Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.