Over 1 million abortions each year in the US

[Zlex]

I don't feel it's part of the argument, they truly have no right to tell others what to do, IMHO.
Also, I am sick of people that are against abortion pretending that they are somehow "better" than people that are pro-choice. They don't argue facts, instead they rant on about "well, "I" could have had an abortion, but I didn't, now I am a saint, look at how wonderful I am".

Nonsense. I was that person, looking to abort anything less than the best possible, to avoid a problem that could have been avoided, and it was only an accident of technology that let my youngest son slip through the gauntlet I had set in his way, and he showed up with his 1:20000 genetic deletion and thoroughly kicked my ass by demonstrating that my once clueless selfish little calculus was totally unfounded

I'm not about to suggest that the gov't should impose the lesson taught to me on the whole world. I'm only thankful that I survived my ignorance, my arrogance, my selfish Jr High sensibilities rationalization, and my life was saved.

My wife's biggest fear, her entire life, was to someday have to 'deal' with a 'special needs' child. Not that I just couldn't wait, but for her, it was a uniquely identified fear.

Be careful what you fear, not because life will someday manage to deliver exactly that to your doorstep, but because when it does, you will find yourself totally and deeply ashamed that you ever feared it, and will seriously question your own humanity for having once done so.

I envy my son's courage. I have it easy, I was a coward, and he made me ashamed of being afraid to witness his courage.

 

[SOS2008]

Does it really come down to something as crass as rooting for 'our' football team--the 'future' of homo sapiens? Individually, and in aggregate, collectively, we generally acknowledge that some consideration must be given for 'future generations to come' which are not here today. But...why? Is it an emotional or logical motivation?

Technological advancement is a double-edge sword. Modern medicine, easy access to food, and creature comforts due to technology has eliminated natural selection. At first life expectancy increased. Now due to pollution, obesity, etc. life expectancy is expected to decrease (along with huge healthcare costs).

To answer your question, life preservation is innate for purposes of survival of the species. Also people feel life is more enjoyable when they have a family, including prospects of grand children. Why some people are obsessed with continuation of their sir name I don’t understand—a macho thing maybe.

Personally I’m concerned about humans being responsible caretakers of our world (environment, other species, etc.) more than propagation of our own species. I find it disturbing when people (not you) choose to have children knowing full well that they are passing on serious genetic problems for which there are no cures expected in the near future.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't feel it's part of the argument, they truly have no right to tell others what to do, IMHO.
Also, I am sick of people that are against abortion pretending that they are somehow "better" than people that are pro-choice. They don't argue facts, instead they rant on about "well, "I" could have had an abortion, but I didn't, now I am a saint, look at how wonderful I am".

The "holier than thou" attitude is very obnoxious. As I’ve said before, if these people want to roll back all the progress we’ve made in regard to sexism, civil liberties, etc., they are welcome to move to Afghanistan where they can live happily ever after in a backward fundamentalist country.

 

[Evo]

Nonsense. I was that person, looking to abort anything less than the best possible, to avoid a problem that could have been avoided, and it was only an accident of technology that let my youngest son slip through the gauntlet I had set in his way, and he showed up with his 1:20000 genetic deletion and thoroughly kicked my ass by demonstrating that my once clueless selfish little calculus was totally unfounded
I'm not about to suggest that the gov't should impose the lesson taught to me on the whole world. I'm only thankful that I survived my ignorance, my arrogance, my selfish Jr High sensibilities rationalization, and my life was saved.

That was "you", glad it turned out ok for "you", that's an "exception". However, in most cases it DOES NOT turn out ok for countless others and abortion would be the appropriate choice for them.

You might want to stop patting yourself on the back so much, it smacks of insincerity. It sounds like you have to keep telling yourself you made the right decision.

I know people that had mentally and physically handicapped children and how they suffered, how they lost jobs due to time off from work. A girl I worked with had a baby born with spina bifida. He had to undergo a series of operations. She had no husband, he disappeared after the diagnosis. She lost her job because of the time off she needed for the surgeries. Her life was destroyed, the stress destroyed her health. No quality life for her child either. If she had been able to abort, she would have been fine, perhaps had a normal child later.

 

[Moonbear]

Here's a question for the pro-life folks...the ones who want to impose their beliefs on others...if you got your way and all those 1 million unwanted babies were born every year, who is going to take care of them for the next 18 years until adulthood? What if the parents are 15 or 16 years old and still depending on their own parents, with no means to support a baby/child of their own? It seems to me that the same people who want to prohibit abortions are the same ones who want to cut welfare and healthcare coverage of birth control. So, who is going to pay for all those children?

 

[Astronuc]

Here's a question for the pro-life folks...the ones who want to impose their beliefs on others...if you got your way and all those 1 million unwanted babies were born every year, who is going to take care of them for the next 18 years until adulthood? What if the parents are 15 or 16 years old and still depending on their own parents, with no means to support a baby/child of their own? It seems to me that the same people who want to prohibit abortions are the same ones who want to cut welfare and healthcare coverage of birth control. So, who is going to pay for all those children?

These days support doesn't necessarily end at 18, especially if one's kids go to college.

 

[Astronuc]

Sex isn't an act of commitment. If one believes abortion is not wrong, and a perfectly acceptable method of birth control, why should they care? Sex is about pleasure - not commitment.

In my case, it was/is an act of commitment, which included marriage.

 

[Zlex]

That was "you", glad it turned out ok for "you", that's an "exception". However, in most cases it DOES NOT turn out ok for countless others and abortion would be the appropriate choice for them.
You might want to stop patting yourself on the back so much, it smacks of insincerity. It sounds like you have to keep telling yourself you made the right decision.
I know people that had mentally and physically handicapped children and how they suffered, how they lost jobs due to time off from work. A girl I worked with had a baby born with spina bifida. He had to undergo a series of operations. She had no husband, he disappeared after the diagnosis. She lost her job because of the time off she needed for the surgeries. Her life was destroyed, the stress destroyed her health. No quality life for her child either. If she had been able to abort, she would have been fine, perhaps had a normal child later.

I didn't make any decision except to abort my youngest son, it was only the then failure of science that let him slip by.

Look, nobody 'wants' that for their kids. It's the most human of urges.

But, when it comes to natural selection and evolution and so on, we're very good about all that randomly and whimsically("I like the way he/she looks"), but extremely poor about that intellectually/constructivistly. We no more 'know' how to build the 'perfect' society/species/human then we 'know' how to build the unsinkable Titanic or always safe landing Space Shuttle. We are always subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Look; "it takes all kinds." But, bromides are bromides because they are plainly true.

IMO, if we were to selectively breed for the absolute highest IQs possible, before too long, the human race would be an unbearable mass of high strung twits, consumed by ego. With IQ comes...quirks. As well, guile, deceit, and cunning.

With rare exception.

From afar, 'special needs' children seem to only be a burden on society, a 'cost' that take more then they give. I'm here to tell you, absolutely, that is not the case, because I've seen what immersed 'special needs' kids do to entire classrooms of 'normal' children. To be blunt, they teach normal children not to be complete little *******s. In fact, they bring the absolute best human qualities out of normal children, because they are examples of human beings totally without guile, without deceit, and without cunning. They live in a state of grace and joy and laughter whenever possible, they want only to love and be loved, and it is impossible to angst too much about your own personal little struggles when you see these kids carry their weights and struggles and sometimes succeed though often fail.

I have two opposite bookend sons, both with IEPs. One, the oldest, because he tested out with a very high IQ. The other, the youngest, because he has Williams Syndrome, a genetic deletion. I have seen with my own eyes what my youngest son has given my oldest son. My oldest scored well enough on the SATs...in 8th grade, to get into almost any college he wants. My youngest will not. My oldest has always been an athlete, he's now a HS QB, works at it all year round...when he's not helping out at Special Olympics. My youngest tries his damdest, and his absolute favorite part of the whole deal is shaking hands after the games. He makes friends and makes people smile wherever he goes, and always has, as he followed his older brother around the AAU BBall tournements. Whatever my 'golden boy' oldest son could have become in his pampered/shletered suburban lifestyle, he is not another ******* waiting for this world, which has plenty already, and for that, we all owe his younger brother big time. They are inseperable. Although they nominally have separate bedrooms, they would never think of sleeping apart. When my oldest heads off to college in a year and a half, it is going to be heart breaking for both of them, but once again, my youngest son is going to teach us all how to handle such things, the same way he has taught us how to handle all such heartbreaks; honestly, with love, without guile, without deceit, and without cunning.

So, I am trying to imagine my world without my youngest son. Would I, in a million years of thinking it through, have ever realized how crucially important my youngest son was going to be to the well being of my family?

No. I'm not nearly that smart, and neither is mankind as a whole. I almost screwed it up big time, by thinking I knew better than I really did.

Which is why I cringe at the idea of folks thinking that they can constructivistly build the perfect human, the perfect society, the perfect mankind.

Not the way it works; the Universe teaches its own lessons.

So, how does all that reconcile with the very human urge not to 'burden' your child with a handicap? Look, it's not like my youngest son was 'OK', and then a handicap came along and 'burdened' him. Not the way it works. Williams Syndrome is a nearly mechanical/genetic deletion that sometimes occurs randomly during the very first or second cell division. Some 50,000 DNA pairs out of a possible 500,000 pair local region at the physical 'tip' of the Elastin gene just don't 'zip up,' maybe because of the physical configuration of the gene. Depending on where the deletion occurs, Williams folks get a slightly different selection from the laundery list of things that make Williams a 'syndrome,' but the one unifying characteristic is their outstanding personalities. It is a 'natural' mutation that sometimes occurs in either 1:20000 or 1:40000 births, so it is entirely possible that you've never met anyone with Williams Syndrome. Because it is a deletion, it is dominant. They are best described as 'asymetric;' they might have absolutely no math logic circuitry at all(which may explain the almost total lack of guile, cunning, and deceit), but they often have outstanding memories and a love of words and music. You can meet a person with Williams and at first, be led to believe that they are extremely intelligent, because they tend to use 'big words' and have very full expressive capabilites, but after a while, you will detect that there is some missing logic in what they are saying. They often have extremely acute hearing, hear things a mile away. They tend to love words, and it is not uncommon in young children, when asked to name an animal, for them to name the animal with the most pleasing sound, not necessarily their favorite animal. So, whereas a 'normal' child might say 'cat,' at the same age a Williams kid might say 'duck billed platypus' because they like the way it sounds, and thus, surprise adults into thinking that they were actually overly intelligent little kids. Or, even, to speak in complete sentences as their first utterings. (Actual example, though not my son; kid playing in dr's office waiting room with desk lamp, turning switch on and off to see how it works. Receptionist gets a little tired of this, and secretly unplugs the lamp. Kid says, as his first uttered words, "Jesus Christ, this doesn't work!" [edit--my memory ws a little foggy on this, from 1991 article.] Crude, but perfect. Apparently, he'd been listening to the world around him.) Because the wiring is different--some brain mass is actually missing--these folks perceive and adapt and deal with the world much differently then 'normal' folks, and because of this, they are often used as subjects in cognitive studies, to help us figure out exactly how 'normal' folks perceive the world. They help us understand.

They do more then that, and we're not near smart enough to predict all that, based on our concept of 'normal' and 'perfect.'
So, I'm thinking, some of us should just take our chances, not pretend to be so smart about tthings we are not really smart about at all, and let some things, take your pick:

A] In God's hands.
B] In the Universe's hands.
C] In **** happens hands.

Not all of us. I agree, this isn't a OneSizeFitsAll decision. Maybe...and, I and my wife were an example...some folks are convinced that they just couldn't handle the 'burden,' and want to take what steps are available to avoid that burden if possible.

Well, OK. But ... I thank God everyday that I didn't get my way.

So, think about it. We're not as smart as we think we are about some things.

 

[SOS2008]

Birth defects are only one aspect within the topic of abortion, and the broader discussion of DNA engineering is probably deserving of a separate thread. I’m all for screening of DNA for genetic diseases, which needs to be balanced against physical features or even IQ, of course. Personally I trust the scientific community to be ethical far more than I do the current religious right and desired government intervention in our private lives.

Back to the OP, the matters of freedom, equality, civil liberties/individual rights, economic well being, over population, dead beat parents, etc. are much more important issues to me in regard to abortion.

 

[Zlex]

Back to the OP, the matters of freedom, equality, civil liberties/individual rights, economic well being, over population, dead beat parents, etc. are much more important issues to me in regard to abortion.

I agree with the latter; I have my reasons why I don't feel abortion should be made illegal, but abortion is hardly some Holy freedom individual right. It is, at its base, simply the strong(ie. the mob) beating up on the weak(any one of us).

The key to trumping the temporal bias dilemma is to proudly proclaim that mob/group/tribal rights, ie, the Jungle's ultimate strong -- have rights which are superior to any merely potential single individual -- the Jungle's ultimate weak.

There is no OneSizeFitsAll response to anything, including murder in the feral wild. There are lots of human traits that are 'taught' out of feral mankind.

Indeed, I've never met anybody who has actually had an abortion that felt wonderful about it.

My wondering about this is not a hostile act; I don't believe, for instance, that the gov't should make abortion illegal, but neither do I believe that anybody should be campaigning to make it a Holy thing, a 'right', a proud moment in the history of mankind to be thumped like a ribbon on the chest.

I'm saying this as someone who is deeply ashamed that I only accidentally did not 'terminate' the process that is my youngest son, who is definitely not a pimple.

I wonder, if only for myself, where my own once rationalization came from. We'll get a CVS test, they'll test for a handful of known defects, if any pop up, ZIPPPPP! no problem, flush the inconvenience/cost down the drain, and back to the Banquet Table.

Why else do you ask for a CVS test?

That was me and my wife, perfectly willing to rationalize our Holy choice, and permitted to by the cloak of a temporal bias(ie, he, incomplete with his genetic deletion/Williams Syndrome which snuck by the CVS screening, just wasn't here, yet.)

It would have been easy, because we didn't know him yet. And, we could have fooled ourselves into believing that the impediment to our actually knowing his process was other than our active decision to terminate it, which would have been, in fact, the only impediment to that which now makes it impossible to comprehend without feeling sick to our stomachs.

I've often been accused of 'torturous logic,' because I point out the logical truth that every single factual instance of hypothetrical future generations arrives 'here' by way of the state of being merely conceived. I'll accept it as 'torturous' when someone provides the first counter example.

At best, I am told that the Royal 'we' should only have ethical/moral concerns for the nameless purely hypothetical future generations, but none whatsoever for the far less hypothetical actual instances of them that actually show up knocking on the door as explicitely invited processes more or less on their way to an inevitability.

There is something that gives us all pause, or at least, should give us all pause, when we consider taking a dump on merely hypothetical future generations, none of which that we actually know or love yet.

What is it, and where does it go when considering the merely conceived, and why? As best as I can see, the 'why' is, because the costs and inconveniences are immediate, and because we can.

In other words, the same old selfish instincts that the better angels among us claim to scoff at when they condemn some bastard burying toxic waste in some short term disposal scheme because it was 'more convenient and less costly' then considering merely hypothetical future generations that we don't know or love yet.

When he says to us, today, and not 50 years ahead in some continuum of time when we will know and love folks unborn today, "But it will last 200 years," on what basis do we say 'ick' that is not good enough?

 

[Smurf]

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.

Ditto.
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.

That's fascinating logic!
So, if we accept the "pro-life" (gah) argument that abortion is equal to murder, we still shouldn't ban it because people should be free (from government intervention) to choose to kill their babies should they desire to.

Consequently, from this logic, since we accept the premise abortion is the equivalent of murder, it should also be stated that any form of murder, adult, infant or fetus, should be legal as well. Any individual deserves to be free (from government intervention) to do such should they so desire.

Well. Since we've done away with murder, we mine as well do-away with assault, theft, and child-pornography as well. *gasp* Evo! Are you suggesting we shouldn't have any laws at all?

Tu l'anarchiste, tu :!)

 

[Smurf]

In case anyone misses it, the point of my above post (aside from the shameless anarchist plug) is to illustrate that if you're going to argue against pro-life-ers (oh, how I hate that name!) you have to argue against it's premise. That being that abortion is the killing of an innocent human (murder).

To accomplish this you have to prove either that 1. The baby isn't innocent, 2. that you're not killing anything, or 3. That the baby isn't human. Two and Three are essentially the same. I've never seen someone try to tackle 1.

There ARE arguments out there. Good luck to all. Have fun with your amateur debate.

Edit: There is a third argument against banning abortion, about motherly responsibility. I'm not very familiar with it though. If someone else understands it properly please post it.

 

[Zlex]

That's fascinating logic!
So, if we accept the "pro-life" (gah) argument that abortion is equal to murder, we still shouldn't ban it because people should be free (from government intervention) to choose to kill their babies should they desire to.
Consequently, from this logic, since we accept the premise abortion is the equivalent of murder, it should also be stated that any form of murder, adult, infant or fetus, should be legal as well. Any individual deserves to be free (from government intervention) to do such should they so desire.
Well. Since we've done away with murder, we mine as well do-away with assault, theft, and child-pornography as well. *gasp* Evo! Are you suggesting we shouldn't have any laws at all?
Tu l'anarchiste, tu :!)

I don't think that is what she was saying, I think she was speaking more of individual rights. American limited constitutional republican democracy is all about limiting the power of the mob, and is cornerstoned on an individual bill of rights.

America/Western Society is the first glimpse at an experiment trying to undercut the rules of mere politics/violence of numbers as a means to control the skins of others; a meager stab, if imperfect, at establishing the foundation 'principles' which restrict, define, guide, and limit anyone of us before we set out with our petty political arguments to control the skin of others. We would like to think that freedom in America means, anything goes, as long as we convoince enough of the mob to go along with it. Well, not yet, and not as long as we remain a constitutionally limited democratic republic, and not merely a tribe/mob.

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.

So, if I am a respector of individual rights then how come I don't support the 'right' to abortion? It is clear to me that the conflict of rights between the weak(ie the merely potential individual) and the Strong (the mob) in the case of abortion is not one initiated by the weakest member in this conflict.

 

[Astronuc]

To accomplish this you have to prove either that 1. The baby isn't innocent, 2. that you're not killing anything, or 3. That the baby isn't human. Two and Three are essentially the same. I've never seen someone try to tackle 1.

Smurf, you have never heard of 'original sin'? Calvinism? And of course the christian fundamentalists, many of whom are right-to-life, believe in 'original sin'.

From religioustolerance.org - Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

When they disobeyed, they committed a major transgression against God and were immediately punished. This is generally referred to as "the fall" of humanity
One long-term result of "the fall" was that all of their descendants were born in a state of "original sin".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savs.htm
I disagree with this notion, however others adhere to this interpretation of the bible.

And hopefully I haven't transgressed here and introduced a religious discussion. I was merely addressing point 1 of Smurf's post, and giving evidence that would support a contention that baby's aren't innocent.

IMO, of course babies are innocent - their minds are pretty blank until they start learning. The matter becomes one determining when a fetus becomes a baby/human being.

I am pro-choice. However, I would prefer people were more thoughtful about their behavior and avoid unwanted or unintended pregnancy.

Actually, I was playing devil's advocate muahahahaaaa. But I shan't do it too long since it doesn't feel right.

 

[Smurf]

Okay. So now I've heard someone try and tackle it...

(it's not very philosophical is it?)

 

[Astronuc]

Okay. So now I've heard someone try and tackle it...

(it's not very philosophical is it?)

Well, no, it isn't very philosophical. That wasn't in the specifications.

On the other hand, I was pointing out the contradictions/inconsistency in a particular belief system, although I am not supposed to disparage any religion.

I am not sure where a philosophical approach/discussion/argument would get one - a never ending argument I would imagine, as one gets over religious or political beliefs.

Ultimately it comes down to the values/rights of the individuals involved and the society in which they live. What right(s) does(do) the individual woman/fetus (and even father) have, and how does one resolve a conflict? IMO, a woman's body is her own and she has sole authority over it (period)! Even when a woman marries, she does not surrender that authority, even to her husband!

 

[daveb]

The whole disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice pretty much boils down to when life actually begins. Pro-life considers it to begin at conception, while pro-choice varies (but usually birth). Any pro-choice person who believes abortion should be legally available but also believes that life begins at conception is inherently saying that murder of a certain population segment is acceptable. Any pro-life advocate who claims that life begins some time after implantation is inherently illogical.

 

[SOS2008]

There is no argument that the mother is a living being. However, there is plenty of debate on when life begins for the developing fetus. My personal belief is that life begins when a being is able to survive independently of a host body. Until then it is only potential life, and the mother takes precedence as a living being.

I agree that those who are pro-life who believe abortion is murder, yet support abortion in the case of incest, rape or danger to the mother's life are not being consistent.

 

[daveb]

My personal belief is that life begins when a being is able to survive independently of a host body.

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.

 

[Smurf]

Ultimately it comes down to the values/rights of the individuals involved and the society in which they live. What right(s) does(do) the individual woman/fetus (and even father) have, and how does one resolve a conflict? IMO, a woman's body is her own and she has sole authority over it (period)! Even when a woman marries, she does not surrender that authority, even to her husband!

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Whenever I've discussed this issue with someone who is against abortion the husband has never even come into it. The debate is mostly about the rights of the fetus and wether the mother has a right to intrude on that.

 

[Smurf]

I agree that those who are pro-life who believe abortion is murder, yet support abortion in the case of incest, rape or danger to the mother's life are not being consistent.

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).

 

[daveb]

I find it immensely hilarious that a large portion of the pro-life crowd is against abortion even in the case of the mother's life being in danger, yet have no problem demanding that people have the right to defend themselves, even to the point of killing, if their own life or property is threatened.

 

[Zlex]

The whole disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice pretty much boils down to when life actually begins. Pro-life considers it to begin at conception, while pro-choice varies (but usually birth). Any pro-choice person who believes abortion should be legally available but also believes that life begins at conception is inherently saying that murder of a certain population segment is acceptable. Any pro-life advocate who claims that life begins some time after implantation is inherently illogical.

I disagree.

1] 'StartOffFrom': Merely potential members of the future generation have rights that the present generation claims it must consider/defend.

2] Proceed to: It is not possible to proceed from the subset 'potential member of future generation' to 'actual member of present generation' without passing through the stage Zygote.


3] EndUpWith: Actual members of present generation have rights.


1] -> 2] -> 3]. My argument does not start off with, or even depend on, the definition of when 'actual' life begins. In fact, I'll agree that a Zygote is merely a potential member of the actual present generation, just as, any particular member of the subset 'future generation' is merely potential.

However, clearly, a merely conceived Zygote is an enormity of statistical unlikeliness less 'potential' then the complete subset 'potential future generations.'

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.

If your argument is, only 'actual' life has rights that the present generation must consider, then that excludes merely potential future generations as well. Oil. Global Warming. Yucca Flats. Wilderness. CO2. What of it? Do we regard the rights of only actual life, or do we include merely potential life, as well?

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

 

[daveb]

I never claimed only actual life has rights. I merely stated that it comes to a question of when life begins. As with any social issue, there are always exceptions to the rule. While it is true your argument does not necessitate the need to define when life begins, the majority I think do not think in terms of "future generations". Since pro-life is usually associated with the religious right (in the U.S.), which in turn is associated with pro-Republican, pro-death penalty, anti-environmental regulation, I do not believe that the majority hold your viewpoint.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

That's fascinating logic!
So, if we accept the "pro-life" (gah) argument that abortion is equal to murder, we still shouldn't ban it because people should be free (from government intervention) to choose to kill their babies should they desire to.
Consequently, from this logic, since we accept the premise abortion is the equivalent of murder, it should also be stated that any form of murder, adult, infant or fetus, should be legal as well. Any individual deserves to be free (from government intervention) to do such should they so desire.
Well. Since we've done away with murder, we mine as well do-away with assault, theft, and child-pornography as well. *gasp* Evo! Are you suggesting we shouldn't have any laws at all?
Tu l'anarchiste, tu :!)

I wasn't looking at it from that perspective. Some people object to abortion morally to a lesser extent. For instance, they think killing a potential child should be avoided. In fact, many pro-life individuals feel this way. If someone is illogical enough to think it is murder, I can understand why they would be against it. However, pregnacy is a form of torture when a women is forced to undergo it. So, to save ones life, from a biblical perspective, involve subjecting an individual to pain against their will. Violence as a solution is always the right-wing perspective. If they think abortion is so wrong, they should educate people. After all, if they're right, people will just start turning away from it.

 

[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.