I realise this is a very touchy subject so can people please behave?

I've wondered about the right to choose vs the right to life, and all the trouble that comes from both legalising AND illegalising it. A sort of Win-Win situation occured to me.

If a mother truly does not want to have a child, why does she not have it and then give it up for adoption?

I think that only if having the child, or if the childs life would be painful or cruelly disfigured, would endanger them should abortion be considered.

I understand that this would put a lot of kids inside orphanages, but surely this is a better alternative to killing them wholesale?

I have a pm for you EF. You might like my compromise on the issue. Yes, I am still tooting the horn of compromise...

I personally believe the right to abort is the decision of the parents [yes both!!].

I personally feel that this world is already over populated and aborts CAN be life saving.

So I believe in abortion and the "rights" side is best side.

Note: I believe that the foetus and also small children have no real awareness and therefore killing them at such a young age is not murder.

I also have a large philosophy on what is accept in murder and killing, but is long and complicated.

The issue for many women is not looking after the child when born, it is the various problems of pregnancy and birth.

Secondly, orphanages are not the best place to bring up children.

But would you consider them an alternative to death?

You could say the same for Old Peoples homes. They're not the best place for Old People to settle down and die in. But they are probably slightly better than rushing them all of wholesale to the crematorium to be burned alive.

@JEB: I haven't recieved any PM.

Ok, my personal proximity to this issue runs thus.

If not for abortion I would have, so I was told by my mother during an argument when I was 20, an older sister.

If not for abortion I would have a son or daughter, but my ex had already begun having an affair so she aborted our child without my knowledge (then again I wasn't even aware she was pregnant), this was revealed during an argument as I was busy beating her new fella six shades of blue for having the audacity to come into my local after I had insisted they drink in one of the other 30something pubs in the town.

I sometimes ponder what it would have been like to have an older sister. I ponder quite often what it would have been like to be a father.



But I would still defend the rights of a woman, at the end of the day, to make her (informed and supported) choice. I do think we currently allow abortion to happen too late into development, once a fetus is recognisably human we should not be taking them out and killing them, but for the most part, abortions happen when the pregnancy consists of a collection of cells or a tadpole thing, it is certainly not developed enough at that stage and I don't have a problem with that.

Must. Not. Link. Monty. Python. Song...

Seriously though, my Grandma worked with Planned Parenthood for a long time (it is a sex education center/orginization to put it bluntly) so I would assume by that, my position on all of this would be clear.

I take great offense to some of the anti-abortion protesters (yes, the ones with the signs...), even if I can understand the underlying idea behind their movement. When all is said and done, women need to have the option for abortion, and quite frankly; if a chick is getting knocked up and pregnant twice a year, I WANT her to not have children. Just freaking sayin'.

That does not mean I have a problem with her children to be (or not to be), obviously, just that I damn sure don't have the time or energy to take care of her kids for her. And yes, that is exactly what it comes down to, taking care of someone else children, in one way or another.

I plan on not having kids of my own, and to only adopt on principle. Not that I am a bad guy, just that there is an awful lot of kids in need already.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But would you consider them an alternative to death?

You could say the same for Old Peoples homes. They're not the best place for Old People to settle down and die in. But they are probably slightly better than rushing them all of wholesale to the crematorium to be burned alive.

@JEB: I haven't recieved any PM.

I don't consider the embryo to have acquired life until the limit defined in the UK Abortion Act 1967, hence I do not regard the orphanage as an alternative.

If it were possible to take the blastula and raise it to term in a machine, then put the baby into an orphanage, would that be a suitable compromise?

How many children can those orphanages hold?

Does anyone know roughly how many abortions take place a year in the U.S. alone? I mean seriously... you have got to be kidding me... Add hi-tech glass jars (kinda creepy... kinda creepy...) to raise the orphanage destined babies, and that bill will skyrocket through all kinds of economic limitations.

True. Of course, this could all be part of the Emperors plan for the Great Crusade. (Bad Joke ^_^)

YAY! That means I can link 'Every Sperm is Sacred'!!!

, that makes me laugh every time.

You have just been WAITING for that the whole time haven't you?

Wrexasaur wrote:YAY! That means I can link 'Every Sperm is Sacred'!!!

, that makes me laugh every time.

2 things about that puzzle me:

1. You waste 10,000+ just to get that 1 sperm in, but god doesnt mind?

2. What's the go with kids singing about sperm?

It's...it's just...It's...

Wrex, you explain it.

Bill Hicks famously said the following in abortion: Pro-life people should just adopt the children that were supposed to aborted.

As a footnote he added.. "You're not a human, until you're in my phonebook."

Watch it here, warning, some swearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJcebIEOkhY

I dont particularly like Abortion. It is horrible the way some women behave. I dont agree with it morally, i think they should make the time you are allowed to get one done alot lower too.. BUT

(and its a big but)

Who the feth gives you the right to tell a woman what to do?

I feel strongly about this due to my mother rotting from cancer for 12 months. If she wanted euthanising (she didnt) it is her right. It only involves her, and her family. Who gets to decide? You? A random man in a wig?

This is another example of peoples religious beliefs invading peoples lives. I dont know you, i dont want to know you, i have a kid i dont want, i have the right to get rid of it. Its up to me, and nobody else.

I dont like abortion, but a woman has the right to choose. Her ovaries, her body, her unborn child. I dont like the fact that women do it, they should be smart enough to use contraception. But they have the right. And they ALWAYS should.

Abortion is a nasty issue because there is a completely intertwined set of interests and rights, coupled with the reality of the issue really only affecting half the people (women).

Pregnant women have the right to control their bodies, and not be forced to carry a child they don't want.

Fathers have a right to some input on their own potential children.

The State has an interest in preventing the death of a living being, no matter how intertwined that being is with a woman.

And the little proto-person himself, well, I think he has some rights to exist.

Personally, I think that the woman's right to self determination trumps them all. A fetus isn't a person, the state shouldn't force a woman to carry a child, and father's certainly shouldn't be able to.

Pregnancy, as anybody whose known an expecting mother should be aware, is very hard on the body, unpleasant, and often dangerous. It's also expensive and time consuming. I think that given the shortage of available (white) infants for adoption, there should be a more aggressive movement to simply buy the babies from pregnant women instead of aborting, but giving birth is a big deal.

Now, one of the big problems in the US is that we have an extremely vocal opposition to legal abortion, and a pretty strong opposition to the idea that abortion is a good thing (it's not). What puzzles me is a lack of a dedicated effort to eliminate as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, through education, outreach, and/or subsidized birth control.

There are, I think, several kinds of abortions:

Rape/Incest cases: I think most people agree that these are understandable, and unpreventable by the woman.

Abusive relationships: I don't have any figures, but I've always heard that the number of women in abusive relationships that have abortions is staggering. These are sort of preventable, but I have a lot of sympathy for a woman making that call.

Mistakes/stupidity: These are the cases where a person messes up birth control, or forgets a condom, and a pregnancy occurs. I think with the Morning after pill we can drop this down, but first we need to make it cheaper.

Ignorance: simply put, women that didn't know enough to be on birth control. These are not totally preventable, but we can bring this number way, way, down.

1000-1 shots: some people, even with condoms and the Pill, still get pregnant.

Pure Convenience: I think this number is probably lower than some people think, but it should be zero. I define these as cases where a woman simply avoids contraception knowing she can get an abortion later.

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life movement if they focused more on preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than preventing abortions. While I think abortion is morally dubious, and I'm not sure I'd want a part in it, any woman getting one is making the hardest decision of her life. Yelling and guilt tripping her isn't noble or virtuous, it's simply bullying. Telling people that abortion is killing a fetus, so put on a damn rubber, is sound advice.

It's a hard thing to call, and for me it's a case by case thing, where the mother is at risk, etc.
What I have no respect for is the people that have abortions just because a baby would be inconvenient.
To me, a fetus is a living thing, and I wouldn't want to be live with the knowledge that I helped destroy it on a whim to make life easier for myself.

Polo i agree with almost everything you said. I think abortion is morally dubious. But as i said (see above)

The woman has the right to choose.

It is that clear cut as far as im concerned. Even if she is a toothless one eyed mutant who has done it 4 times before. We do not have the right to force our own opinions upon people, and as morally wrong as i might think abortion is, nobody will ever convince me otherwise that this is the correct COA.

Wrexasaur wrote:How many children can those orphanages hold?

Does anyone know roughly how many abortions take place a year in the U.S. alone? I mean seriously... you have got to be kidding me... Add hi-tech glass jars (kinda creepy... kinda creepy...) to raise the orphanage destined babies, and that bill will skyrocket through all kinds of economic limitations.

Here's some stats I found for you.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Polonius wrote:I think that given the shortage of available (white) infants for adoption, there should be a more aggressive movement to simply buy the babies from pregnant women instead of aborting, but giving birth is a big deal.

That's a big can of worms you've opened up there. White babies are worth more than brown ones. I understand that is not your position or intention.

i think that the UK act has got it right, there is a point were a fetus is just a collection of cells, upto that point it is fine to terminate, but i feel the main thing is education to stop the accidents and lack of knowledge that happen.

the one thing i don't get about the pro-life groups is the they act they are full of aload of vilent hate mongers, forcing your religious (i know there are non-religious pro-lifers, but not as many) believes on someone who does not share them goes against the US constitution, these are the same people that complain when people want to have sex ed in schools and then complain when the obvious effect happens

Polonius wrote: I think that given the shortage of available (white) infants for adoption, there should be a more aggressive movement to simply buy the babies from pregnant women instead of aborting, but giving birth is a big deal.

A new cottage industry is born in these troubling economic times.

George Spiggott wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think that given the shortage of available (white) infants for adoption, there should be a more aggressive movement to simply buy the babies from pregnant women instead of aborting, but giving birth is a big deal.

That's a big can of worms you've opened up there. White babies are worth more than brown ones. I understand that is not your position or intention.

Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, both having a full appreciation of relevant facts and neither being under a compulsion to buy or sell.

White infants are worth more, simply because there are fewer on the market, the buyers have more money, and many aficionados of brown children are happy to buy or rent used, rather than drive a new one off the lot (casual adoption is very prevalent in many African American communities, where a child will live with several family members growing up).

Economic value, and social value, are different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Polonius wrote: I think that given the shortage of available (white) infants for adoption, there should be a more aggressive movement to simply buy the babies from pregnant women instead of aborting, but giving birth is a big deal.

A new cottage industry is born in these troubling economic times.

a few years back my ex-gf had a pregnancy scare. I advocated that she sell the baby to pay off our student loans. luckily, it wasn't a concern, but I'm surprised more people don't do it.

Polonius wrote:
Pure Convenience: I think this number is probably lower than some people think, but it should be zero. I define these as cases where a woman simply avoids contraception knowing she can get an abortion later.

I have a lot more respect for the pro-life movement if they focused more on preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than preventing abortions. While I think abortion is morally dubious, and I'm not sure I'd want a part in it, any woman getting one is making the hardest decision of her life. Yelling and guilt tripping her isn't noble or virtuous, it's simply bullying. Telling people that abortion is killing a fetus, so put on a damn rubber, is sound advice.

I don't know how many women on the face of the earth, who know anything about abortion, would ever have the idea that the operation is 'convenient' Polo, any woman with half a brain would be terrified of getting into the circumstance.

In addition to bullying, abusing and attacking the women who are having abortions, the pro-life movement also murders doctors, so I don't know about how much respect I could afford it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

While I think the pro life movement has been remiss in not speaking out more strongly against violence, it's a big group. Literally millions of people in the US are actively pro life. To write off an entire group because of the actions of a very small handful is rash. In addition, any group that large will have some troubled people, and if you think abortion is murder (a reasonable, if flawed, argument), than killing providers is a way to prevent murders. It's not the sort of logic a sane person would use, but it's really good for the unbalanced.

When I was in Spain last week, I had the unfortunate liberty to stumble across an anti-abortion rally. While I openly acknowledge the moral uncertainty of abortion, watching a crowd of people parade around with signs picturing dead fetuses was a firm reminder of why I'm pro-choice. What really irks me is the growing number of pro-lifers I see who (Mike Huckabee for one) no longer argue that abortion should be illegal, but that women should choose not to abort, despite the fact that they still advocate making the procedure illegal. In other words, they argue a more moderate point then they actually advocate because it is easier to argue/sounds better. I am extremely doubtful that outlawing abortion would do much to lower that actual number of abortions by much. Prevention is a far better route to take imho.

I general I lean towards the "personal resposiablity/prevention" camp.
However,in the larger picture,I strongly support a womans right to choose.

Polonius wrote:Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, both having a full appreciation of relevant facts and neither being under a compulsion to buy or sell.

White infants are worth more, simply because there are fewer on the market, the buyers have more money, and many aficionados of brown children are happy to buy or rent used, rather than drive a new one off the lot (casual adoption is very prevalent in many African American communities, where a child will live with several family members growing up).

Economic value, and social value, are different things.

That value (market, social or whatever) is what will determine whether a foetus lives or dies. You're inadvertently proposing a form of ethnic cleansing, It's not your intention but it would be the outcome.

I always like people who are anti-choice and pro-capital punishment.

Yeah Aht ive seen a few amusing skits from American comedians on that subject. How can you be pro life but want everyone to have a gun? Like the late great Bill Hicks said

"If your so pro-life, why dont you go picket cemetaries?"

There is a big difference between a supporter of the Second Amendment and being for Capitol Punishment.

Perhaps, its not very "pro life" though is it?

I personally do not believe in surgical abortion. Life should not be taken from someone whos only crime was existing.

I agree with you Garret, i dont like the idea of abortion either, but i still think a woman has the right to choose. Who are we to tell her otherwise?

mattyrm wrote:I agree with you Garret, i dont like the idea of abortion either, but i still think a woman has the right to choose. Who are we to tell her otherwise?

We are men of course.

Guns are neither anti-choice nor pro-choice, much the same as hammers, or kitchen knives.

Yeah it was meant in an ironic way obviously, Bill Hicks was a comedian. Needless to say no inanimate object decides to kill anyone.

George Spiggott wrote:

Polonius wrote:Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, both having a full appreciation of relevant facts and neither being under a compulsion to buy or sell.

White infants are worth more, simply because there are fewer on the market, the buyers have more money, and many aficionados of brown children are happy to buy or rent used, rather than drive a new one off the lot (casual adoption is very prevalent in many African American communities, where a child will live with several family members growing up).

Economic value, and social value, are different things.

That value (market, social or whatever) is what will determine whether a foetus lives or dies. You're inadvertently proposing a form of ethnic cleansing, It's not your intention but it would be the outcome.

i don't think that was what polonius was saying, a high majority of people who want to adopt want a child of the same race, not out of racism but because it allows for a greater sence of family, its bad enough that they can't have their own child, but to have people ask you over and over "who's child are you looking after?" (this was seen when a black couple in england had three albino children, everyone thought she was the nanny, causing emotional pain). and as there are less 'white' infants in the system they are in a greater demand.

garret wrote:I personally do not believe in surgical abortion. Life should not be taken from someone whos only crime was existing.

hats like telling a gardener off for removing a patch of nettles, up to the point set out by the UK act a fetus is just a collection of cells, with no emotions or thoughts, but after that point i do think that it is wrong to abort and you have to decide whether to raise the child or give it up for adoption.

Garret has the right to believe a blastula is a human being.

In a sense he is right, because all human beings were originally blastulas, which grew into foetuses, which grew into babies. This could be considered a kind of syllogism.

Blastulas or foetuses are not capable of surviving to grow into babies by themselves. The mother has to carry them to term, or at least to about 24 weeks when medical intervention can take over with variable results.

Blastulas and foetuses often die of natural causes at some earlier stage of pregnancy -- this is called spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.

The IUD method of birth control works by preventing blastula implantation. If you are a strict pro-lifer, I assume you would oppose IUDs even if you accept other methods of contraception.

Kilkrazy wrote:Garret has the right to believe a blastula is a human being.

Of course he does.

In a sense he is right, because all human beings were originally blastulas, which grew into foetuses, which grew into babies. This could be considered a kind of syllogism.

The fact is, I just have a ridiculously hard time empathizing with a group of cells. We are not talking about an intricate living being here, we are talking about something that holds about as much weight in the world, as a microbe. There is no brain, or anything even showing signs of a brain at that stage. You can talk about souls I suppose, but that really doesn't hold any true weight to me.

What is comes down to is me trying to visualizing all seeds (all of them, everywhere, at all times...) as people. That is just silly to me, even though abortions should by no means taken lightly.

Blastula development, first stages, out of two dozen or so.



Oh, and thanks for the number Relapse.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

It is basically 1 out of 5, keeping in mind that live births have little to no connection with abortions. A bit unsettling I suppose, but I am pretty sure that the U.S. has statistically low birth rate per capita, compared to many other countries. Just think about what a million more babies a year would mean. How much would be involved in taking care of a million extra kids a year. That burden will go directly onto the government, because I have no doubts that even if some pro-lifers may actually be willing to take care of some kids; there is just no way that they could actually accomplish that.

(2005) Live births= 4138349/ Reported Abortions= 921910/ Estimated Abortions= 1206200

Kilkrazy wrote:Garret has the right to believe a blastula is a human being.

and the women that have or want an abortions, should have the right to do so without people making them feel like monsters, religion and state should be kept apart when making law. A blastula is less advanced than a common cold bactreria cell (a blastula may have more cells, but its just the same basic cell split again and again).

I think abortion are awful , which shouldnt be considered an option unless its for example : rape or the child might be born deformed that cant live properly.
If a couple cannot afford or does not have a good environment to properly raise a child in, they shouldnt be making babies
Hence abortion is not a solution for a horny couple doesnt feel like using a condom.

However , its also sad to see a children raised in an orphanage . Most of them will grow up constantly wondering why they dont have a parent ,
and if its some how their own fault the parents gave them up. Im not saying orphans cannot grow up to be good parents , but chances are
they didnt grow up with good parent as role models on how to be good parents. Which might start a cycle of bad parenting.

I think the society as a whole need to penalize irresponsible couples / incapable parents .
Because i dont think they realize the burden on everyone they have caused.

LunaHound wrote:I think abortion are awful , which shouldnt be considered an option unless its for example : rape or the child might be born deformed that cant live properly.
If a couple cannot afford or does not have a good environment to properly raise a child in, they shouldnt be making babies
Hence abortion is not a solution for a horny couple doesnt feel like using a condom.

Condoms are not the end all to not getting pregnant. That, among other circumstances, make it incredibly hard to 'ration' abortions in the way that you suggested.

I think the society as a whole need to penalize irresponsible couples / incapable parents .
Because i dont think they realize the burden on everyone they have caused.

Having the ability to get abortions as a backup measure, makes all of this a lot simpler.

Wrexasaur wrote:Condoms are not the end all to not getting pregnant.

Its not , but it helps.

ALOT

Of course it does, and as I said before, people that choose to live lifestyles that lead to those kind of decisions, are likely to not be good parents. Or even mediocre parents for that matter.

If you watch interviews of Porn Stars, many of them are very clear in that they would simply not have children when living that life. Most will be likely to quit the profession if/when they have children. There is actually a movement within the industry to make condoms mandatory... which is, to put it simply, absolutely devoid of any business sense.

Looking at the statistics of the industry, you can draw pretty strong conclusions that the most effective way to 'fight' STDs, and unwanted pregnacies; is to have a high level of awareness, along with a system of checking for anything that may cause problems. STDs scare me, even more than having a child while in hard times. Being open about a relationship is very key, but it simply will not stop other people from making rather misinformed decisions.

A woman would have to be pretty weird to think abortion was a good alternative to using contraception. It is a far more difficult, expensive and emotionally draining procedure than any form of contraception. You can even get a "morning after" pill now which reliably prevents conception if you did something the night before you regret in the morning.

The majority of abortions probably happen because many young people are ignorant thanks to low quality sex education, or because of genuine failures of contraception.

Wrexasaur wrote:Of course it does, and as I said before, people that choose to live lifestyles that lead to those kind of decisions, are likely to not be good parents. Or even mediocre parents for that matter.

If you watch interviews of Porn Stars, many of them are very clear in that they would simply not have children when living that life. Most will be likely to quit the profession if/when they have children. There is actually a movement within the industry to make condoms mandatory... which is, to put it simply, absolutely devoid of any business sense.

I know , and i agree with you , thats why i wrote:

I think the society as a whole need to penalize irresponsible couples / incapable parents .
Because i dont think they realize the burden on everyone they have caused.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I don't know how many women on the face of the earth, who know anything about abortion, would ever have the idea that the operation is 'convenient' Polo, any woman with half a brain would be terrified of getting into the circumstance.

This. My ex-girlfriend nearly died, twice, in the course of her abortion, and the followup. It is not a pleasant, or cheap, procedure. The idea that people consider them in the same light as condoms, or the pill, is kind of wonky.

Anyway, I would accept a law that permitted abortions through the 1st trimester. Most women will admit to pregnancy within that period (denial is a really big issue), and the viability of the fetus is sufficiently lacking to placate any naysayers. I'd prefer that there be absolute permissivity, but I acknowledge that to be politically infeasible.

I have strong reservations about discussing this subject on dakka but I just want to say that (1) abortion in the United States is not for most women simply a form of post hoc birth control to escape the consequences of recreational sex and (2) the contemporary US pro-life movement is too narrow in its scope and seems disinterested in dealing with the societal factors that encourage abortion. Personally, I don't think it takes a trained statistician to look at the numbers and see a pattern of latent racism.

Kilkrazy wrote:A woman would have to be pretty weird to think abortion was a good alternative to using contraception. It is a far more difficult, expensive and emotionally draining procedure than any form of contraception. You can even get a "morning after" pill now which reliably prevents conception if you did something the night before you regret in the morning.

Too most, it is a heartwrenching decision that is in no way taken lightly.

The majority of abortions probably happen because many young people are ignorant thanks to low quality sex education, or because of genuine failures of contraception.

Teenagers have sex, it happens. What matters is HOW they do it, and who they choose to do it with. I have even heard that there is this idea that having buttsecks, will preserve your virginity/ act as a contraceptive/ protect you from STDs... at which point, sex education is sorely needed.

mattyrm wrote:Perhaps, its not very "pro life" though is it?

It is indeed, but as you don't understand the 2nd Amendment anyway, I'm not going to bother discussing it with you.

I'm getting slightly worried about the people who are posting "It's the womans choice." and leaving it at that.

I honestly think we should take a deeper look at the Right of Choice vs the Right of Life.

Aren't Abortions expensive?

I think that it's ok to abort until right before contractions, because the baby and the mother are still technically the same person.

Manchu wrote:I have strong reservations about discussing this subject on dakka but I just want to say that (1) abortion in the United States is not for most women simply a form of post hoc birth control to escape the consequences of recreational sex and (2) the contemporary US pro-life movement is too narrow in its scope and seems disinterested in dealing with the societal factors that encourage abortion. Personally, I don't think it takes a trained statistician to look at the numbers and see a pattern of latent racism.

where did you get your end conclusion, can you explain what you are on about in your last point?

abortion isn't nice on the women, its painful and emotionally draining so i agree with point 1, the main thing is education, as seen in the US, just advertising abstanence doesn't work, proper education on the variety of contraceptives and safe sex is a must.

We should just eat the babies.

avantgarde wrote:We should just eat the babies.

Fetuses taste better...

But they're less filling.

True, but it's worth collecting them up.

In anycase, I feel that abortion should still be the womans choice, but mostly as a last resort.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm getting slightly worried about the people who are posting "It's the womans choice." and leaving it at that.

Are you worried simply because these people [myself included] have made an informed decision on the matter, and don't require convincing or converting?

I know personally no matter how hard you preach to me on the matter, I have made my decision from the evidence given to me and will not change that.

@BluntmanDC: PM'd ya.

I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

LunaHound wrote:If a couple cannot afford or does not have a good environment to properly raise a child in, they shouldnt be making babies

But if there stupid enough to have a child, then they cant have an abortion, its the child what suffers too.

LunaHound wrote:However , its also sad to see a children raised in an orphanage . Most of them will grow up constantly wondering why they dont have a parent ,
and if its some how their own fault the parents gave them up. Im not saying orphans cannot grow up to be good parents , but chances are
they didnt grow up with good parent as role models on how to be good parents. Which might start a cycle of bad parenting.

Or it could make them determined to be a better parent then there parents were. Not every orphan has children. Good Parents doesnt mean that the child will grow up to be a good parent, it differs from person to person.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

Most people value humans over chickens.

We're all mother natures living things though.

In that case you have to expand your position to it being the ending of a human life though. I think that's where it really comes down to the disagreement, what makes a human, what makes a person, that kind of thing.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Aren't Abortions expensive?

I think that it's ok to abort until right before contractions, because the baby and the mother are still technically the same person.

Good to see the NOT SANE contingent are now posting.

Frazzled wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Aren't Abortions expensive?

I think that it's ok to abort until right before contractions, because the baby and the mother are still technically the same person.

Good to see the NOT SANE contingent are now posting.

I might have exadurated, alot.

You know, sometimes I wonder, are the mods stopping the trolls, or are the mods trolls.

Squig_herder wrote:Are you worried simply because these people [myself included] have made an informed decision on the matter, and don't require convincing or converting? I know personally no matter how hard you preach to me on the matter, I have made my decision from the evidence given to me and will not change that.

Hmm, your tone is striking me in that you are being very defensive about this, and going out of your way to point out your own "informed decision" making, superiority of your own thought process, etc. I didn't find EF's comment to be offensive or pressuring people at all, his point was simply, "Ok I hear all about this 'woman's right to choose' POV, but what about the child's right to life? What about that?" He was asking a serious question, and I felt that he was trying to be open in his thought process. If you have your mind made up, that is totally on you, but I will admit I see your post as a cover up for something you aren't completely comfortable with.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

Squig_herder wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm getting slightly worried about the people who are posting "It's the womans choice." and leaving it at that.

Are you worried simply because these people [myself included] have made an informed decision on the matter, and don't require convincing or converting?

I know personally no matter how hard you preach to me on the matter, I have made my decision from the evidence given to me and will not change that.

I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision. Otherwise it's like a Judge declaring someone guilty without explaining how he came to that desicion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:You know, sometimes I wonder, are the mods stopping the trolls, or are the mods trolls.

In the grimdarkness of the 'Abortion' thread, this made me smile.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

It seemed to me that he was trying to point out that life itself is not the sticking point. We are not more alive than chickens, and few people would argue the point that killing chickens is bad if there is no reason behind the action (such as a need, or desire, for food). Moving in the same direction, killing people is bad, but that badness can be offset by something like need, or desire. The question here isn't about whether or not taking life is a good thing, but whether or not it can justified by circumstance.

Ah, that helps to clarify his position, I hope. I am not a big fan of killing other people in general...although I am more likely to support the execution of a mass murderer then the abortion of an innocent child. Execute Swine Flu!

Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that fetuses are human, and that abortion involves killing them. However, the notion that people acquire more rights as they age is far from new, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the right to life is acquired upon birth.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

No more so than Polonius's Orwellian baby-selling.

Manchu wrote:No more so than Polonius's Orwellian baby-selling.

I had neglected to read that comment. I wouldn't classify it as Orwellian, rather I found his comment, after reading it, to be in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's satire. Was he serious? Only he can tell, but I will agree that the idea is still somewhat disturbing...

Legitimate question: why?

Legitimate Answer: Because I don't think human beings should be bought or sold as a commodity. You know that I don't believe that all humans are completely equal, but I do believe that every human is above this practice.

Swift, yes, not Orwell. Thanks for correcting that. It seems to me that he must have been serious given he was talking about his own past relationship. ::shudder::

Meh, people are bought and sold on a daily basis. Categorical imperative be damned.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

All I ever said is that they are equally alive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

All I ever said is that they are equally alive.

Bit of race hate going on here. Who'd have thought that a thread about abortion would involve heated attacks on the Chicken Race?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Hmm, your tone is striking me in that you are being very defensive about this, and going out of your way to point out your own "informed decision" making, superiority of your own thought process, etc. I didn't find EF's comment to be offensive or pressuring people at all, his point was simply, "Ok I hear all about this 'woman's right to choose' POV, but what about the child's right to life? What about that?" He was asking a serious question, and I felt that he was trying to be open in his thought process. If you have your mind made up, that is totally on you, but I will admit I see your post as a cover up for something you aren't completely comfortable with.

What I am not comfortable with is that fact that I feel religion and morality is too far entrenched in this issue for me to speak freely on the matter without becoming the subject of attack for my views. Therefore I cannot speak freely on the matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision.

I'll explain the bolded line for you, this is my personal opinion on the matter.

My definition of a human being is that it is a being that has both a conscience and awareness of self. This isn't really evident until 1 or 2 years of age. Therefore "killing" the being isn't really killing a human IMO. Merely because it is human in shape, doesn't mean it is human, for lack of a better world, it requires a "soul" or personality.

Squig_herder wrote:What I am not comfortable with is that fact that I feel religion and morality is too far entrenched in this issue for me to speak freely on the matter without becoming the subject of attack for my views. Therefore I cannot speak freely on the matter.

Its a matter of morality, so it is obvious that religion will be at least slightly involved. In a situation such as this, it will be much more involved. That does not mean you can be critical and respectful at the same time. Dogma and Sebster do this quite often, and are very good at remaining at least mostly civil. I will admit I appreciate the self-restraint and maturity on your behalf if you feel that you can't contribute to this discussion without trashing other people's beliefs. More members from Dakka could take a page out of your book, not least of all me.

Squig_herder wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision.

I'll explain the bolded line for you, this is my personal opinion on the matter.

My definition of a human being is that it is a being that has both a conscience and awareness of self. This isn't really evident until 1 or 2 years of age. Therefore "killing" the being isn't really killing a human IMO. Merely because it is human in shape, doesn't mean it is human, for lack of a better world, it requires a "soul" or personality.

That's interesting to say the least, and it is most certainly not by any means a new idea. I can't confirm this word-for-word but I remember in a seminar (back in Dubai) how Islam considers the soul to enter the body of a boy at the age of roughly a couple of days or weeks. For a girl it was a matter of months up to over a year. (Note: The seminar was given by a proffesser, not an Imam)

However, I fail to see you reasoning for this. Is this becuase we do not have an active memory? (I certainly cannot recall my 1st, 2nd...or even 3rd, 4th or 5th Birthday. How are you certain that their is no conscience or selfawareness?

And what's more, in all seriousness, if you are claiming that it is perfectly all right to abort 'after birth' without explaining yourself then I am very much disturbed.

Several people asked for a justification of a ‘pro-choice’ position so here is mine.

My personal background: I did three years of medical school, I’m married and have a daughter, so I’ve got a perspective on the issue.


1. Primacy of woman’s rights.

Abortion is a tangle of conflicting rights or interests, between pregnant women, the men who impregnate them and the foetuses they carry.

Since men cannot give birth, and foetuses cannot be brought to term without a mother, the rights of the mother must be given very serious consideration.


2. Causes of pregnancy.

Women get pregnant for a number of reasons including foolishness, accidents and rape. What they don’t do is get pregnant in order to have an abortion for the lulz.


3. Pregnancy as a calamity.

Pregnancy is a big step. It is physically and mentally arduous, medically hazardous and leads to all the issues of giving birth and continuing motherhood.

All this makes it life-changing in the best of times. When a pregnancy is unwanted, its life-changing aspects are often very damaging for the mother – it can and historically has been seen as a calamity to be avoided.

It should be understood that the impact of unwanted pregnancy is not only on the mother, it is also on the rest of her family including other children and potentially on the eventually to born child too.


4. Women’s responses throughout history -- backstreet abortions.

Women never automatically welcomed pregnancy. In ancient times pregnant women made use of abortifacient herbs to induce natural abortion, or even exposed their infants at birth. In modern times when legal abortion is not available, women have resorted to unhealthy practices (gin and hot bath) and back-street abortion. It is estimated that 70,000 women a year die around the world because of unsafe abortions.


5. The status of the foetus as a dependant of the mother.

A foetus cannot survive outside the uterus until over about 21 weeks of pregnancy. Advanced medical support is required at that stage. Modern experience is that severely premature babies have a low survival rate, and may have medical problems later in life.

Spontaneous abortion is not uncommon. Miscarriage can occur at nearly any stage of pregnancy. In an early stage it can be mistaken for a heavy period. At a later stage it takes the form of a still birth and is mourned by the parents.


6. Status of the blastula/foetus as a human being.

This really is the core of the argument.

Modern science and law usually defines life and humanity according to the status of brain activity. We decide a person is dead by their lack of brain activity. An early foetus, which does not have a developed brain and cannot survive outside its mother, is not in my opinion a human being. It is an entity which has the potential to develop into a human being. This is broadly speaking the view of the UK national committee on ethics which drew up our abortion laws in the 1960s.


7. The effect of favouring the foetus above the mother’s rights.

By taking the view that the early foetus is a human being, with equal rights to its mother, we actually elevate the rights of the foetus over the mother’s rights. By withholding abortion, we condemn the mother to be a kind of baby-making machine. I think this is illogical and wrong. It treats unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for the crime of having sex. This does not seem like a good way to begin life as a mother.


8. Term limits on medical abortion.

Anti-abortionists often bring up the case of late abortion, which is usually considered to be abortions taking place after about 24-28 weeks.

In reality almost all abortions take place much earlier than this. In the UK abortion after 24 weeks is illegal except in certain rare medical conditions. Abortion after 12-14 weeks is considered late.

In the USA, 88% of abortions are carried out in the first 12-13 weeks, and fewer than 2% after 21 weeks. These late cases comprise severe abnormalities and medical risks to the mother’s health.


9. The Abortion Act 1967 as a working compromise in action over 40 years.

The UK Abortion Act sets 24 weeks as the limit for legal abortion for reasons including the medical preference on safety grounds for early abortion, the limited ability of the foetus to survive when younger than 24 weeks, and an estimation of the unformed (pre-human?) status of the younger foetus.



In summary my view is that abortion is preferable to the infliction of unwanted children upon women or driving them to the dangers of back-street abortions.

I consider that the early foetus is not a human being and does not have full rights, so it is not a question of murder.

In the case of late abortions, where the developed foetus can be said to have rights, I feel those rights are still subordinate to the mother’s, so that an abortion for medical necessity is sad but ethically acceptable.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That's interesting to say the least, and it is most certainly not by any means a new idea. I can't confirm this word-for-word but I remember in a seminar (back in Dubai) how Islam considers the soul to enter the body of a boy at the age of roughly a couple of days or weeks. For a girl it was a matter of months up to over a year. (Note: The seminar was given by a proffesser, not an Imam)

However, I fail to see you reasoning for this. Is this becuase we do not have an active memory? (I certainly cannot recall my 1st, 2nd...or even 3rd, 4th or 5th Birthday. How are you certain that their is no conscience or selfawareness?

And what's more, in all seriousness, if you are claiming that it is perfectly all right to abort 'after birth' without explaining yourself then I am very much disturbed.

First off, I will apologise in advance for an offence that might come out, I do not intend to offend anyone just explain my reasoning. If you wish me to remove me post, just PM me and i'll edit/remove it.

That is interesting to hear of what Islam says about the soul.

Now on to explaining my reasoning:
It is not that we have no active memory, it is that we do not exist as we do now, a foetus and even a child to the age of about 2-3, to me, seem like an incubator of a vessel for then a conscience/personality to develop. Any time before this, is like a computer without a fully written program, in essence an empty vessel. As cold as it seems, I feel the death of such an infant not a large lose, I do agree every human is priceless, but you can assign values to people [sorry I sound cold]. Eg, the scientist is more valuable then the check out chick/man and if I had to chose to lose one, I would chose the check out person, if I couldn't offer myself in their stead.

On the second point, I do not support post-birth abortions, however I feel if the baby is damaged and cannot be looked after, or will be brought into a situation that will cause harm, then I would agree with a post-birth abortion. Again, I am sorry for how curl or sorry this sounds, it is my belief. The same is done with animals, why cannot this logic be applied to humans? Eg. A baby is born into a heavy drug using family, where the baby has already been effected to the state of mental or biological damage [mid to severe] and will have a low quality of life, then I would agree with a post-birth abortion.

Again I am sorry if I have offended you.

You have not offended. I'm just having trouble accepting a view that seems so...(for want of a better word) cold.

I thing killkrazy has summed up every reason that i have for pro-abortion

BluntmanDC wrote:I thing killkrazy has summed up every reason that i have for pro-abortion

+1

Kill krazy is smart, i dont like abortion very much, but lets be realistic. Can a 6 week old foetus feel anything at all? Much less pain?

I saw some religious leaflets being given out in a Mall near Pasadena and it had a photo of a 12 week old foetus that was doctored to the point that it had fully funtioning eyes, a full head of hair and a fething inquisitive look on its face. Needless to say im fully expecting them to produce one with a foetus reading an algebra book and smoking a pipe.

Regards the whole age thing.. i have always wondered this.. kinda off topic but..

If you were on a sinking ship, and there was only once space left on the lifeboat, wouldnt it make more sense to give it to a 18 year old lad over a 90 year old woman?

Dogma mentioned the whole life value and age thing and it made me think.. why is it women and kids first? Kids is obvious, but if i was 16 years old or something on the Titanic and they wanted to wheel some 100 year old part blind woman on there i think i might have some words to say!

Stiff upper lip, old chap!

Just to be clear, I don't think abortion is good, I think it is better than forbidding abortion and having worse consequences.

If it were discovered that a 12 week foetus experienced pain, I would support anaesthesia + abortion as a way around that issue.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Legitimate Answer: Because I don't think human beings should be bought or sold as a commodity. You know that I don't believe that all humans are completely equal, but I do believe that every human is above this practice.

Plus we had a minor tiff about that about 160 years ago. My ancestors earned the righ for me to say human beings should not be bought and sold as a commodity.

KK wins the thread. It's those same statements that I use to back up my pro-choice beliefs.

+1

I find it interesting that my comments have caused so much discussion. My point, originally, was that direct adoptions, where a family takes a new born directly at birth, is fairer to the child than abortion. The mother, however, has to go through some pretty tough stuff to get there: lost wages, physical stress, etc. What's being bought or sold isn't the child, but the time and effort of the mother to carry that child. You'd pay a nanny or a babysitter, why not pay a woman to carry the child?

That white babies are in more demand is a sad reflection on our society, not any attempt on my part to demean or cleanse.

Chattel slavery wasn't that humans could be bought or sold, but rather held as personal property. Rights to people are bought and sold every day. Professional athletes, lawyers on retainer, non-compete clauses, divorce proceedings, etc.

Human lives are invaluable, but the rights to enjoy aspects of those lives have cash value. When you read that there are hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, and then read that there are millions of childless people out there that want children... I guess maybe I'm a little cold blooded, but I see supply and demand.

I currently work at Target, and we don't throw away our display trees. Instead, they are donated to local charities. Throwing them away would be wasteful. I'm sure target takes a small tax break on each on thrown away, and why shouldn't they?

Likewise, why don't we seek out women looking to have abortions, and tell them "this family will compensate you fro your time and effort, pay all medical bills and buy a life insurance policy for the term of your pregnancy, if you'll allow them to adopt your baby instead of terminating it." How is that not win/win?

Good points all, Polonius. But I do see a problem with that scenario. Some women may see pregnancy and birth as an alternative means to making money than actually working. Worst case scenario would be that we get a whole range of 'baby factories' of sorts.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good points all, Polonius. But I do see a problem with that scenario. Some women may see pregnancy and birth as an alternative means to making money than actually working. Worst case scenario would be that we get a whole range of 'baby factories' of sorts.

And I guess I don't see that as a problem, not if there are adoptive families lined up before.

I was talking with my mother about this issue a year or so ago, and she said that since she had no real problems being pregnant, if she were younger now she'd consider surrogacy and the like as a source of income. Gestating and giving birth to children is, if not a skill, at least a useful attribute. Why not allow women to use that for profit?

I think it's stupid that old white men primarily decide whether it gets to happen or not.

@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]

@Polonius: I'm not quite sure what the problems involving overpopulation would entail. I think that there are plenty enough orphans to go around without baby factories. And there's also the problem that a lot of these children may have inherited fualty genes and diseases from thier parents.

Again, I feel that putting a price tag on someones life (ranking them due to race and colour) is incredibly cold. However, I'm the sort of young lad who (given the choice) would ensure that my Gran (were she not on dialysis) got on the boat before me.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Polonius: I'm not quite sure what the problems involving overpopulation would entail. I think that there are plenty enough orphans to go around without baby factories. And there's also the problem that a lot of these children may have inherited fualty genes and diseases from thier parents.

Again, I feel that putting a price tag on someones life (ranking them due to race and colour) is incredibly cold. However, I'm the sort of young lad who (given the choice) would ensure that my Gran (were she not on dialysis) got on the boat before me.

I think you're seeing past my point, and fixating on "Polonius wants to put a price tag on babies."

I'm a fan of free markets. Allowing people to decide what they do with their time and resources, and how they can work with them and trade with others for what they want. If Person A wants an infant, and Person B can provide an infant, isn't everybody better off with what they'd rather have (a baby and some cash) than with what they have without the trade (some cash and nothing).

By definition, childless couples getting a baby or two don't affect overpopulation. Replacement is just over 2 children per woman. Now, that figures infertility into it, but nearly all industrial nations have low or negative organic population growth.

As for genetics, that's up the people involved. And I'm not ranking by race, I was just pointing out there is a demand for white new borns. Foster care is full up with minorities of all ages, and older white kids. The market, not I, am putting a price on white new borns.

This stuff happens all the time (it's basically the plot to Juno). As a kid, in the last book in the Little House on the Prairie series Laura Ingalls Wilder is offered a pair of horses by a family friend for their first born baby. She refuses, but the point is, it happened in 1880.

Polonius wrote:I find it interesting that my comments have caused so much discussion. My point, originally, was that direct adoptions, where a family takes a new born directly at birth, is fairer to the child than abortion. The mother, however, has to go through some pretty tough stuff to get there: lost wages, physical stress, etc. What's being bought or sold isn't the child, but the time and effort of the mother to carry that child. You'd pay a nanny or a babysitter, why not pay a woman to carry the child?

That white babies are in more demand is a sad reflection on our society, not any attempt on my part to demean or cleanse.

Chattel slavery wasn't that humans could be bought or sold, but rather held as personal property. Rights to people are bought and sold every day. Professional athletes, lawyers on retainer, non-compete clauses, divorce proceedings, etc.

Human lives are invaluable, but the rights to enjoy aspects of those lives have cash value. When you read that there are hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, and then read that there are millions of childless people out there that want children... I guess maybe I'm a little cold blooded, but I see supply and demand.

I currently work at Target, and we don't throw away our display trees. Instead, they are donated to local charities. Throwing them away would be wasteful. I'm sure target takes a small tax break on each on thrown away, and why shouldn't they?

Likewise, why don't we seek out women looking to have abortions, and tell them "this family will compensate you fro your time and effort, pay all medical bills and buy a life insurance policy for the term of your pregnancy, if you'll allow them to adopt your baby instead of terminating it." How is that not win/win?

We already have surrogate mothers. It often goes wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]


.

I'm sure you don't think crack heads make good mothers, so why force them to be?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]

Really? You don't earn a legitimate response.

@Polonius: Sorry, I wasn't saying that you were trying to put a price tag on babies. But I do think that, in a free market, this would eventually happen. (Although maybe not as blatant as that)

@Cannerus: Why is the decision over someones life (IF the child can be considered alive) not suitable to be heard in a court of law?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I realise this is a very touchy subject so can people please behave?

I've wondered about the right to choose vs the right to life, and all the trouble that comes from both legalising AND illegalising it. A sort of Win-Win situation occured to me.

If a mother truly does not want to have a child, why does she not have it and then give it up for adoption?

I think that only if having the child, or if the childs life would be painful or cruelly disfigured, would endanger them should abortion be considered.

I understand that this would put a lot of kids inside orphanages, but surely this is a better alternative to killing them wholesale?

if you feel the need to ask people to behave, it's probably not a topic worth bringing up, because that just sounds like "Hi, I'm going to leave this flamebait here, please don't flame me." really?

I think that abortions should be mandatory until both parents pass a test. They should also have a clause to allow for retroactivity.

Howlingmoon is showing the subtle difference between realizing that people often flame in sensitive topics, and caring if people flame.

Well done sir.

Howlingmoon wrote:

I think that abortions should be mandatory until both parents pass a test. They should also have a clause to allow for retroactivity.

What kind of test would you have to pass or fail to get an abortion?

I agree some people shouldn't be allowed to breed but for those types I'd do the abortion for free for them. Can't guarantee the safety of the mother but then again maybe that too wouldn't be so bad.

...