Abortion Debate Thread

[Julie]

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]

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]

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" 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". 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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTETopHatsLiberal]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.[/QUOTE]
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]

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]

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/levi...tReply2004.pdf

happy reading :)

[Shek]

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/levi...tReply2004.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]

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

[Shek]

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

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

[Ballguy]

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]

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]

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.