News Over 1 million abortions each year in the US

[SOS2008]

Ive always been fascinated by this belief, since it implies that medical science defines when life begins (to a point). 200 years ago, life then began at "birth" (roughly 9 months). 20 years ago, perhaps 7 months, now, perhaps 5 months http://www.neonatology.org/classics/morse.html". I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I wonder if there will eb alimit to where science can define life in this manner, or perhaps a better way might be to say life begins when it can survive without medical assistance. Then this opens a whole can of worms for severly disabled infants.

I’ve had these same thoughts. Abortion itself is based on medical advancement, as is the ability to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier in development. I support technological advancement in either case.

I agree it is inconsistant in the case of rape and incest. However when the mother's life is in danger I see no inconsistancy. (I've never heard anyone say that).
The (best) arguments I hear don't put the baby's life as more important than the mother's, just that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to a more comfortable nine months (for lack of a better way to call it).

Putting the mother’s life first is a logical acceptance that she is a living being beyond question. Still, those who believe abortion is murder should believe it is murder no matter what (and why I have a big problem with this term, which I feel is abused for emotional reaction). That incest/rape also may be an exception has to do with the mother’s emotional/mental/physical well being (rape is an act of violence not just sex) as well as possible birth defects from incest. The bottom line is making abortion illegal means we as a society must dismiss the well being of the living, and I for one am not willing to do that.

That you feel nine months of pregnancy is only “uncomfortable” indicates to me that you have not read this entire thread and all the issues involved beyond pregnancy and giving birth. Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women.

My argument does not depend on the least as to when life begins, so feel free to define it as, at birth, when the umbilical cord is cut, and an infant human still cannot survive on its own, but potentially could, as long as no third party kills it.

Another good point that I have thought about. Infants of many species still rely on adults to survive their early life. I think it suffices to stick to the wholly formed, independently breathing being as a definition of life.

Be at least as consistant as the death-penalty/gun supporters you are pooh-poohing.

I am pro-choice, pro capital punishment, and pro right to bear arms if that helps any.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women.

I know a few men that have taken custody of their children and are raising them on their own (and I have never heard of a woman paying child support to her husband). I know even more men that would if they could.
Unfortunately a woman's reproductive organs are where fetuses develope and there isn't much that can be done about that. As far as taking responsibility for the child after birth there are fathers(and potential fathers) who would do so. Obviously these are more of an exception but even in the cases where the father doesn't stick around the mother has the option of putting the child up for adoption.
I think it's pretty obvious that we should make sure to reduce the number of abortions that occur. No one really wants to have one. It's not very healthy physically or psychologically. The best way to do this ofcourse is to prevent unwanted pregnancies both through birthcontrol and teaching people to be more responsible sexually. As far as medical complications making sure that more and better prenatal care for young and poor mothers is available is probably the best solution.

 

[Entropy]

Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women

I'd gladly raise my child on my own as an alternative to abortion. But part of the reason women get abortion so they don't have to actually carry and give birth.

 

[SOS2008]

I'd gladly raise my child on my own as an alternative to abortion. But part of the reason women get abortion so they don't have to actually carry and give birth.

I'm not saying there aren't men who will take responsibility when fathering a child. And it's true most women don't view pregnancy and childbirth as particularly enjoyable--for some it is very difficult. However there is more to it than just being "uncomfortable." In another thread I pointed out that aside from earning 74 cents to a man’s dollar, going full term could result in loss of income and even a job in order to take maternity leave. Then she needs a significant income to pay for childcare if she is to continue working. That's just the beginning of what a single mother faces.

 

[Dayle Record]

I was once told by my physician that in blind studies in Minnesota done with married women, 4 out 5 conceptions fail naturally. Apparently nature approves of aborting.

I think the big anti abortion push in this country aside from obvious religious prohibitions of all kinds in regards to sex, and abortion, is racism. I see the right wing fundamentalist core that is really pushing for an abortion ban, as a shrinking white population, that feels it is in competition with newer populations that have more children, and who are largely latino.

It is shown that the better off people are, the fewer children they have. The poorer and more disadvantaged people are, the more children they have.

I think that the joy, safety, and comfort a parent has to offer a child is of paramount importance to the future of our world in general. I think the personal attention and energy and vibrancy a parent has to share with a child is also very important, and this dilutes accutely in larger family populations. I personally can't imagine a life where crowd control is a part of the daily experience.

Lastly, it is not the business of state, to legislate what consenting adults do for their physical pleasure. The uterus is also not an affair of state. Clerics have no business pushing legislature that defines sex, or reproductive rights in this secular nation.

All of the "out to lunch religious fanatics" in this nation, take their rights for granted. The right to posture in an annoying fashion, is just a right, like choosing a Halloween mask, but, it is not an alternate reality.

 

[Loren Booda]

Is it possible that all embryos will one day be considered viable due to advances in science, and that women would be required to submit to an embryonic "transfer" (rather than abortion), with the viable tissue transplanted to a (male or female) surrogate or raised in vitro?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Social conservatives would still complain. They would say pregnacy is God's punishment for women, and they must submit to his will. It's all a bunch of nonsense. I would like to see something like that happen. Instead of having overpopulation, though, I would suggest raising them in vitro some how to harvest stem cells.