Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Over 1 million abortions each year in the US

  1. Jan 4, 2006 #1
    If one believes that abortion is murder, it seems logical that it is premeditated by both performing doctor and consensual patient as well. The religious wrong (which tends to support the death penalty) when confronted with such an argument would hopefully change their stance than oppose abortion through misogynous lynching. Abortions need to be discouraged, but through education and social supports and not through damnation under threat of retaliation upon over 1,000,000 women each year in the US.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 4, 2006 #2
    I don't have any moral objections to abortions. I don't see what the big fus is about. They should use all those fetuses for stem cell research and do some good with it. This thread is going to get ballisitic, I can feel it in my bones.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006
  4. Jan 4, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    On the other hand, if one does not believe abortions are murder, one wonders why you think they need to be discouraged. Isn't that a matter for the individual women and their doctors?
  5. Jan 4, 2006 #4
    Abortion is genocide.
  6. Jan 4, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

    genocide - Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
  7. Jan 4, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think perhaps Loren meant that 'unwanted' pregnancies should be discouraged, i.e. encourage more social responsibility.

    For all those women who had abortions, there are an equal number of men who got them pregnant.

    That number also fails to distinguish whether or not such a procedure was performed because the fetus was not viable or the woman's life was in danger.

    It is ultimately up to the woman and her doctor.
  8. Jan 4, 2006 #7
    Lol and that is a Fact!!! :-)
  9. Jan 4, 2006 #8
    Abortion is not an individual right, it is a mob right.

    The Jungle's strongest of the strong--the mob/group/tribe, gets to run roughshod over the Jungle's weakest of the weak--any one of us. Eaons ago, for survival. Then...for the slightly more vaporous 'general welfare.' Then...for the even more vague 'well being' of the mob/tribe. Then...'lifestyle.' And fianlly, in the context of the present debate, 'No mere individual--not even, the quintessential weakest of the Jungle's weak---shall threaten the 'convenience' of the Jungle's strong--the mob already enjoying its group rights at Nature's Table.

    Not even, if the weak was explicitely invited to take it's longshot seat by the direct, wreckless actions of those in the mob.

    There is a fundamental moment of truth waiting to be discovered in these issues, and that truth is hidden in our plain sight. In a Universe made almost entirely of Hydrogen, with precious little coalesced stardust to be found, and precious little of that exhibiting what we call 'life,' does _this_ longshot species value life, or does it take that longshot condition in this Universe for granted?

    The cold, logical accounting fact is, only some of that rare coalesced stardust ever became animated, and only a yet smaller, almost infinitesimal fraction of that merely animated coalesced stardust has become self-aware.

    My opionion/personal views on abortion have changed over the years. Here is my basis for my present view, and it is personal, and it is totally based on temporal bias.

    My wife and I had our 2nd child a little later in life. So, with full intentions of acting on the knowledge so obtained, my wife and I agreed that she would undergo a CVS procedure early on, to test for genetic defects. My wifes biggest fear her whole life was someday having to 'deal' with what she thought must be the 'heartache' of a special needs child. I'm not sure anybody runs willingly to embrace such a challenge or heartache. Certainly not me.

    Then my son was born, with Williams Syndrome. A rare genetic deletion. 1:20000 or 1:40000 births, depending on what you read. Low enough on the radar not to be generally tested in a basic CVS screening. So, he was developmentally delayed, and then diagnosed with a life sentence at age 18 months. Bang, sitting in CHOP down in Philly, and literally, there was this moment when I figuratively watched an axe come down on my child's neck, served up by some experts.

    Flash ahead in time. My sons--including Eric--are the absolute joys of my life. Sure, he has health issues. So do we all, when we are stumbling around here for our brief few moments in the Sun. But...and you have to know someone with WIlliams Syndrome to really know what I am saying--this child is the Sun. The ultimate love monkey. Everything else pales in comparison. He can't add to save his life, but what is important, he has tons of. OTOH, he loves words and music and language and most of all, people. Plus, most of the crap that the experts said he would never be able to do, he has already done.

    So, I look at him every day, and I'm grateful, and I have to tell myself that I only accidentally didn't murder my son, this incredible gift, this lesson. Now, folks can say, well sure, now that some time has passed, and you know and love your son, of course you would not murder him, no matter how dinged up his genes are. But, I would have, then, that was the intent, and it was only a thenfailure of science which prevented me from aborting him; why else do folks have CVS procedures?

    So clearly, the difference between my not murdering him then and my not murdering him now is, a temporal bias; the simple passage of time and inevitablilty. It is only a temporal bias that would have permitted us to abort him then. A temporal bias that would allow us to pretend that Eric was never going to eventually happen. Well, he did eventually happened.

    My wife laughs at her earlier fears, now. Purposeful or not, Eric was a Hell of a lesson.

    Sometimes lessons are too perfect, and you start to wonder. For all I know, this was one of those personal conversations with God. Or, it still could be that **** just happens. But, that is still amazing.

    It is only temporal bias which doesn't allow you to see the life that isn't here, yet. Sometimes that is good, or at least, kind, in that it protects us, for example, all from realizing the full horror of The Holocaust; the future generations of unfolding DNA/life that were in the process of unraveling and mixing and unfolding, and that were all lost.

    So, I bring up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations.

    I see one clearly, every day, who narrowly and only accidentally made it past the gauntlet.

    The concept 'individual rights' is a very recent one in the history of the species, and the ancient wiring remains; the herd/tribe must survive at all costs, even if it is necessary to sacrifice a few individuals to make that happen. Sometimes, the 'need' to make that happen is based on implementation of the pet theories of an elitist few, not unlike the tribal voodoo priests of time past. No matter; the morality of that concept applied in any given situation is not relevant to determining the outcome, because the mob/tribe/herd is the de facto strongest of the Jungle's strong, when compared against any individual. It is the brute power of Marx's eminent domain that allows the tribe to do what it will, not any moral code. It is the ultimate might makes right; the ultimate will of the Jungle's Strong--the mob/tribe-- over the Jungle's Weak--any one of us.

    It is only with the advent of modern civilization that attempts have been made to place reasonable limits on that always irresistable brute force. America and its constitutionally limited democratic republic is one of the latest, modern experiments pulling man from the jungle and declaring that in this tribe, we join together to defend the concept that the power of the tribe, although great, is not absolute. An idea very unlike the totalitarian extremes of scientific statism that have lurched across the rest of the world in the last century.

    An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth. When you examine the true meaning of freedom, you find that it means freedom from the absolute dominance of the Jungle's tribe.

    So, if I really believe that, then how can I possibly argue against 'free' Choice? Because, respect for individual rights must begin with respect for individual life. A modern tribe that does not defend the quintessential innocent individual life is well on its way back into the Jungle. The 'conflict' of rights in this instance is not one initiated by the weakest member in this conflict.

    Any tribe, including a modern one, can enforce its will in any way it chooses; it is the ultimate irresistable force. And yet, I cannot bring myself to argue that our tribal government should use that force to ban abortion. I am encouraged, however, when our tribal elders/leaders use their voices and their positions to educate and press the case for life, so that more of the tribe can evolve out of the Jungle on its own.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006
  10. Jan 4, 2006 #9
    Genocide is the systematic killing of a particular group. It's not necessarily race or culture.
  11. Jan 4, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Education and social supports seem to have some effect. Teen pregnancies and teen abortions have been declining (as has the overall abortion rate). Over half of women getting abortions are 25 or younger, with 19% being teenagers. About 8% of abortions are by women who have never used contraception.

    Only about 6% of abortions are because of fetal health or the woman's health.

    The most significant factor seems to be marital status and income level.

    I wouldn't count on more lenient attitudes towards abortion, though. From 1996 to 2001, the number of people identifying themselves as pro-life went from 33% to 43%. The number of people identifying themselves as pro-choice went from 56% to 48%.

    The statistics are from http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm [Broken] and are compiled from the Alan Gutmacher Institute and Gallup polls. I don't particularly like about.com and some of the statistics are old, but it's hard to sort through the pro-choice and pro-life websites to find a neutral site with neutral statistics.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Jan 4, 2006 #11
    Abortion is wrong because it's promotes irresponsiblity. Giving people the option to have abortions anytime they want discourages sexual disipline.
  13. Jan 4, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I pulled that definition directly from Wordweb, verbatim. Dictionary.com says "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group". Basically the same as wordweb.

    I'm pro abortion. If you make a mistake, you should be able to fix it. Oops condom broke, should my entire life be destroyed for this? I'm having enough problems feeding myself; any kid brought into the equation would be malnurished, uneducated, and doomed to a life of peasantry. I would rather hold off on having kids until I'm capable (on paper) of taking care of kids.
  14. Jan 4, 2006 #13
    So why don't you do the smart thing and not have sex, or atleast take more than one procaution. Like use a condom + birthcontrol + not when she is ovulating.
  15. Jan 4, 2006 #14
    And what of adoption?

    While I am Pro-Abortion I do think that there are merits to some of the Pro-Life arguments (ie adoption). An extremely small percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies opt for adoption.
  16. Jan 4, 2006 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Are you honestly suggesting that a significant portion, including all students and lower class people, should not have sex ever? I wish you luck on your endeavor since the Christians have had such awesome luck giving that same message to Africa. I mean there was this huge problem with AIDS and starvation, but due to their teachings of abstinence those problems are long gone and Africa is the new California. Oh hold on a second, that never happened. Telling people to not have sex doesn't work.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006
  17. Jan 4, 2006 #16
    I'm very happy for you. I personally fell in love once with an amazing woman that would not have existed had her mother taken the advice of her doctor.
  18. Jan 4, 2006 #17
    I'm pro-choice, and I have no moral qualms with abortion. Even if someone objects to it morally, I find it troubling that they would ban it.
  19. Jan 4, 2006 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor


    If people are against it and they get pregnant, they don't have to have an abortion. They do not have the right to tell other people what to do.
  20. Jan 4, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I believe there is a larger proportion that is self-described as pro-choice, pro-life - that is, they are for the freedom to choose, while promoting sexual responsibility, and if a pregnancy does occur, they encourage the adoption. OK, as long as it is not imposed!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  21. Jan 4, 2006 #20
    There has been a resurgence of the belief that human life begins at fertilization. This argument has been used to deny women the morning-after pill (emergency contraception) due to the diminishing probability that it would act as an "abortifactant."
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook