere does it mention any right to abortion. And even if it DID, HOW could the two be reconciled?

It is an evil and pernicious philosophy that permits - no, ENSHRINES, actually - a woman's 'right' to kill her innocent child(ren), so long as they have not been born yet, and I do not merely say that its adherants are WRONG. It's quite a bit farther south of that.

Shek
25 Jan 06,, 14:06
I was to dumb to use a condom so I am going to kill a human being. Makes sense....

Eric,
Birth control isn't 100% effective. Missing doses while on the pill, not using a condom correctly, or just plain failure of the birth control method can all lead to an unplanned pregnancy, even though the individuals did take responsible steps.

However, knowing that no birth control method is 100% effective (well, I guess abstinence is), the persons that have sex assume the responsibility for the very small percentage of ineffectiveness.

Julie
25 Jan 06,, 15:33
Or were you going in another direction with that ridiculous statement?Direction? I've never had an abortion, never will, nor do I agree with it in a moral sense.

However, case, point, and time here are deciding factors in Roe v. Wade. If abortions were once again made illegal in the US, what is the outcome? You said it yourself Bluesman:


The original decision is what happens when OUTCOME matters more than LAW.These born, unwanted children would become an expense of the Federal and State Governments through Medicaid -- that is a fact. Republicans are slashing funding for programs benefitting the underprivileged, so where does that leave the quality of life for these children?

Democrats would see these children were taken of for funding purposes, but most Democrats believe in abortion.

Quality of life vs. Morality -- These are the factors guiding abortion and keep Roe v. Wade teetering on a cliff.

Direction? How do you decide what life is best for an unborn child?

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 04:55
Direction? I've never had an abortion, never will, nor do I agree with it in a moral sense.

However, case, point, and time here are deciding factors in Roe v. Wade. If abortions were once again made illegal in the US, what is the outcome? You said it yourself Bluesman:

These born, unwanted children would become an expense of the Federal and State Governments through Medicaid -- that is a fact. Republicans are slashing funding for programs benefitting the underprivileged, so where does that leave the quality of life for these children?

Democrats would see these children were taken of for funding purposes, but most Democrats believe in abortion.

Quality of life vs. Morality -- These are the factors guiding abortion and keep Roe v. Wade teetering on a cliff.

Direction? How do you decide what life is best for an unborn child?

How did you manage to miss the point of every single syllable that I wrote? Did you even bother to READ it?

I cannot follow the thread of your argument, and I'm trying, I really am. But your appeal to an incorrect but emotionally-weighted argument about aborted babies' supposedly ruined-before-they're-even-started lives is really just an indicator that you are intellectually CONFUSED about this entire subject. You cannot defend your position, but you'll try ANY argument to rationalize it.

And knock off the Republican bashing, because that won't fly, either. Find me just one of the 'programs benefitting the underprivileged' that has had it's funding 'slashed'. And even if you DO, PLEASE explain to me how a poor baby borne alive is worse off than a dead one. Or are you saying poor people are worthless to you? And are poor mothers that you deem forever doomed to poverty the only women that you think are having abortions, or that should be allowed to have them? Should women above a certain income level be prohibited from having abortions?

I doubt you'd make that argument, so when you start up with 'all them pore unwanted babies' shtick, keep in mind that we're talking about mostly middle-class women having them for CONVENIENCE, as a method of post-coitus BIRTH CONTROL. If you base your support of legal abortion-on-demand on the presumption that all of those 1.5 million abortions performed last year were to make certain that those apparently-unwanted children didn't suffer a life of privation, then SUPPORT THAT ASSERTION. You'll fail, of course, but I want to see what you make of THAT position.

You assert above that it is a FACT that these children will be thrown onto the 'expense of the Federal and State Governments through Medicaid'. That is no FACT, lady. That is your completely incorrect surmise. SOME would be, no doubt. But not even MOST, and so how do you rationalize the deaths of somewhere close to a million innocent Americans? (And we'll forget, for a moment, that being poor or potentially poor does not warrant a death sentence, but we'll write off that fractional million lives for a moment, while you collect your thoughts and try to convince me that abortion-on-demand for a woman who has slept with a man she doesn't intend to have children with is a Consitutional right.)


How do you decide what life is best for an unborn child?

Finally, you would DARE ask ME this question? YOU? The person that is going to decide that 1.5 million Americans put to the knife every year would ask ME to state what life is best for an unborn child? Nope. Answer it yourself. You're the advocate for legal abortion-on-demand. That makes this YOUR province. YOU tell ME why it's better that they die than live.

astralis
26 Jan 06,, 06:24
bluesman,


It is an evil and pernicious philosophy that permits - no, ENSHRINES, actually - a woman's 'right' to kill her innocent child(ren), so long as they have not been born yet, and I do not merely say that its adherants are WRONG. It's quite a bit farther south of that.

if so, you've been defending a lot of evil americans.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=91

Gio
26 Jan 06,, 11:51
Overturning Roe would be the dumbest thing an equally activist supreme court can do, it would trigger such a femenist blacklash. A lot of people vote Republican because they don't fear the GOP social issue platform for belief the judicary will protect their "rights," take that away and hello Democratic majorities. It's easy to dismiss but remember California alone has 20 Republican congresspeople, New York has 9. Piss off enough people in those blue states and say hello to the return of the Democratic agenda.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 12:37
Overturning Roe would be the dumbest thing an equally activist supreme court can do, it would trigger such a femenist blacklash. A lot of people vote Republican because they don't fear the GOP social issue platform for belief the judicary will protect their "rights," take that away and hello Democratic majorities. It's easy to dismiss but remember California alone has 20 Republican congresspeople, New York has 9. Piss off enough people in those blue states and say hello to the return of the Democratic agenda.Exactly Gio. Bluesman....did you READ this? ;)

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 14:27
Gio hit the nail regarding the political aspect of abortion.

Let's look at some facts Bluesman:

·Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.

·88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

·60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

·47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

·43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").

Demographics - Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young.

·52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)

·Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.

·Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

·Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

·25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

·21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

·14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

·12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

·10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

·7.9% of women want no (more) children.

·3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

·2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

·54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

·90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

·8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.

·It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.

Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

·According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

·According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 14:37
90% of unplanned were using contraceptives -- meaning they did not want to get pregnant. Only 8% said they were not using contraceptives that received an abortion.

My argument is, one of the worst decisions you can make for a child, is to force him to be born into this world to an irresponsible, selfish, and no-caring parent, which is what the parent would amount to raising an unwanted child.

I am one of the most moralistic people on this board, and I choose to decide that it is more moralistic to bring a wanted child into this world, than an unwanted child.

You are being selfish to assume that unwanted children will lead a happy, functional, and productive life. It just won't happen that way sweetie.

You've got alot to learn about women -- they will take their frustrations out on that kid and blame that child for not being able to finish college, losing their relationship with the man they love that doesn't want children, and oh yeah, the 15-year old that has to stay home raising her child that is a mere child herself.

Shek
26 Jan 06,, 14:41
Overturning Roe would be the dumbest thing an equally activist supreme court can do, it would trigger such a femenist blacklash.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be activist if it creates new "constitutional" law. However, it would be overriding a created notion of a "right to abortion," which was activist in the first place.

As far as a feminist backlash, the feminist movement lost steam decades ago, and I don't see a big feminist movement arising from the ashes.


A lot of people vote Republican because they don't fear the GOP social issue platform for belief the judicary will protect their "rights," take that away and hello Democratic majorities. It's easy to dismiss but remember California alone has 20 Republican congresspeople, New York has 9. Piss off enough people in those blue states and say hello to the return of the Democratic agenda.

The right to life has been a mainstay on the Republican plank for decades now. Republican Presidents have spoken via telephone at the "Right to Life" marches that occur every year on the Roe v. Wade issue. Knowing this, American voters have still voted Republican in the past two elections, allowing a Republican President to replace a minimum of two Justices, and possibly a third (Justice Stevens is 85), replacing a moderate to liberal justice with a conservative justice.

Now, the reality is that the liberal and conservative bases are already set on the right to life/right to abortion issue, and so you won't have any movement there following any reversal of Roe v. Wade. I'd agree that you'll see some movement among independents; however, national security will still be the overriding issue for elections, interchangeable with the economy if it tanks, with abortion trailing. The segment of the population that vote on the basis of abortion are already part of the conservative or liberal bases. So, while the press will have a field day and contributions from the base will increase, I don't think you'll see much movement over the abortion issue, unless a no exceptions law were to be passed.

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 15:12
Julie, I don't have time to do a proper fisking of that stuff you just slung up on the wall, but if I did, it would be EASY.

Those facts back what I'M saying; they work against YOUR position. If you want that demonstrated, I'll lean into it tonight, when I have the time to do it.

But as for not understanding things, you've got me by a long measure, and you're pulling away.

Let's just take ONE for now, though:

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

You read that as
90% of unplanned were using contraceptives -- meaning they did not want to get pregnant. Only 8% said they were not using contraceptives that received an abortion.

Do you see HOW you made an erroneous assertion, and conflated two unrelated facts?

Oh, and THIS beaut:

I am one of the most moralistic people on this board

No. You ain't.


You are being selfish to assume that unwanted children will lead a happy, functional, and productive life. It just won't happen that way sweetie.

No. I ain't. Sweetie.


You've got alot to learn about women

Don't we all. But YOU have everything to learn about logic, and the second part of your assertion
they will take their frustrations out on that kid and blame that child for not being able to finish college, losing their relationship with the man they love that doesn't want children, and oh yeah, the 15-year old that has to stay home raising her child that is a mere child herself. is pure crap.

But you keep rationalizing away, because it's the only way you can square in your mind the sheer awfulness with your support of it.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 15:16
You are deep into denial about the lives unwanted children live on a daily basis. I could throw some cases on the wall so you can see it better....but I warn you, it will get ugly.

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 15:17
Exactly Gio. Bluesman....did you READ this? ;)

Read it, and wonder what political power is to be used FOR, if not to do the Right Thing?

So, a principled stand will potentially cost the GOP its primacy, (I disagree, for the reasons that shek laid out, but we'll take it as read for argument's sake.)

But NOT taking a principled stand means we become functionally like...Democrats. We've already got a Democratic Party in this country, and I find that it's MORE than enough.

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 15:22
You are deep into denial about the lives unwanted children live on a daily basis. I could throw some cases on the wall so you can see it better....but I warn you, it will get ugly.

No, I'm dam' well NOT into denial, and at the risk of sounding childish, YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

So, let's have those cases, and I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that it'll be a dam' sight better-looking than a million and a half children vacuumed out of their mothers, or cut into sections with a knife.

Impress me. Tell me what's uglier than THAT.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 15:25
Read it, and wonder what political power is to be used FOR, if not to do the Right Thing?

So, a principled stand will potentially cost the GOP its primacy, (I disagree, for the reasons that shek laid out, but we'll take it as read for argument's sake.)

But NOT taking a principled stand means we become functionally like...Democrats. We've already got a Democratic Party in this country, and I find that it's MORE than enough.Whatever....the children haven't a clue as to the politics end of it, so to me, it is moot.

I know you've never face the preggo situation since you are a man, but please stop twisting my stats around.

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

You can tell what the difference is in those two statistics can't you?

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 15:27
No, I'm dam' well NOT into denial, and at the risk of sounding childish, YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

So, let's have those cases, and I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that it'll be a dam' sight better-looking than a million and a half children vacuumed out of their mothers, or cut into sections with a knife.

Impress me. Tell me what's uglier than THAT.Finding them in dumpsters, chained to chairs and beaten, and caged and/or locked in closets for many of their childhood years; and oh yeah, starved almost to death before being found.

Shek
26 Jan 06,, 15:34
Abortion leads to a moral hazard - it encourages riskier behavior because it provides a "get out of jail free" card and actually skews statistics in favor of aboriton - look at all these women that are having abortions, there must be a need. That's putting the cart before the horse. Take away abortion as a birth control method, and allow it only as a choice to prevent children as a result of rape or incest or to prevent the death of the mother, and you'll encourage more responsible behavior and through behaviorial modification, reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

You'll have other benefits too - by encouraging proactive forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy instead of ending it, you'll encourage more condom use, which will reduce the spread of STDs.

As far as this statistic goes "54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant," it is not very telling. It doesn't demonstrate responsible behavior because it doesn't specify what types of contraception were used (i.e. was the method of contraception use "you can't get pregnant the first time" method or the "pull out" method), whether there was user error such as not taking the pill correctly, not putting on the condom correctly, or using a diaphram correctly? There's also no discussion of how they verified that the given statistic reflects the truth (i.e. there is a motivation to lie here to prevent a moral judgement of the interviewee). There is a possibility that the data and analysis underlying this statistic answers the question, but I don't recall it when I looked at the primary sources used by the institute that published this statistic.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 15:46
Here is some reading material for you tonight Bluesman.

You remember the 7 year old girl in Brooklyn don’t you?

Cesar Rodriguez, 27, killed his stepdaughter in their apartment in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. He was apparently punishing her for taking a carton of yogurt from the refrigerator. The girl died because of a blow to the head on a bathroom fixture after Rodriguez threw her in the shower. She was allowed to lie on the floor for several hours before a neighbor called emergency services.
On November 6, also in Bedford-Stuyvesant, 16-month-old Dahquay Gillians drowned in a bathtub. On December 28, one-year-old Josiah Bunch was beaten to death in nearby Crown Heights. The families of these children had each come to the attention of the city’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), but the authorities did not prevent the awful ends of their lives.
The aftermath of the death of a child after being abused by a parent in an impoverished neighborhood of New York City follows a familiar pattern….
Eleven years ago, Elisa Izquierdo’s six-year-old face appeared on the cover of Time Magazine over the title, “A Shameful Death.” Elisa, another child of poverty, was severely abused and murdered by her cocaine-addicted mother in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, close to Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Of course, poverty is not the only cause, nor does poverty automatically lead to child abuse or neglect. What is obvious and incontestable, however, is that psychologically vulnerable people, themselves often the product of troubled families, are far more likely when placed under additional stress related to poverty to strike out wildly at defenseless children.
The city agencies charged with caring for abused children are beset by inadequate funding and poor morale. Their work is conducted in an atmosphere permeated by the Social Darwinist doctrine that all responsibility falls on the individual and that the more vulnerable sectors of society have no one to blame but themselves for their plight.
Over the last four years, the ACS’s budget has been cut by more than $200 million and it has lost 1,000 workers.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/nyc-j25.shtml

That’s just ONE area in the State of New York. I can go state by state, or region by region if you wish. This is just a start.

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 15:50
Take away abortion as a birth control method, and allow it only as a choice to prevent children as a result of rape or incest or to prevent the death of the mother, and you'll encourage more responsible behavior and through behaviorial modification, reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.You are hilarious. Is that the best you can come up with?

You really expect a man to be making out with a woman, and then back off and say, "oh, I can't have sex with you because I don't have a condom with me?"

Muhahahahaha. Yeah,....right. :tongue:

THL
26 Jan 06,, 15:56
I am going to say 1st that this is from an old article. There are photos at this website link, but I warn ahead, they are disturbing:



Statistics show that unwanted births can be considered a major factor contributing to the murder of infants and children, and to child abuse in general. In Dr. Resnick's study of 37 infants killed within the first 24 hours after birth, he found that 83 percent of the victims were unwanted by the mother. The incidence of unwanted births in this country is quite high. A fertility study by Dr. Larry Bumpass and Dr. Charles Westoff reported that for the years 1960 to 1965, 22 percent of all births were unwanted by at least one spouse. Among low-income and poorly educated families, the rate of unwanted births was even higher.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/hustler/article.html



From another source:


The consequences of these unwanted pregnancies are
considerable. Children of unwanted pregnancies are
at increased risk for low birth weight, infant mortality,
child abuse, and not receiving sufficient resources for
healthy development.1 The findings of these studies
imply that unintended pregnancy may increase the
pressure on the child welfare system, including juvenile
courts, the foster care system, and related social
service agencies due to the associated increased risk
of child abuse and neglect.1 Women with unwanted
pregnancies are less likely to get early prenatal care
as well as more likely to smoke and drink during pregnancy,
more likely to be involved in violence and to
be separated or divorced from their partner.1 Furthermore,
economic costs of unwanted pregnancies, in
terms of public Medicaid expenditure for prenatal and
delivery services alone, amounted to over $16.6 million
dollars in 1992.
From the state of OK (http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/mchp&e/unwanted.pdf)

I am still looking for more recent data on links between infant/child mortality and unwanted pregnancies.

Shek
26 Jan 06,, 16:04
You are hilarious. Is that the best you can come up with?

You really expect a man to be making out with a woman, and then back off and say, "oh, I can't have sex with you because I don't have a condom with me?"

Muhahahahaha. Yeah,....right. :tongue:

And the poor woman who has no choice but to succumbs to the desire of the all-dominant male :rolleyes:

See, pregancy requires both a male and a female, both of which are responsible for pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. Remove abortion on demand as a method of birth control, and then they are faced with the prospects of caring for a child that they created through their own actions if they don't use contraception methods, and use them properly.

Remove abortion, which encourages this riskier behavior, and consenting individuals will have to make their choice about children prior to engaging in sex, when all the emotional, financial, and future impacts should be discussed, not after the fact, when a woman will then be saddled with the knowledge that she ended a pregnancy for the rest of her life.

Here's a video of a vacuum abortion of a 11 week old fetus: http://www.silentscream.org/video/Silent_Scream3_dsl.mpeg.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this video and your emotional reactions, since your so good at presenting emotional arguments :rolleyes:

THL
26 Jan 06,, 16:10
See, pregancy requires both a male and a female, both of which are responsible for pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. Remove abortion on demand as a method of birth control, and then they are faced with the prospects of caring for a child that they created through their own actions if they don't use contraception methods, and use them properly.

Remove abortion, which encourages this riskier behavior, and consenting individuals will have to make their choice about children prior to engaging in sex, when all the emotional, financial, and future impacts should be discussed, not after the fact, when a woman will then be saddled with the knowledge that she ended a pregnancy for the rest of her life.
Taking away abortion does not guarantee that people are going to use birth control more responsibly. I would be willing to lay money down that the child abuse and mortality rate would increase considerably if abortion were made illegal.


Here's a video of a vacuum abortion of a 11 week old fetus: http://www.silentscream.org/video/Silent_Scream3_dsl.mpeg.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this video and your emotional reactions, since your so good at presenting emotional arguments :rolleyes:
Is that video worse than the photo of the infant that had scalding milk thrown at his face scarring him for the rest of his life (at the website link I provided)? Or how about the child that had scars from a cigarette lighter on his hands that matched the ones his grandfather gave to his father? People being forced to take on the responsibility of a child will increase child abuse and death from child abuse. Aborting a fetus is much better than having a child remember how his mother or father abused him for the rest of his life and that child having to live with the emotional and physical consequences of that abuse.

bonehead
26 Jan 06,, 17:11
Shek.
"Behavioral modification. Riskier behavior" ???. You can't be arguing that legalized abortion promotes this. STDs are the EASIEST infections to irrradicate yet for centuries have been a huge problem. Why? abortion or not, as a species, very few of us can not fool around. Sex is a huge part of our psyche. Even priest with vowes of celebacy are doing it. Roe vs Wade was not the floodgate for this behavior. Your argument is similar to the anti gun crowd who says that if all the guns are gone crime will disapear. You and I both know that is not the case. Abortion is really not the problem. Abortion is just an easy thing to point your finger at and focus on while the root problem, the problem that is more difficult to solve, stays in the shadows. The real problem is the behaviors that lead to screwing around in the first place. This problem has been around far longer than Roe vs Wade, and is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

There really is no birth control method that is 100% effective. The only two ways are to remove the uterus or remove the testicals. Neither of which are palatable to the general public except for extreme cases. Birth control is also a no-no in the catholic religion, and is fought by many other religous groups, which further clouds the birth control issue.

99% if the time it is the woman who gets the 24-7 responsibilities of raising the unwanted child. The man pays a fine, ie x dollars/month until the child reaches a certain age, but otherwise gets to continue his life as normal. Secondly, the man doesn't have his body radically change during the pregnancy. The man can still drink alcohol and he isn't getting hemorroids from the pregnancy, nor is his life on the line during the birth. This alone should give the woman latitude of bearing the kid or not.

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 17:51
Here is some reading material for you tonight Bluesman.

You remember the 7 year old girl in Brooklyn don’t you?

Cesar Rodriguez, 27, killed his stepdaughter in their apartment in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. He was apparently punishing her for taking a carton of yogurt from the refrigerator. The girl died because of a blow to the head on a bathroom fixture after Rodriguez threw her in the shower. She was allowed to lie on the floor for several hours before a neighbor called emergency services.
On November 6, also in Bedford-Stuyvesant, 16-month-old Dahquay Gillians drowned in a bathtub. On December 28, one-year-old Josiah Bunch was beaten to death in nearby Crown Heights. The families of these children had each come to the attention of the city’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), but the authorities did not prevent the awful ends of their lives.
The aftermath of the death of a child after being abused by a parent in an impoverished neighborhood of New York City follows a familiar pattern….
Eleven years ago, Elisa Izquierdo’s six-year-old face appeared on the cover of Time Magazine over the title, “A Shameful Death.” Elisa, another child of poverty, was severely abused and murdered by her cocaine-addicted mother in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, close to Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Of course, poverty is not the only cause, nor does poverty automatically lead to child abuse or neglect. What is obvious and incontestable, however, is that psychologically vulnerable people, themselves often the product of troubled families, are far more likely when placed under additional stress related to poverty to strike out wildly at defenseless children.
The city agencies charged with caring for abused children are beset by inadequate funding and poor morale. Their work is conducted in an atmosphere permeated by the Social Darwinist doctrine that all responsibility falls on the individual and that the more vulnerable sectors of society have no one to blame but themselves for their plight.
Over the last four years, the ACS’s budget has been cut by more than $200 million and it has lost 1,000 workers.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/nyc-j25.shtml

That’s just ONE area in the State of New York. I can go state by state, or region by region if you wish. This is just a start.

I see your anecdote, and I raise you one an a half MILLION dead children EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1973. You don't have that many chips to bet, no matter how many states or regions you want to go through. So fold your hand.

THL
26 Jan 06,, 17:52
The only two ways are to remove the uterus or remove the testicals. Neither of which are palatable to the general public except for extreme cases.
I don't know - I know a few men I would like to nominate for that testicle removal thing - that is awake and coherantly done, right? :)





EDIT: Before it is mentioned - TH is not one of them :redface:

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 18:04
Taking away abortion does not guarantee that people are going to use birth control more responsibly. I would be willing to lay money down that the child abuse and mortality rate would increase considerably if abortion were made illegal.


Is that video worse than the photo of the infant that had scalding milk thrown at his face scarring him for the rest of his life (at the website link I provided)? Or how about the child that had scars from a cigarette lighter on his hands that matched the ones his grandfather gave to his father? People being forced to take on the responsibility of a child will increase child abuse and death from child abuse. Aborting a fetus is much better than having a child remember how his mother or father abused him for the rest of his life and that child having to live with the emotional and physical consequences of that abuse.
Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. Chosen for their emotional infulence.

Trump all those dead kids, and I'll acknowledge that you have a point. Is the child's burn scars WORSE than death? If so, why wasn't he just killed outright after he was injured? And he is but ONE case; how many more kids are aborted than are subjected to this kind of depravity?

And try to answer THIS: how many of these kids that suffer so are viewed as the choices that made it out of the womb alive, instead of a CHILD? In other words, when society considers them less than human, does it coarsen the corporate view of what a human being really IS, and what rights accrue simply because of its humanity?

I posit that your expansive support of abortion-on-demand actually contributes to the abuse of children (the ones that actually survive to be born, I mean) by virtue of them being seen as essentially valueless, and consumers of resources. Those are the arguments YOU are making, so don't blame me if you begin to see that what you advocate is EVIL, and based on a gross disregard of science, the Constitution, morality and plain old human feeling for your fellow citizens.

A life of abuse is better than no life at all. That is your stand, is it not? Why can you not see that this is WRONG? Why will you not acknowledge that for every case you can cite of abused 'unwanted' kids, I can cite a hundred of children that came through that furnace a piece of human STEEL, that improved this planet and proved to be a better addition to the human race than any abortionist or his supporters ever were?

THL
26 Jan 06,, 18:43
Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. Chosen for their emotional infulence.
Absolutely - It is an emotional topic.


Trump all those dead kids, and I'll acknowledge that you have a point. Is the child's burn scars WORSE than death?
Probably not, if one is talking about (for example) an abused kid dying a slow painful death. I guess this comes down to here wether a fetus is regarded as a human, at which point and if this fetus feels pain. I personally feel that they do not feel pain at early stages. NOT to say that the lack of nerves makes it okay to "kill" something. Animals feel pain, yet we step on bugs and shoot deer everyday (hunters do not always hunt for food). It is "okay" because they are animals and "less" than humans.

I will never push for abortions. No one will ever see me on a corner telling women to try and have more. I would love to see every pregnancy end in a child being born and growing up with parents (wether the birth parents or not) that love it and protect it. But that is not the case. I would rather see a woman get an abortion instead of having a baby after 9 months of not taking care of the fetus or herself and then throw that baby away. By a woman having an abortion, I feel that she is saying to the world that she could not and would not take care of that child and therefore is making a better choice than to attempt and fail miserably.




I posit that your expansive support of abortion-on-demand actually contributes to the abuse of children (the ones that actually survive to be born, I mean) by virtue of them being seen as essentially valueless, and consumers of resources. Those are the arguments YOU are making, so don't blame me if you begin to see that what you advocate is EVIL, and based on a gross disregard of science, the Constitution, morality and plain old human feeling for your fellow citizens.
Again, I do not promote abortion as being the only alternative, or even the best alternative - I don't think many would. But I think that there are cases where it needs to be some sort of alternative. It needs to be an option.



A life of abuse is better than no life at all. That is your stand, is it not?
It ABSOLUTELY is NOT!



Why can you not see that this is WRONG? Why will you not acknowledge that for every case you can cite of abused 'unwanted' kids, I can cite a hundred of children that came through that furnace a piece of human STEEL, that improved this planet and proved to be a better addition to the human race than any abortionist or his supporters ever were?
You are correct and I don't argue that some kids come through abuse fine and grow up to be healthy law abiding citizens. But so many are tormented and end up sitting in front of a shrink for the remainder of their life. But why would we want to make these kids grow up knowing they are not loved, not wanted and a burden to those around them? Why would anyone want to have other people (especially kids) feel that way for the first 18 years of their life? Imagine this. Being completely alone. Knowing you were a "mistake". Knowing your parents may not even like you let alone love you. Beinf afraid to go home after school, assuming you are allowed out of your room to go to school. Not knowing what kind of punishment you are going to have to endure because you may have gone against the rules and "stolen" a cookie from the kitchen or talked back - Is it going to be a belt this time, a lighter, a fist to your face...or worse?

Even assuming that a fetus of 6 weeks CAN feel pain, a few moments of pain during an abortion to prevent years of this possible abuse - I think is the better choice.

ZFBoxcar
26 Jan 06,, 20:12
I don't know enough to determine whether or not a fetus is a person, but to me that is the only important question. I don't understand the "middle ground" position. If abortion is not murder (meaning that the fetus is not a person), then why do those in the "middle" have a dislike for it at all? If it is murder (meaning the fetus is a person), then how can it be okay, regardless of what the person's life is going to be like. It is not up to us to decide whether or not somebody else's life is worth living. If I decide somebody's life sucks I can't just kill them. That is why the only thing that matters is whether or not a fetus is a person. All the examples of babies in dumpsters OR growing up to live perfectly happy lives are irrelevent because you can't murder people on the basis of their family or economic situation, and if a fetus isn't a person then there is no need to prove they will suffer a terrible existance since the only person involved is the mother, there is no child.

How does one go about determining if a fetus is a person? What are the criteria, and what is the evidence?

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 20:42
A life of abuse is better than no life at all. :confused: That is your stand Bluesman.

I will not fold my hand, because if I did, there would be millions of humiliated, broken-spirited, and suffering children in this country.

A healthy child is a happy child. :)

Julie
26 Jan 06,, 20:47
And the poor woman who has no choice but to succumbs to the desire of the all-dominant male :rolleyes:Sometimes it happens....it's called rape Shek. :rolleyes:


See, pregancy requires both a male and a female, both of which are responsible for pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. Remove abortion on demand as a method of birth control, and then they are faced with the prospects of caring for a child that they created through their own actions if they don't use contraception methods, and use them properly.And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his a$$ when he hopped either. :rolleyes:


Remove abortion, which encourages this riskier behavior, and consenting individuals will have to make their choice about children prior to engaging in sex, when all the emotional, financial, and future impacts should be discussed, not after the fact, when a woman will then be saddled with the knowledge that she ended a pregnancy for the rest of her life.Same answer as above. :rolleyes:


I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this video and your emotional reactions, since your so good at presenting emotional arguments :rolleyes:I'm only interested in the emotional welfare of children, not yours.

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 21:44
bluesman,



if so, you've been defending a lot of evil americans.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=91

Everything I've done for the last 20 years has defended ALL Americans, the good folk as well as the moral idiots and child-killers and the rights they claim they have to act as they have.

So what's your point?

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 22:05
Emily, you keep mentioning PAIN as being one of the aspects of abortion that makes you uneasy about it. Would it be more acceptable to you if each kill was painless? When killing human beings, should the moral dimension be somewhat less awesome as long as the kill is 'clean', and the dead person feels no pain? When Jews are gassed, or shot at the base of the skull, presumably the weight of the killer's guilt is less than if sadism is involved.

Go through that argument for me so that I may understand the depth of thought that you've placed in your stand.

Parihaka
26 Jan 06,, 22:20
Here is some reading material for you tonight Bluesman.

You remember the 7 year old girl in Brooklyn don’t you?

Cesar Rodriguez, 27, killed his stepdaughter in their apartment in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. He was apparently punishing her for taking a carton of yogurt from the refrigerator. The girl died because of a blow to the head on a bathroom fixture after Rodriguez threw her in the shower. She was allowed to lie on the floor for several hours before a neighbor called emergency services.
On November 6, also in Bedford-Stuyvesant, 16-month-old Dahquay Gillians drowned in a bathtub. On December 28, one-year-old Josiah Bunch was beaten to death in nearby Crown Heights. The families of these children had each come to the attention of the city’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), but the authorities did not prevent the awful ends of their lives.
The aftermath of the death of a child after being abused by a parent in an impoverished neighborhood of New York City follows a familiar pattern….
Eleven years ago, Elisa Izquierdo’s six-year-old face appeared on the cover of Time Magazine over the title, “A Shameful Death.” Elisa, another child of poverty, was severely abused and murdered by her cocaine-addicted mother in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, close to Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Of course, poverty is not the only cause, nor does poverty automatically lead to child abuse or neglect. What is obvious and incontestable, however, is that psychologically vulnerable people, themselves often the product of troubled families, are far more likely when placed under additional stress related to poverty to strike out wildly at defenseless children.
The city agencies charged with caring for abused children are beset by inadequate funding and poor morale. Their work is conducted in an atmosphere permeated by the Social Darwinist doctrine that all responsibility falls on the individual and that the more vulnerable sectors of society have no one to blame but themselves for their plight.
Over the last four years, the ACS’s budget has been cut by more than $200 million and it has lost 1,000 workers.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/nyc-j25.shtml

That’s just ONE area in the State of New York. I can go state by state, or region by region if you wish. This is just a start.
Gotta say it. Their mothers having access to abortions did not stop these children being abused.

Parihaka
26 Jan 06,, 22:23
Taking away abortion does not guarantee that people are going to use birth control more responsibly. I would be willing to lay money down that the child abuse and mortality rate would increase considerably if abortion were made illegal.


Is that video worse than the photo of the infant that had scalding milk thrown at his face scarring him for the rest of his life (at the website link I provided)? Or how about the child that had scars from a cigarette lighter on his hands that matched the ones his grandfather gave to his father? People being forced to take on the responsibility of a child will increase child abuse and death from child abuse. Aborting a fetus is much better than having a child remember how his mother or father abused him for the rest of his life and that child having to live with the emotional and physical consequences of that abuse.
And again. Their mothers having access to abortions did not prevent these children from being abused

Insomniac
26 Jan 06,, 22:31
On the whole subject of abortion I have seen an actual abortion with ultrasonic imaging and I was extremely disgusted. The baby is alive inside of the women and I was able to see the baby actually moving away from the tools and attempt to helplessly escape from them.

You can see the same footage here: http://www.silentscream.org/

My primary stand point: abortion is murder and there is no justifiable reason for it.

Common reasons women use for abortion include:

1. Don't have the financial ability to take care of the baby.
2. Got pregnant too young and am not prepared.
3. Raped.
4. Don't want it.
5. The baby is in my body so it is my property and I don't want it.

Common sense:

1. If you are not prepared financially, are too young, don't want a child, or other wise to have a baby then don't go fooling around with boys in the first place. If you place your trust in condems, you should know that they fail 15% of the time. So, risk what you want.

2. If you were raped then I'm very sorry. However, the baby has done nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to die. There is no reason that the child should die. There is also nothing wrong with putting it up for adoption. There are actually lots of parents out there who are barren and can't have kids by normal means and would love to raise a child.

3. Honestly, counting the baby as property is just another method of slavery or owning human beings and that has been banned in America. It's not just your body that is being discused, it's two bodies. If you're just going to kill it you should not have had it in the first place and, again, putting it up for adoption is not wrong at all.

4. Sex is only safe and not damadging under marrige with your spouse. This is a lesson that even the US government knows is true, but has failed to teach to the student population effectively. Basically now all those sex ED teachers say is "Sex outside of marrige is bad. You could get AIDS. blah blah blah blah blah blah. But just incase, here's a bunch of condems for ya -wink-."

Bluesman
26 Jan 06,, 22:44
I will never push for abortions. No one will ever see me on a corner telling women to try and have more.

Well, why not? What - EXACTLY - troubles you about abortion? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know WHY this is not a matter of moral insignificance to you. Hell, even Julie, the WAB's King Herod, says she doesn't much like abortion, but not enough to actually oppose it. But even THAT weak stand has some aspect about abortion that is troubling to its proponent. Well, what is it? Articulate it for me, here and now, please - and then we'll worry about how you can defend your position with logic, law and science later in the thread.


I would love to see every pregnancy end in a child being born and growing up with parents (wether the birth parents or not) that love it and protect it. But that is not the case.

Correct, it sure is not the case, even now, with abortion legal and cheap. Tell me again how ANY social pathology is prevented by abortion. And I make my point again - the stand of abortion-on-demand CHEAPENS life, and makes it easier to be neglectful. If this society veiwed them as CHILDREN, and not LIFESTYLE CHOICES, it would be a helluva lot harder to abuse or kill them post partum. And shek's point is a good one, too - it's an easy out for the careless, and as we all know, if there are no consequences for behavior, you get more of that behavior. (bonehead couldn't grasp this. Maybe you'll see the point.)


I would rather see a woman get an abortion instead of having a baby after 9 months of not taking care of the fetus or herself and then throw that baby away.

Apparently, that is the only outcome you see possible, then. It isn't, and it's not even COMMON. Yes, chances are that a crisis pregnancy carried to term is going to seriously crimp career prospects and life possibilities for the expectant mother, and may (MAY, but not necessarily) even consign them both to lives of poverty. Well, as I said before, 'poor' is not the synonym of 'worthless', or 'wasted'. If you believe that getting the corner office is more important than a human life, then really, there's not much more we can say to each other.


By a woman having an abortion, I feel that she is saying to the world that she could not and would not take care of that child and therefore is making a better choice than to attempt and fail miserably.

A better choice for WHO? The dead kid? WHY can you not see the fallacy of this? And WHY do you keep insisting on these abuse cases as the norm?

Let me tell you something: my oldest son was a crisis pregnancy. We were not going to get married. We weren't even going to be stationed in the same hemisphere. I was in NO WAY prepared to be a father. She was 19, and a low-paid newbie Air Force girl.

The choice was obvious, right? NO! Six weeks after we were married, we were parents, and scared to friggin' DEATH. And it's all worked out so beautifully, much against your scary actuarial tables of grinding poverty and Dickensian privation, the nightmare of alcholism and abject soul-crushing abuse.

MOST pregnancies are in some way unplanned, a crisis, inconvenient at the time. And most people (OVERWHELMINGLY 'most') raise their children the best they can. You seem to see each drunken grope in the dorm ending up in neglect or abortion, and you need to shift that paradigm, guys. IT HAPPENS, yeah, BUT IT HAPPENS NOW, TOO. So, knock off the horribleness tableaus, because that is no goddam' good reason to KILL 1.5 MILLION KIDS A YEAR.


Again, I do not promote abortion as being the only alternative, or even the best alternative - I don't think many would. But I think that there are cases where it needs to be some sort of alternative. It needs to be an option.

Tell me WHY it needs to be an option, and tell me why it should not be the FIRST option.


It ABSOLUTELY is NOT!

Right, that's MY position. You take the opposite view, that being vivisected or vacuumed out of the womb is WAY better than being born and facing the same perils that ALL of us face as humans: the chance of being unloved, the chance of glory from rising from humble means to acheive something with your life that started so ordinary. Make me understand how you can think this way. Frankly, I'm absolutely astonished that as a mother, you'd deny that chance to ANYbody, much less those MILLIONS of people that have been deliberately destroyed.


You are correct and I don't argue that some kids come through abuse fine and grow up to be healthy law abiding citizens. But so many are tormented and end up sitting in front of a shrink for the remainder of their life. But why would we want to make these kids grow up knowing they are not loved, not wanted and a burden to those around them? Why would anyone want to have other people (especially kids) feel that way for the first 18 years of their life? Imagine this. Being completely alone. Knowing you were a "mistake". Knowing your parents may not even like you let alone love you. Beinf afraid to go home after school, assuming you are allowed out of your room to go to school. Not knowing what kind of punishment you are going to have to endure because you may have gone against the rules and "stolen" a cookie from the kitchen or talked back - Is it going to be a belt this time, a lighter, a fist to your face...or worse?

Knock it off, okay? If this is the only defense of abortion-on-demand that you can mount, I demand that you concede that you have a bankrupt argument. I WIN, if this is the best you and Julie can do. And it appears that it is.


Even assuming that a fetus of 6 weeks CAN feel pain, a few moments of pain during an abortion to prevent years of this possible abuse - I think is the better choice.

DEAD is better than unloved. Charming.

Bulgaroctonus
26 Jan 06,, 23:33
the WAB's King Herod
Nice historical reference.

For those that don't know, King Herod (r. 40-4 B.C.) is most famous to Christians for being the Slayer of the Innocents. Supposedly, Herod initiated a massacre of all the Jewish boys in Judaea, fearing that one of them was Jesus of Nazareth, who was rumored to supplant him.

Of course, Jesus got away.

Julie, this is a heavy accusation!

Bulgaroctonus
26 Jan 06,, 23:36
DEAD is better than unloved. Charming.
There is no sensation in death, so death is neither better or worse than being unloved.

Think about it, even if one lives the best or worst of lives, it is erased in death. A person undergoing immense pain might wish for this void.

As Epicurus would say,

"Death is nothing to us!"

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 00:06
There is no sensation in death, so death is neither better or worse than being unloved.

Think about it, even if one lives the best or worst of lives, it is erased in death. A person undergoing immense pain might wish for this void.

As Epicurus would say,

"Death is nothing to us!"

Then let the person undergoing such pain decide. As it is, the person undergoing inconvenience is deciding for them. And that is wrong.

Parihaka
27 Jan 06,, 00:13
Then let the person undergoing such pain decide. As it is, the person undergoing inconvenience is deciding for them. And that is wrong.Yep

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 00:52
Whatever....the children haven't a clue as to the politics end of it, so to me, it is moot.

I know you've never face the preggo situation since you are a man, but please stop twisting my stats around.

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

You can tell what the difference is in those two statistics can't you?

Good GOD, you got it wrong AGAIN.

Read it this way:

·54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

Well, so WHAT? They used a condom on the 1st but not on the 30th? This absolves them from responsibility?


·90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

Again, what of THAT? What part of your argument is supported by this? You originally said that stat meant
90% of unplanned were using contraceptives -- meaning they did not want to get pregnant. But it doesn't say that, and I tried to point that out to you, which you said was
twisting my stats around. What it says is, the overwhelming majority of fertile and sexually-active women take the completely logical step of contraception, NOT, as you assert, that 90% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of failed contraception.

You got your stat WRONG, and I didn't twist anything.

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 01:01
Then let the person undergoing such pain decide. As it is, the person undergoing inconvenience is deciding for them. And that is wrong.
Yes! One would hope that one has the right to decide one's own death.

However, how can this apply to a situation where the affected person (i.e. a fetus) can't make the decision?

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 01:09
Yes! One would hope that one has the right to decide one's own death.

However, how can this apply to a situation where the affected person (i.e. a fetus) can't make the decision?

Then you wait until it CAN. My guess is that the overwhelming majority will choose life for themselves. Like ALL of us get to do.

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 01:17
That gives me a thought:
Why doesn't every single person that has a crappy life that SHOULD have been killed in utero to save it all that pain NOT opt for suicide? If, as we've been asked to believe throughout this thread, they would have been better off if they'd never been born, then suicides due to abuse/neglect/parental rejection pre-Roe should equal about a million a year. It would have to be EARLY in life, too, not past eighteen, when chemical, relationship, financial and other factors begin to play into the decision.

Why do these hopeless individuals opt to LIVE these horrible lives, when we DO leave it to them?

Because these anecdotal cases are just that, THAT is why. Most people - even pre-Roe - decide for themselves that as bad as their situation is, they'd be worse off if they were dead. Or had never been born at all.

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 01:43
Most people - even pre-Roe - decide for themselves that as bad as their situation is, they'd be worse off if they were dead. Or had never been born at all.
1. Their situation might not be that bad.

2. If they would be better off dead, they don't have the guts to kill themselves.

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 01:49
My moral beliefs are so non-existent that it really doesn't make sense for me to continue this debate.

I'll eventually just lapse into nihilism, and most people don't want to hear that scary, depressing stuff.

I'll just leave you folks to your discussion.

astralis
27 Jan 06,, 03:30
bluesman,


Everything I've done for the last 20 years has defended ALL Americans, the good folk as well as the moral idiots and child-killers and the rights they claim they have to act as they have.

the point was, if abortion is truly the clear-cut evil that you proclaim it to be, why do so many of your fellow americans disagree with you? is it thickheadedness, lack of morals, misled? what, then?

those reasons seems hard to believe when a full 65% of the american populace believes that roe v wade should NOT be overturned (and support for abortion rights rising among the more educated). to be sure, popularity doesn't make always make right or wrong, but...

one should at least question whether one's position is not at least open for moderation of some sort.

that's all :)

EricTheRed
27 Jan 06,, 03:35
lack of morals, misled? what, then?


I blame separation of church and state. It has slowly eaten away at the morals of the west

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 03:42
I blame separation of church and state. It has slowly eaten away at the morals of the west
While simultaneously allowing for the rise of science and industrialization that put the West on top.

I would say the West is more moral and pacifistic, and weaker, than ever before.

It is not the morals of the West that put it on top.

EricTheRed
27 Jan 06,, 03:46
but it is the morals of the west that will put it in hell

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 03:51
but it is the morals of the west that will put it in hell
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

EricTheRed
27 Jan 06,, 03:53
this is going to end up has a religious argument soo Ill just stop

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 03:54
this is going to end up has a religious argument soo Ill just stop
Good idea. Religious arguments are stupid.

THL
27 Jan 06,, 04:50
Emily, you keep mentioning PAIN as being one of the aspects of abortion that makes you uneasy about it. Would it be more acceptable to you if each kill was painless? When killing human beings, should the moral dimension be somewhat less awesome as long as the kill is 'clean', and the dead person feels no pain? When Jews are gassed, or shot at the base of the skull, presumably the weight of the killer's guilt is less than if sadism is involved.

Go through that argument for me so that I may understand the depth of thought that you've placed in your stand.
I am not meaning that the fetus feels pain and that is what makes me uneasy about it. Nothing makes me uneasy about it. I am pro-choice. But I think that if a fetus were to feel pain, I would rather they feel pain for a few seconds or minutes that emotional and physical pain during childhood not being wanted and possibly abused.

THL
27 Jan 06,, 04:54
And again. Their mothers having access to abortions did not prevent these children from being abused
You are exactly right. But abortion is shamed in society. Before someone says it, I don't think that it should be rewarded or imaged as a good thing, but I think a lot women have aprehension to use this because of the reaction they are going to get from friends/family/clergy/etc. If they could do it without having to be so afraid of what others are going to do or say to them (or what the looneys standing outside the abortion clinics are going to do to them on their way in) I think more women that should have them would have them. NOT saying that more is better, I still hold strong that there should be limitations to prevent abortions from being used as birth control by "repeat offenders".

THL
27 Jan 06,, 05:05
Well, why not? What - EXACTLY - troubles you about abortion? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know WHY this is not a matter of moral insignificance to you. Hell, even Julie, the WAB's King Herod, says she doesn't much like abortion, but not enough to actually oppose it. But even THAT weak stand has some aspect about abortion that is troubling to its proponent. Well, what is it? Articulate it for me, here and now, please - and then we'll worry about how you can defend your position with logic, law and science later in the thread.
I think that people should be held accountable for their actions. If you get pregnant, you should have to have and raise that kid. HOWEVER there are some people that just cannot do it. They emotionally, mentally cannot raise a kid. I would rather see an abortion, than see a kid live a life of torment. Let's say a woman that is on medication for some sort of mental illness gets pregnant. Chances are she will have to go off that medication while she is pregnant. What happens when that fetus has been developing for 8 months and she decides to kill herself or she has some psychotic episode and cuts the baby out of her own stomach (taken from a real story a few years back here in Chicago). This is better than her having an abortion? She would not have been able to raise that baby even if she had been able to carry it to full term. Abortion is better in this situation.

A married couple has two kids and she accidentally gets pregnant. They decided they did not want anymore kids so they decide to have an abortion - I DO NOT agree with it in this situation. They have proven that they are capable of taking care of their kids and there is no reason for that woman to have an abortion.

It needs to be decided and looked at on a case by case basis based on statistics and known facts. But I think it needs to remain an option for some of these cases.



DEAD is better than unloved. Charming.
Dead at 6 weeks gestation is better than abused to death at a year old.

bonehead
27 Jan 06,, 05:58
I don't know - I know a few men I would like to nominate for that testicle removal thing - that is awake and coherantly done, right? :)





EDIT: Before it is mentioned - TH is not one of them :redface:

There is a guy in Vermont that I would like to nominate. He will be out in three years or so.

bonehead
27 Jan 06,, 06:07
Those are the arguments YOU are making, so don't blame me if you begin to see that what you advocate is EVIL, and based on a gross disregard of science, the Constitution, morality and plain old human feeling for your fellow citizens.



Bluesman. Explain how THL has a gross disregard of the Constitution. The Supreme Court(part of the Constitution) has taken the case and has ruled in her favor. What part of that do you not understand?

bonehead
27 Jan 06,, 06:51
it's an easy out for the careless, and as we all know, if there are no consequences for behavior, you get more of that behavior. (bonehead couldn't grasp this. Maybe you'll see the point.)



First of all, if the parents are careless during the act of conception, they will also be careless during the child rearing years. Remember the story a few months ago about the man who left his loaded gun out and his kid picked it up and killed himself with it? The father was careless yet the child paid the price.

Secondly, I do have a grasp of the relationship of consequences and behavior. For our huge prison population the relationship is largely a failure or they would not have done the action that got them into prison. Ditto for drug users. Most people do think unwanted pregnancies and STDs are consequences of sexual behavior. AIDS is for life and hepatitis kills. As a species we know this yet still we screw around. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs happened before abortions were legal. Taking away abortions is not going to end the sexual behavior, nor will it creat the utopian life where we all suddenly value life in a new and exiting way. I also believe that when I die, I am going to have to explain myself to my maker. Those consequenses are more dear to me than anything in this life. That is also between me and God, and is no one else's business. Abortion is only the symptom. We need to find the real reasons for the behaviors and deal with the causes.

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 10:28
First of all, if the parents are careless during the act of conception, they will also be careless during the child rearing years.

My wife and I were careless during conception, and we're the most attentive, conscientious and doting parents you ever saw. (As long as my opponents are going to use 'one-off' anecdotes, you guys can dam' well deal with mine.)

So, explain me, her and the bazillions of people that turn out to be above-average parents that never set out to be parents at all when they were just trying to have a bit of fun.

You CAN'T, not with your paradigm. I'm WAY closer to typical than your concept of a person faced with the extremely scary prospect of coming up positive on the EPT.

And wherever you were going with that completely off-topic story of the kid that shot himself with the father's gun ONCE AGAIN serves to reinforce MY point: it is a TRAGEDY that the adult did something out of free will and carelessness, but the child paid with his life. So it is with abortion.

And finally, your point about the prison population, etc. So, you seem to be saying that if there were NO consequences for what we now consider criminal acts, we wouldn't have MORE of those acts. As large as today's prison population is, if you didn't go to prison at all, incidences of robbery, murder, crimes of all sorts would be unchanged. That's perhaps the stupidest assertion yet made on this message board. Also, behaviors WERE modified by information about STDs and AIDS for those that chose to heed it. We were ALL supposed to have AIDS by now, remember? But we don't, because the growth of the disease was arrested when it became widely known that there were CONSEQUENCES.

But condom sales will plummet if we wake up some morning to the announcement of the AIDS vaccine's discovery, perfection and cheap employment with no side effects. The notion of CONSEQUENCES for one's actions DO modify behavior, and shek's point stands.

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 10:37
Bluesman. Explain how THL has a gross disregard of the Constitution. The Supreme Court(part of the Constitution) has taken the case and has ruled in her favor. What part of that do you not understand?

Apply that argument to slavery, pre-Civil War. Slavery was legal then, and was codified by the horrible Dred Scott decision from your exalted Supreme Court. In time, people became more enlightened, and it has come to be seen as the evil and pernicious thing that it always was.

I never said abortion was illegal. Clearly it IS legal. I said Roe was decided wrongly, and is on the face of it against the EXPLICITLY STATED right to life guaranted in the Constitution. If you can find the language in there that gives a right to an abortion, let's debate whether it really says what you think it says. Right to privacy? Not in there, either.

Perhaps you think it 'flows from the emanation of a penumbra', as the original writings on Roe suggest. Well, the right to life is not nearly so tenuous, it is EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED.

It would seem I understand things just fine. YOU, on the other hand, seem to badly misinformed.

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 10:49
bluesman,



the point was, if abortion is truly the clear-cut evil that you proclaim it to be, why do so many of your fellow americans disagree with you? is it thickheadedness, lack of morals, misled? what, then?

those reasons seems hard to believe when a full 65% of the american populace believes that roe v wade should NOT be overturned (and support for abortion rights rising among the more educated). to be sure, popularity doesn't make always make right or wrong, but...

one should at least question whether one's position is not at least open for moderation of some sort.

that's all :)

Oh, I follow your argument. But the tide is turning, as Julie's stats suggest:


·According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

·According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

And as far as making this a matter for plebiscite, well, HELL, I'm all in favor of THAT.

Because the overturning of Roe (which is, really, all that I'm after, even if it does NOT lead to abortions being outlawed everywhere) would merely throw the question back onto the fifty states. It would no longer be a federal right supposedly enshrined somewhere in that pesky ole Consitutuion, written in ancient Aramaic in invisible ink and encoded with 128-bit encryption, that hides the true meaning from us laymen, so that only the high preists of the Law may decipher it and find in there those hidden rights that we just never, ever managed to see before, and the Framers never saw fit to write about.

All I'm saying is, let's just go by the Constitution, and if everybody is so hot to make abortion an enshrined federal right, let's have the debate about it and pass the Amendment. If it's as wildly popular as you seem to think, it should sail right through, and one thing the Original Dads DID do was give us the mechanism whereby the Consitution may be amended, as future generations see fit. (You can look this one up; it's actually IN THERE, in plain language.)

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 10:52
It is not the morals of the West that put it on top.

Perhaps not 'morals', but it certainly has to do with ethics, worldview, culture, philosophy, and basically, everything that Marx thought was secondary to assets, resources, means of production, and all the rest that he valued above human spirit.

'Morals' may not be the right word, but I think he's on the right track.

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 11:02
I am not meaning that the fetus feels pain and that is what makes me uneasy about it. Nothing makes me uneasy about it. I am pro-choice. But I think that if a fetus were to feel pain, I would rather they feel pain for a few seconds or minutes that emotional and physical pain during childhood not being wanted and possibly abused.

NOTHING makes you uneasy about it?

BS. You said that abortion should not be the first option, and you wish that there were less performed, and you'd not want one yourself. SOMETHING makes you uneasy about it. Do you believe that it has any greater moral signifigance than any other surgical procedure, such as, say, having a cyst removed? And what category of medical procedure would you classify an abortion as, curative, therapeutic, preventative, or cosmetic?

Let's go back to your fetus that you've somehow determined is going to have a hellish life if you do not succeed in destroying it in utero. How do you know this? I've already tried to demonstrate that this is the exception to the rule, that of all the kids that are abused NOW, even with the option for an abortion, most pregnancies are going to result in a reasonably adequate life, but you keep insisting that ALL crisis prenancies (or even accidental ones) will result in child abuse.

I have no empirical evidence, but I think that the rise of child abuse cases SINCE Roe would argue for my side that abortion has coarsened society sufficiently to allow for a devaluation of a child into something that could've been killed legally but wasn't pre-natal, so HOW could it be considered valuable enough to protect and cherish post-natal?

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 11:05
You are exactly right. But abortion is shamed in society. Before someone says it, I don't think that it should be rewarded or imaged as a good thing, but I think a lot women have aprehension to use this because of the reaction they are going to get from friends/family/clergy/etc. If they could do it without having to be so afraid of what others are going to do or say to them (or what the looneys standing outside the abortion clinics are going to do to them on their way in) I think more women that should have them would have them. NOT saying that more is better, I still hold strong that there should be limitations to prevent abortions from being used as birth control by "repeat offenders".


WHY? If there is no moral component, then it's just another out-patient procedure, like getting a boil lanced. WHY is more not better? WHY limit access to abortion? Something DOES bother you about it. WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT ABORTION?

Bluesman
27 Jan 06,, 11:17
I think that people should be held accountable for their actions. If you get pregnant, you should have to have and raise that kid. HOWEVER there are some people that just cannot do it. They emotionally, mentally cannot raise a kid. I would rather see an abortion, than see a kid live a life of torment. Let's say a woman that is on medication for some sort of mental illness gets pregnant. Chances are she will have to go off that medication while she is pregnant. What happens when that fetus has been developing for 8 months and she decides to kill herself or she has some psychotic episode and cuts the baby out of her own stomach (taken from a real story a few years back here in Chicago). This is better than her having an abortion? She would not have been able to raise that baby even if she had been able to carry it to full term. Abortion is better in this situation.

A married couple has two kids and she accidentally gets pregnant. They decided they did not want anymore kids so they decide to have an abortion - I DO NOT agree with it in this situation. They have proven that they are capable of taking care of their kids and there is no reason for that woman to have an abortion.

It needs to be decided and looked at on a case by case basis based on statistics and known facts. But I think it needs to remain an option for some of these cases.



Dead at 6 weeks gestation is better than abused to death at a year old.

You insist on making law based on rare and wrenching cases, knowing full well that it will result in that which you deplore (for unstated reasons, but I know WHY you don't like abortion as birth control: you're a mother, and you've felt life stir inside of YOU). Well, that's what gotten us to this point in this country. Instead of protecting innocent life, you want to use the hypothetical (your insistance that all unplanned pregnancies will end in abuse) and completely unsupported (no basis for mis-reading what the Consitution actually SAYS) to enshrine as a 'right' something that is incredibly harmful and destructive to the national psyche.

Stop with all of the talk about the abused kids that will result of the abortion not had. It'll happen in a few rare cases, but it happens now, and I think abuse will actually FALL when humans are seen as endowed with certain inalienable rights once again, the first and foremost of which is the RIGHT TO LIFE, instead of being seen as somehow optional, to be granted or witheld at another's whim.

I will not allow you to use the foil of all them abused - but ALIVE - kids that will result if Roe is overturned. You can't prove it, I don't believe it, and anyway, it is certainly no good basis for making up a new law that serves to KILL 1.5 million of your fellow citizens each and every year.

Shek
27 Jan 06,, 12:37
Julie,
I'm confused about your train of thought on this discussion.


You really expect a man to be making out with a woman, and then back off and say, "oh, I can't have sex with you because I don't have a condom with me?"


And the poor woman who has no choice but to succumbs[sic] to the desire of the all-dominant male :rolleyes:



Sometimes it happens....it's called rape Shek.

1. Do you typically refer to the act of rape as "making out," because I've always heard the action verb "to rape" used with the appropriate conjugation?

2. Or did you forget the context of your message that I replied to after four hours, and that your context clearly come across as fully consensual sex?

3. Or were you making a statement about abortion as a result of rape, which I clearly took a position on five hours prior to your above rape reference?

In any event, I just can't find a logical train of though on your response unless you require a bat named "facetious" to hit you on the head when such a tone is used.


I'm only interested in the emotional welfare of children, not yours.

Once again, another statement that finds no logical origin, because I never tied my emotional welfare to anything you think or say. However, I'll take it that you didn't want to watch the video of a fetus squirming and trying to move away while being vacuumed out of the womb, a dodge if you will.

Based on your earlier message, where you discussed only a male not putting on a condom, you seem to address only the man as being responsible for pregnancy. Do you absolve woman of all responsibility for a preganacy? Do they have zero control over whether they get pregnant or not? Is it an unconscious decision to have consensual sex? To not use the birth control method that corresponds to the amount of risk they are willing to take in terms of getting pregnant?

Shek
27 Jan 06,, 13:33
Shek.
"Behavioral modification. Riskier behavior" ???. You can't be arguing that legalized abortion promotes this.

Yes, I am arguing that a post-facto ability to terminate a pregnancy results in more unplanned pregnancies because termination becomes an option in addition to prevention. If you want to build a strawman that I am arguing that it will end all unplanned pregnancies and that floats your boat, be my guest.


STDs are the EASIEST infections to irrradicate yet for centuries have been a huge problem.

Like HIV/AIDS? That's an easy one to eradicate!



Why? abortion or not, as a species, very few of us can not fool around. Sex is a huge part of our psyche. Even priest with vowes of celebacy are doing it. Roe vs Wade was not the floodgate for this behavior. Your argument is similar to the anti gun crowd who says that if all the guns are gone crime will disapear. You and I both know that is not the case.

{cue song}
"You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals,
So let's it like they do on the Discovery Channel"
{song fades}

Your point that there is a natural draw to the forbidden pleasure is taken. However, engaging in consensual sex, an act whose biological function is to ensure reproduction, is still a conscious decision, with the partners assuming the risk of the results. Unlike the animals that my song excerpt refers to, we have a wide array of means to prevent pregnancy.

As far as you gun control analogy, it's still a strawman since it is not analogus to my argument.


Abortion is really not the problem. Abortion is just an easy thing to point your finger at and focus on while the root problem, the problem that is more difficult to solve, stays in the shadows. The real problem is the behaviors that lead to screwing around in the first place. This problem has been around far longer than Roe vs Wade, and is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

If your talking STDs and pregnancy, then yes, abortion is part of the problem. It provides a "get out of jail free" card that presents a moral hazard that encourages more sexual activity.

Your argument seems to be that it will have no effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs. If that is the case, then that would mean that not a single person would choose abstinence or contraceptives to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Is this your position?


There really is no birth control method that is 100% effective. The only two ways are to remove the uterus or remove the testicals. Neither of which are palatable to the general public except for extreme cases. Birth control is also a no-no in the catholic religion, and is fought by many other religous groups, which further clouds the birth control issue.

That's correct that no birth control is 100% effective (outside of abstinence), and a point that I recall clearly being made in my "health" education classes a decade and a half ago. If you read the packaging of birth control, you'll get that same information. Or if you go to Planned Parenthood, they'll give you the same information. That's why when you choose you method(s) of birth control, you assume the risk of ineffectiveness of that method.

As far as your no birth control in the Catholic religion, that's a dud argument. Most abortions are pregnancies out of wedlock (The abortion rate for unmarried women is over four times higher than that of married women - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm - I realize this is slightly old data, but I find it hard to believe that a "4 out of every 5 abortions is from an unmarried woman" would change in five years), and so if a person was such a devout Catholic, then they wouldn't be having pre-marital sex, now would they? For those who are married Catholics, family planning is encouraged, and all at the cost of a thermometer.


99% if the time it is the woman who gets the 24-7 responsibilities of raising the unwanted child. The man pays a fine, ie x dollars/month until the child reaches a certain age, but otherwise gets to continue his life as normal. Secondly, the man doesn't have his body radically change during the pregnancy. The man can still drink alcohol and he isn't getting hemorroids from the pregnancy, nor is his life on the line during the birth. This alone should give the woman latitude of bearing the kid or not.

I'd agree that the financial support from a recalcitrant father is not an equal sharing of the burden; however, he doesn't get any of the benefits of raising a child. However, the possibility of a recalcitrant father is a known risk up front prior to engaging in sexual activity.

As far as having bodily changes during pregnancy, that is the risk that the woman assumes upon engaging in sexual activity, an activity that can result in pregnancy. If she doesn't want to be pregnant at all (i.e. 100% doesn't want to), then she needs to use the relevant method of birth control that means she won't get pregant with a 100% effectiveness rate.

Julie
27 Jan 06,, 14:06
Nice historical reference.

For those that don't know, King Herod (r. 40-4 B.C.) is most famous to Christians for being the Slayer of the Innocents. Supposedly, Herod initiated a massacre of all the Jewish boys in Judaea, fearing that one of them was Jesus of Nazareth, who was rumored to supplant him.

Of course, Jesus got away.

Julie, this is a heavy accusation!I know...and as you've probably learned by now, some here will begin dipping into that "bowl of bigotry" to win an argument. :) It is intentional to see how low I can go. Not now though, let Bluesman finish digging his hole, then I will bury him with his own dirt. ;)

Bulgaroctonus
27 Jan 06,, 15:08
Why? abortion or not, as a species, very few of us can not fool around. Sex is a huge part of our psyche. Even priest with vowes of celebacy are doing it.
Tanhavagga - Craving
(verses 334-359)

The craving of the heedless man grows like a Maluva (all entangling) creeper. He runs hither and thither (from one life to another) like a monkey in the forest looking for fruit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whosoever in this world is overcome by this base craving, this clinging (to sense objects), his sorrows grow like Birana grass after rain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whosoever in this world overcomes this base craving so hard to subdue, his sorrows fall away from him like water drops from a lotus leaf.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This I say to you all who has assemblied here: Dig up the root of craving like one in quest of Birana's sweet root. Let not Mara crush you again and again as a flood (crushes) a reed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a tree cut down begins to grow up again if its roots remain uninjured and firm, even so when the root of craving remain undestroyed, this suffering arises again and again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man who gives way to pleasure will be swept away by craving and his thoughts will make him suffer, like waves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The streams (craving) flow everywhere. The creeper (craving) sprouts and stands. Seeing the creeper that has sprung up, with wisdom cut off the roots.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man's joys are always transient, and since men devote themselves to pleasure, seeking after happiness, they undergo birth and decay.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folk enwrapt in craving are terrified like a captive hare. Held fast by fetters and bonds, for long they come to sorrow again and again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folk enwrapt in craving are terrified like a captive hare. Therefore a Bhikkhu who wishes his own passionlessness (Nibbana) should discard craving.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whosoever with no desire (for the household) finds pleasure in the forest (of asceticism) and, though freed from desire (for the household), (yet) runs back to that very home. Come, behold that man! Freed, he runs back into that very bondage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That which is made of iron, wood or hemp, is not a strong bond, say the wise; the longing for jewels, ornaments, children, and wives is a far greater attachment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That bond is strong, say the wise. It hurls down, is supple, and is hard to loosen. This too the wise cut off, and leave the world, with no longing, renouncing sensual pleasures.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who are infatuated with lust fall back into the stream as (does) a spider into the web spun by itself. This too the wise cut off and wander, with no longing, released from all sorrow.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let go the past. Let go the future. Let go the present (front, back and middle). Crossing to the farther shore of existence, with mind released from everything, do not again undergo birth and decay.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the person who is perturbed by (evil) thoughts, who is exceedingly lustful, who contemplates pleasant things, craving increases more and more. Surely he makes the bond (of Mara) stronger.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He who delights in subduing (evil) thoughts, who meditates on ``the loathsomeness'' (of the body), who is ever mindful, - it is he who will make an end (of craving). He will sever Mara's bond.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He who has reached the goal, is fearless, is without craving, is passionless, has cut off the thorns of life. This is his final body.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He who is without craving and grasping, who is skilled in etymology and terms, who knows the grouping of letters and their sequence, - it is he who is called the bearer of the final body, one of profound wisdom, a great man.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All have I overcome, all do I know. From all am I detached. All have I renounced. Wholly absorbed am I in ``the destruction of craving''. Having comprehended all by myself, whom shall I call my teacher?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gift of Truth excels all (other) gifts. The flavour of Truth excels all (other) flavours. The pleasure in Truth excels all (other) pleasures. He who has destroyed craving overcomes all sorrow.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riches ruin the foolish, but not those in quest of the Beyond (Nibbana). Through craving for riches the ignorant man ruins himself as (if he were ruining) others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weeds are the bane of fields, lust is the bane of mankind. Hence what is given to the lustless yields abundant fruit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weeds are the bane of fields, hatred is the bane of mankind. Hence what is given to those rid of hatred yields abundant fruit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weeds are the bane of fields, delusion is the bane of mankind. Hence what is given to those rid of delusion yields abundant fruit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weeds are the bane of fields, craving is the bane of mankind. Hence what is given to those rid of craving yields abundant fruit.

bonehead
27 Jan 06,, 16:18
So, explain me, her and the bazillions of people that turn out to be above-average parents that never set out to be parents at all when they were just trying to have a bit of fun.

You CAN'T, not with your paradigm. I'm WAY closer to typical than your concept of a person faced with the extremely scary prospect of coming up positive on the EPT.

And wherever you were going with that completely off-topic story of the kid that shot himself with the father's gun ONCE AGAIN serves to reinforce MY point: it is a TRAGEDY that the adult did something out of free will and carelessness, but the child paid with his life. So it is with abortion.

And finally, your point about the prison population, etc. So, you seem to be saying that if there were NO consequences for what we now consider criminal acts, we wouldn't have MORE of those acts. As large as today's prison population is, if you didn't go to prison at all, incidences of robbery, murder, crimes of all sorts would be unchanged. That's perhaps the stupidest assertion yet made on this message board. Also, behaviors WERE modified by information about STDs and AIDS for those that chose to heed it. We were ALL supposed to have AIDS by now, remember? But we don't, because the growth of the disease was arrested when it became widely known that there were CONSEQUENCES.

But condom sales will plummet if we wake up some morning to the announcement of the AIDS vaccine's discovery, perfection and cheap employment with no side effects. The notion of CONSEQUENCES for one's actions DO modify behavior, and shek's point stands.

Most of the people who turn out to be decent parents DID want children at some point. Only the particular timing was off.

I was not the one who brought up the carelessness, someone else did. Nor was it off topic. One of the points discussed here was the children suffering from abuse and neglect from poor parents.

Nice try for the absurd! I never said we would have more or less acts due to the existance of consequences. I am making the point that behavior modification after the fact is a poor way to do things. People are not going to stop screwing around, nor will many even stop having abortions if the option of a legal abortion is taken away. What we should be doing is making people not do the acts in the first place. No we were not all supposed to have AIDS by now. Those who don't screw around or do IV drugs have and always will be relatively safe as those two methods are involved with 99% of the cases. The point is that AIDS is a consequence, yet millions still engage in behavior that puts them at risk. THAT is the failure of consequence based behavior modification. It only limits the behavior of the "honest" types and the behavior is only partially modified at best.


Name calling is fine and well for grade school kids playing in the sandbox, but it serves no purpose in a forum for adults. I understand the subject matter is personal to you, but there is no excuse. If you had any class at all, you would apologize to Julie.

bonehead
27 Jan 06,, 16:29
Apply that argument to slavery, pre-Civil War. Slavery was legal then, and was codified by the horrible Dred Scott decision from your exalted Supreme Court. In time, people became more enlightened, and it has come to be seen as the evil and pernicious thing that it always was.

I never said abortion was illegal. Clearly it IS legal. I said Roe was decided wrongly, and is on the face of it against the EXPLICITLY STATED right to life guaranted in the Constitution. If you can find the language in there that gives a right to an abortion, let's debate whether it really says what you think it says. Right to privacy? Not in there, either.

Perhaps you think it 'flows from the emanation of a penumbra', as the original writings on Roe suggest. Well, the right to life is not nearly so tenuous, it is EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED.

It would seem I understand things just fine. YOU, on the other hand, seem to badly misinformed.

First of all, we inherited the concept of slavery, and yes, we decided we could do without it. Secondly, slavery is not relevent to the topic at hand. Are we grasping at straws again? Third, If we are now "enlightened" as you said, it only gives abortion MORE credability. Its nice to know that you feel more informed and know more about the constitution than the justices on the supreme court. :rolleyes:

THL
27 Jan 06,, 17:11
NOTHING makes you uneasy about it?

BS. You said that abortion should not be the first option, and you wish that there were less performed, and you'd not want one yourself. SOMETHING makes you uneasy about it. Do you believe that it has any greater moral signifigance than any other surgical procedure, such as, say, having a cyst removed? And what category of medical procedure would you classify an abortion as, curative, therapeutic, preventative, or cosmetic?
I also don't think that public schools should be the FIRST choice over a private school with less students per teacher. I don't think that a bright yellow car should be a first choice of a white or black one. There is no moral question here. Nothing makes me uneasy about a yellow car - I just dont like big bright yellow cars is all. I just feel that abortions are hard on a body (as is childbearing, but abortions are more difficult for a womens body to endure) and so should be prevented if it is feasible in a particular situation. Nothing makes me uneasy about it.

I would not want one because any medical procedure makes me nervous...I am fearful of hospitals and clinics and would not want to endure that. When, after 14 hours of induced labor with no results, I was told I was going to have to have a C-Section - I freaked out. I was hysterical. The very idea of some man in scrubs taking a razor blade to my abdomen freaked me out - I don't think C-Sections should be outlawed either though. In fact, if I (god forbid) ever did have another kid, I would now choose the C-Section.

Nothing has to make someone uneasy about something for them to just not like it. I don't particularly like roses - I am not uneasy around them. I don't like dentists - I am not uneasy around them, it just grosses me out to have someones hand in my mouth.




Let's go back to your fetus that you've somehow determined is going to have a hellish life if you do not succeed in destroying it in utero. How do you know this?
It is not proven, no one knows, but why risk it when the risks are higher. A women knows when she is pregnant if she is capable of loving and wanting that baby - SHE JUST KNOWS. If she is not capable of taking care of this child and she knows it, why risk it getting ugly?

THL
27 Jan 06,, 17:15
WHY? If there is no moral component, then it's just another out-patient procedure, like getting a boil lanced. WHY is more not better? WHY limit access to abortion? Something DOES bother you about it. WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT ABORTION?
MORE is not always better. Things are not always better in excess. Why don't we tell people that they have to start having 5 or 6 kids each, then when the world is so overfilled with people that we cannot walk down the street then we can see why more is not better. Why do more of anything if it is not needed? There is no reason.