Abortion

[muy_thaiguy]

Abortion should be mandatory ...

Then so should public executions of hippies from the 60s and 70s that STILL haven't figured out that it is no longer 1973.

[radiojake]

Abortion should be mandatory ...

Then so should public executions of hippies from the 60s and 70s that STILL haven't figured out that it is no longer 1973.

That's rather discriminatory isn't it? Atleast with my idea race, gender. religion, political ideologies are irrelevant - plus i don't think i've seen too many hippies left from the 60's or 70's

I think humans have had their chance with being the major inhabitant's of the planet, and we've done a really shit job of it - time for some other species to have a go, a less destructive one anyway

[muy_thaiguy]

Abortion should be mandatory ...

Then so should public executions of hippies from the 60s and 70s that STILL haven't figured out that it is no longer 1973.

That's rather discriminatory isn't it? Atleast with my idea race, gender. religion, political ideologies are irrelevant - plus i don't think i've seen too many hippies left from the 60's or 70's

I think humans have had their chance with being the major inhabitant's of the planet, and we've done a really shit job of it - time for some other species to have a go, a less destructive one anyway

Fine then, we'll include ones from newer generations as well.

And, how does making abortion mandatory make such things as political ideology, religion, such irrelevant? That is, of course, if you completely ignore them and do what people have done in the past and do some major screw ups, to say the least.

And with that last comment, I take it you really don't see anything positive, do you.

[radiojake]

Abortion should be mandatory ...

Then so should public executions of hippies from the 60s and 70s that STILL haven't figured out that it is no longer 1973.

That's rather discriminatory isn't it? Atleast with my idea race, gender. religion, political ideologies are irrelevant - plus i don't think i've seen too many hippies left from the 60's or 70's

I think humans have had their chance with being the major inhabitant's of the planet, and we've done a really shit job of it - time for some other species to have a go, a less destructive one anyway

Fine then, we'll include ones from newer generations as well.

And, how does making abortion mandatory make such things as political ideology, religion, such irrelevant? That is, of course, if you completely ignore them and do what people have done in the past and do some major screw ups, to say the least.

And with that last comment, I take it you really don't see anything positive, do you.

Clearly my abortion should be mandatory claim was a piss take - (though i don't plan on having kids myself, and i think people who have kids a selfish) but whatever

I don't see how owning up to the human species destructive history (and future) renders me a negative person.

[muy_thaiguy]

Well, I have yet to see you post anything in a positive light, thus making it seem that you have a "life sucks, you suck, nothing good ever happens, just finish off the entire race now" kind of attitude.

[radiojake]

Well, I have yet to see you post anything in a positive light, thus making it seem that you have a "life sucks, you suck, nothing good ever happens, just finish off the entire race now" kind of attitude.

To be fair, I would be lying if I said I didn't use these boards as my ranting vice, - so yeah I can see where you get that perception from. I guess I don't tend to rant about shit that I don't have a problem with. I don't think that life sucks (not all the time.. when I'm at work however..) and it's only sometimes that I think it be best to finish off the entire race.... the rest of the time I'm (for some reason) in a pretty optimistic state of trying to change (in the ways I can) the entire race.
But then I only have to read something that Nappy wrote, or turn on the television and it sometimes feels like a really ambitious step.

My actual serious thoughts on abortion (as you would probably would have guessed anyway) are that of a pro-choice perspective. I don't consider an embryo at fertilization a human life or a sentient being - and it some situations (ie, young teenagers, rape victims or people who don't consider themselves ready) it would be better for an embryo to be aborted than for it to be born and brought up in a hostile living environment. I think an animal that is already alive and living has more rights to life than a sperm and egg that are yet to have formed anything - I guess it's all about perspective..

I don't really give a shit if someone doesn't abort a pregnancy, so I don't see why people get so animated and passionate about if someone else does. It's not as if pro-choice people are trying to abort someone else's pregnancy.

[tzor]

In re your tangible benefit bollocks; slavery had huge tangible benefits for the US economy. Did this make it any less immoral? No, it made it moral and practical, but didn't re-inforce it's morailty.

That can certainly be debated. It was debated even back in the day; federalists like Hamilton were strongly attacking the very notion that the whole system that underlined that "peculiar institution" was helping the economy of the new nation. Slavery is, for all practical purposes a byproduct of the agrarian landed nobility mentality. This mindset opposed federalism, opposed the creation of strong federal financial institutions and kept the south from moving into an industrial mindset. Ironically it took a man from the industrial north, Eli Whitney, to add enough industry to make the cotton trade a viable enterprise which then in turn justified the need for continued slavery in the South.

[PLAYER57832]

In re your tangible benefit bollocks; slavery had huge tangible benefits for the US economy. Did this make it any less immoral? No, it made it moral and practical, but didn't re-inforce it's morailty.

That can certainly be debated. It was debated even back in the day; federalists like Hamilton were strongly attacking the very notion that the whole system that underlined that "peculiar institution" was helping the economy of the new nation. Slavery is, for all practical purposes a byproduct of the agrarian landed nobility mentality. This mindset opposed federalism, opposed the creation of strong federal financial institutions and kept the south from moving into an industrial mindset. Ironically it took a man from the industrial north, Eli Whitney, to add enough industry to make the cotton trade a viable enterprise which then in turn justified the need for continued slavery in the South.

It is well over a hundred years since the south experienced legal slavery and they are only now really and truly recovering. Yet, even so, as we saw with Karina, many on all sides are still paying huges prices.

The civil rights movement was about affording folks of color rights. BUT, it was also about perhaps not completely removing, but at least reducing and mitigating the pague of hatred and racism from the broader culture.

It takes a lot of work to maintain racism on a societal level. To quote and old song "they have to be carefully taught ...".

[tzor]

It is well over a hundred years since the south experienced legal slavery and they are only now really and truly recovering.

But that wasn't "slavery" at that point, that was "bigotry." Industrialism entered the south shortly after the civil war and thanks to that blunder of technology called air conditiong factories in the south would eventually replace factories in the north.

But bigotry wasn't unique to the south. The north was doing their own brand long before slavery became profitable in the south. New England and New York prohibited Roman Catholic Priests from the colony and made it a crime punishable by hanging to preach to the Natrive Americans ... in the early decades of the 18th century. Anti-Papist legislation and rhetoric continued well past the civil war. Papist immigrants, the Irish and Italians were especially persecuted when they arrived on our shores by political parties like the "Know Nothngs." This was also practiced in the South and continues today in the South.

When Alan Keys ran for the Republican Nomination for President in 2000, he faced a double whammy in the South of being boh African American and Roman Catholic. He didn't get any votes there.

Ironically this is really on topic. Abortion is all about dismissing a class of people and flat out ignoring their rights. If we are all created equal and if our rights are inalienable, then they cannot be either given or taken away. The pre-born and the eldery. As Jefferson insisted life and liberty cannot be disjoined. As long as there is life there is a right to liberty.

African Americans aren't people, Papists aren't people, pre-born aren't people ... these are all false arguments which any moral person should fight with every fiber of their being.

[Neoteny]

That was rather well written. Do you feel the same way about death row inmates and political leaders with crimes against humanity?

[PLAYER57832]

It is well over a hundred years since the south experienced legal slavery and they are only now really and truly recovering.

But that wasn't "slavery" at that point, that was "bigotry." Industrialism entered the south shortly after the civil war and thanks to that blunder of technology called air conditiong factories in the south would eventually replace factories in the north.

But bigotry wasn't unique to the south. The north was doing their own brand long before slavery became profitable in the south. New England and New York prohibited Roman Catholic Priests from the colony and made it a crime punishable by hanging to preach to the Natrive Americans ... in the early decades of the 18th century. Anti-Papist legislation and rhetoric continued well past the civil war. Papist immigrants, the Irish and Italians were especially persecuted when they arrived on our shores by political parties like the "Know Nothngs." This was also practiced in the South and continues today in the South.

Bigotry, in the south AND the north is a residue of slavery or, rather, the mentality necessary to permit slavery. Namely, slavery can only be "OK" under 2 conditions:
1. if the people enslaved are treated as well or better than an average person in that society (true, to some extent in ancient Rome, Egypt, etc. ... though even so ) BUT the problem is that even if this condition exists for a time, the nature of slavery is such that conditions quickly deteriorate. The perception of slavery "not being so bad" will persist long after the reality.

2. More usually (even if in conjunction with above), it requires believing that those enslaved are somehow "inferior" to those enslaving. This can be only partially mitigated by manumization. The idea being that those few who are not inferior will be released. The reality is far from that perception.

NOTE: I said "perception". In this case, the perception is far more important than the reality. The north may have felt better because "their" blacks were not enslaved, but they still held the firm belief (for the most part) that blacks were inferior.

When Alan Keys ran for the Republican Nomination for President in 2000, he faced a double whammy in the South of being boh African American and Roman Catholic. He didn't get any votes there.

He was also very far from a legitimate candidate. BUT, I will note that much of the deepest south is actually highly Roman Catholic. Jackson County, Mississippi, for example (home to Pascagoula, et al... and next to Harrison County, home of Biloxi and Jefferson Davis' home).

Ironically this is really on topic. Abortion is all about dismissing a class of people and flat out ignoring their rights. If we are all created equal and if our rights are inalienable, then they cannot be either given or taken away. The pre-born and the eldery. As Jefferson insisted life and liberty cannot be disjoined. As long as there is life there is a right to liberty.

African Americans aren't people, Papists aren't people, pre-born aren't people ... these are all false arguments which any moral person should fight with every fiber of their being.

You are half right. The difference is that in this case, medicine backs up the beliefs. Wherease medical science proves there is no real difference between races, other than skin and hair ...and that those are so arbitrary within humanity as to be invalid, with fetal life, there is an absolute difference between the 4 cells that make up a fertilized egg and the 7 month, all but fully formed child. What is in question is not whether a bunch of cells will become human, but at what point they become human. This is as much a religious question -- a question of when the soul enters the body -- as it is a medical one. Still, there IS a question, whereas with race, there never was a real and serious question for anyone who actually looked at the data.

I find it extremely hypocritical that on the one hand, we use the utmost of science to discover and preserve life. Yet, use the Bible as the backdrop. The REAL truth is that God does not "always choose life" as the Roman Catholic (and note ... catholic, small "c" refers also to Protestant churches) church claims.

[jiminski]

In re your tangible benefit bollocks; slavery had huge tangible benefits for the US economy. Did this make it any less immoral? No, it made it moral and practical, but didn't re-inforce it's morailty.

That can certainly be debated. It was debated even back in the day; federalists like Hamilton were strongly attacking the very notion that the whole system that underlined that "peculiar institution" was helping the economy of the new nation. Slavery is, for all practical purposes a byproduct of the agrarian landed nobility mentality. This mindset opposed federalism, opposed the creation of strong federal financial institutions and kept the south from moving into an industrial mindset. Ironically it took a man from the industrial north, Eli Whitney, to add enough industry to make the cotton trade a viable enterprise which then in turn justified the need for continued slavery in the South.

hmm not really, the point he was making was about benefit of slavery being equatable to using the morning-after pill as argument to refute 'utility' for a whole society. (Putting abortion to one side as it is a far less certain a debate, with many different implications based upon the foetuses stage of development. It is 'convenient' for clarity to ignore abortion for a moment. However as Nappy perceives the 2 as the same it should be acceptable for this section of localised debate.)

The reason that these 2 issues are not equatable is that:
- One looks to the 'debatable' benefit to the whole of society!
- The other Looks to the benefit to a dominant section of society, at the direct expense of another section of society.

I suppose you may say that the foetus does represent a section of humanity but certainly not society; at the point where sperm meets egg, it does not have much to contribute to either! It is little more than a collection of genetic material which has begun a minuscule biological transition.. no consciousness, no nothing.


Now Nappy already stated that different stages on the road to human creation have different values* therefore surely a fully conscious, sentient black slave is not to be compared to 2 cells conjoined!?

By any measure of Libertarian doctrine this is not compatible with acceptable utilitarianism!
Napps peculiar, perpetual diminishment of Black slaves, as a valuable factor for consideration, troubles me .. however we will put it down to a desire to win the debate.

Now putting that to one side, the burden rests upon me to indicate why post conception birth-control has 'Utility' for the whole of humanity. (*He somewhat precluded the argument for planetary resources being diminished thus causing humanities demise. Although he does not agree with Condoms and other contraception, he has conceded that that particular debate can not be won based in logical terms. i accept your having taken them out.)

Therefore he has carefully left me to argue on the social impact of unplanned pregnancy…. after all the title of the thread is Abortion!

Well it is not easy to deliver cast-iron proof on this and i am not going to glean Statistics from the endless net sources.

I am sure that without the need for malleable stats we can agree that it is not generally beneficial to be a child born to a single, 15 year old mother (My one and only Stat: 90% of teen pregnancies are unplanned, 90% live on welfare). Both Child and Mother have greater propensity to poverty and low education, which in turn maintains a cycle of poverty, hopelessness and ‘anti-social behaviour’.

I am fairly certain most will accept this. So taking out the emotional tragedy of abortion, it comes down to the Question - which is of greater benefit to humanity: Abortion or its abolition?

This becomes a value judgement based upon perceived Utility-

As the Foetus is not conscious, the only really true argument against abortion is the affect on the collective-conscience of the sum society. Do we lose our humanity by ‘terminating’ the Foetus? (we should not call this murder; Murder is a debatable/subjective term only made cast iron by the law! Are deaths perpetrated by soldiers murder? Is capital punishment? Well perhaps but the term is emotive and not helpful at this point.)


As an aside; if we are to believe that Nappies motivation is that All life must be protected... how do we rationalise the death penalty?

The Death Penalty is just retribution, vindicates the Law and may act as a deterrent.

Sounds like a value judgement based upon perceived Utility.

The counter argument to the Death Penalty is also made on that basis – my argument is that the negative influence that state sanctioned ‘termination’ has upon the nature of society, outweighs any benefit which retribution or deterrent has.
Further, that as violence begets violence, it creates an atmosphere which nurtures the violence endemic to the human condition.

And perhaps the most important factor against the Death penalty: The State is supposed to represent the best within humanity! It is supposed to be objective and Just; the measure for us to live up to!
For a state to feel the need for retaliation, particularly upon its own smallest parts, is counter-intuitive and uncivilised.


Now could this argument be used to counter Abortion? Very probably!
But the point comes down to does a ‘possible’ Murderer have more rights than 2 or a collection of cells? (to the age at which the law dictates a viable foetus)
Personally I believe so; the murderer is self aware.. he feels pain, he has conscience and I may add- he has the facility to repent and be rehabilitated.

The collection of cells, although without personal err against humanity, has none of these. All it is is potential.

Hard though that is for me to say; given a position where an individual mother is driven to ponder the death of the thing she is created to create, I would say the unborn child has the greatest potential to suffer and lessen the total happiness and Utility to humanity.
And the fact that it does not yet know happiness or suffering, sadly means that the balance is heavily tipped... in purely, Libertarian, Utilitarian terms!



Now saying all of that, Abortion is a horrendous option. It is a moral dilemma which I would not wish for society to face. What is needed is education to negate the need for it except in the most extreme circumstance.

[tzor]

That was rather well written. Do you feel the same way about death row inmates and political leaders with crimes against humanity?

For the most part yes. As long as there is an effective system where true criminals can be contained and prevented from committing more henous crimes then that should be the most effective form of punishment and deterrant. The death penalty has a number of problems associated with it; the death of the innocent, the creation of a "martyr" figure, and the notion that once you get the highest penalty possible anything more you can do is in fact done without penalty.

[Neoteny]

That was rather well written. Do you feel the same way about death row inmates and political leaders with crimes against humanity?

For the most part yes. As long as there is an effective system where true criminals can be contained and prevented from committing more henous crimes then that should be the most effective form of punishment and deterrant. The death penalty has a number of problems associated with it; the death of the innocent, the creation of a "martyr" figure, and the notion that once you get the highest penalty possible anything more you can do is in fact done without penalty.

Fair enough. I can't really argue with that. I assume we possess different definitions of humanity, and that's all it comes down to on this issue. That's rather boring.

[tzor]

You are half right. The difference is that in this case, medicine backs up the beliefs. Wherease medical science proves there is no real difference between races, other than skin and hair ...and that those are so arbitrary within humanity as to be invalid, with fetal life, there is an absolute difference between the 4 cells that make up a fertilized egg and the 7 month, all but fully formed child. What is in question is not whether a bunch of cells will become human, but at what point they become human.

Yes there is a difference between the embryo and the "all but fully formed child." But there is very little difference between the "all but fully formed child" a few hours before birth and the "all but fully formed child" a few minutes after birth. Both of these facts seem to point out that both absolute sides don't have much to stand on. Yet again the whole question is far to vague, what is "human" in the first place? What is sentient? is being or is potential for being important? Is a person in a comma less or more human because they have the potential to come out of it and resume a sentient conscious state?

This is where you need to form general zones of being. The embryo is distinct from the emplanted embryo, the fetus is distinct from the developed (pain feeling) fetus, is distinct from the pre-viable child who is starting to feel andhear the world around it and is reacting to it, and which is distinct to the clearly viable but pre-born child. Morally all is a loss, abortions at any stage, natural or man made diminishes us all and the bell tolls for everyone. Then practical consierations must be considered and addressed because for better or worse we all live in the real world.

[PLAYER57832]

You are half right. The difference is that in this case, medicine backs up the beliefs. Wherease medical science proves there is no real difference between races, other than skin and hair ...and that those are so arbitrary within humanity as to be invalid, with fetal life, there is an absolute difference between the 4 cells that make up a fertilized egg and the 7 month, all but fully formed child. What is in question is not whether a bunch of cells will become human, but at what point they become human.

Yes there is a difference between the embryo and the "all but fully formed child." But there is very little difference between the "all but fully formed child" a few hours before birth and the "all but fully formed child" a few minutes after birth. Both of these facts seem to point out that both absolute sides don't have much to stand on. Yet again the whole question is far to vague, what is "human" in the first place? What is sentient? is being or is potential for being important? Is a person in a comma less or more human because they have the potential to come out of it and resume a sentient conscious state?

This is where you need to form general zones of being. The embryo is distinct from the emplanted embryo, the fetus is distinct from the developed (pain feeling) fetus, is distinct from the pre-viable child who is starting to feel andhear the world around it and is reacting to it, and which is distinct to the clearly viable but pre-born child. Morally all is a loss, abortions at any stage, natural or man made diminishes us all and the bell tolls for everyone. Then practical consierations must be considered and addressed because for better or worse we all live in the real world.

Except, that is a religious issue as much as a medical one.

And, I can GAURANTEE that things look a lot different when it is you, your child or your wife. I never have liked abortion. But, laws are for everyone, not just me.

In the real world, we all have different values. In the real world, some children are not born "OK". In the real world, some children are not wanted. And, in the real world, as painful as it is to admit, some children really are better off not being born.

I find it interesting that some of the same people who want abortions criminallized are the same ones who take issue with raising the minimum wage, who would like to get rid of welfare ... etc.

[tzor]

Except, that is a religious issue as much as a medical one.

And, I can GAURANTEE that things look a lot different when it is you, your child or your wife. I never have liked abortion. But, laws are for everyone, not just me.

In the real world, we all have different values. In the real world, some children are not born "OK". In the real world, some children are not wanted. And, in the real world, as painful as it is to admit, some children really are better off not being born.

I find it interesting that some of the same people who want abortions criminallized are the same ones who take issue with raising the minimum wage, who would like to get rid of welfare ... etc.

It is not much a "religious" issue as a human rights issue. Most religions tend to be big on the human rights issue.

Note it is always a bad idea to talk in absolutes. So let's talk in generalities. There are many children who die because of abortion. Not all these children have terrible life threatening and quality of life screwing problems. There are also many who want children. They want them so badly that they have to look to foreign countries for children for adoption. Are there some children who are "better off not being born?" I have no clue. I've never not been born so I can't say. As the old saying goes, "life sucks, but it's better than the alternative."

OK on the side issues. As I always say I can't speak for others and every group has those wacky people who you only tollerate because you need them for the bigger issue. I generally take issue with the minimum wage for this reason only ... as long as there is a potential supply of illegal labor it is possible to get workers below the minimum wage. I don't want to get rid of welfare but I don't want it to be a trap or a prison. Even retired people should get out and do something because that's good for a person's overall health. Oh by the way,I do admit that I do tend to appreciate and overuse the etc. I also love ...

[Snorri1234]

I think she was talking about others though, like Nappy.

[strike wolf]

As much as I detest the idea of getting an abortion, now of days I do feel there are situations where it is justified, mainly cases where the woman was raped (afterall, who would want to raise the child of the man who raped you?) or when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. However, I feel that an abortion is just a small step a way from killing a living human being. I don't think it matters whether it's sentient when they get the abortion as it is something that is on it's way to being sentient. You can argue that we are really not killing a life but ultimately we are killing someone's chance at life.

[Napoleon Ier]

Except, that is a religious issue as much as a medical one.

And, I can GAURANTEE that things look a lot different when it is you, your child or your wife. I never have liked abortion. But, laws are for everyone, not just me.

In the real world, we all have different values. In the real world, some children are not born "OK". In the real world, some children are not wanted. And, in the real world, as painful as it is to admit, some children really are better off not being born.

I find it interesting that some of the same people who want abortions criminallized are the same ones who take issue with raising the minimum wage, who would like to get rid of welfare ... etc.

Really? So do I...you want to know why that is? Because we accept the inherent value of the human being and the rights he has, both to live, and carry out transactions and capitalist acts with other consenting parties as he sees fit without the government interfering in this.

Nozick's essential dichotomization of political ideology into that of "power", of which yours is a subset, and whereby the individual is subjugated and fused into a societal position for the arbitrarily defined collective good, and into that of "liberty", of which line is a subset, where civilized society is preconditioned by respect for the rights of individuals and where coercive activity directed at achieving indirect greater goods is perceived as a usurpation and tyranny.

Those who view the foetus as less-than-human have at least some form of basis for their argument, but objectively, and eliminating intellectual terrorizations through use of extravagant personal anecdote, your theory on abortion can be extended to a encompassing a wider principle, surmised thus:

murder is acceptable iff it benefits the collective good of society

The extent, as you go to great lengths to prove, may only be the unborn, but that is the fundamental intent of your theory.

There can be no doubt in a civilized person's mind that this is a barbarous principle which attacks the very foundations of decent society, and it must be rejected out of hand.

[Snorri1234]

murder is acceptable iff it benefits the collective good of society

Like war and the death penalty.

[Napoleon Ier]

murder is acceptable iff it benefits the collective good of society

Like war and the death penalty.

Replace the word "murder" by "killing", and yes, you have some grounds for justifying war and capital punishment. I however, consider justification of killing on induced potential societal benefit an extremely dangerous and Marxisto-dialectic materialist worldview.

I prefer to view war as justifiable only to uphold the principle of human rights, and capital punishment as being a retributive and vindicative act (not as a deterrent, though such a positive externality of implenting Justice may exist).

[PLAYER57832]

Except, that is a religious issue as much as a medical one.

And, I can GAURANTEE that things look a lot different when it is you, your child or your wife. I never have liked abortion. But, laws are for everyone, not just me.

In the real world, we all have different values. In the real world, some children are not born "OK". In the real world, some children are not wanted. And, in the real world, as painful as it is to admit, some children really are better off not being born.

I find it interesting that some of the same people who want abortions criminallized are the same ones who take issue with raising the minimum wage, who would like to get rid of welfare ... etc.

It is not much a "religious" issue as a human rights issue. Most religions tend to be big on the human rights issue.

Call it what you like. Do the rights of the potential child outweigh the rights of the living mother? THAT is the tricky question. And, before you answer, recognize that controlling women's reproduction has been a prime source of men controlling and dominating women. "Keep her barefoot and pregnant" is not just a distastful joke, it is still the reality for many women. Do you know that the woman who invented the pill, for example, did so because she saw married woman after woman coming into her office either abused because she was pregnant Or sick/dying from complications from too many pregnancies or pregnancies that were medically ill-advised due to the health of the mother.

As for the "watonness of youth", prevalence of premarital sex... yes, it did increase with the pill. BUT, and this is a pretty big "but", again, the question is whether someone else has the right to dictate the morals of others in this matter.

The REAL truth is that the number of unwanted pregnancies has decreased since the introductin of the pill and since abortion has been legalized. This has had profound affects on everyone. THAT is the main reason why people must go overseas, often, to seek healthy babies to adopt.

Note it is always a bad idea to talk in absolutes.

True, but the absolutes here are pretty definite and not really where this discussion is centered. I don't think anyone sane really believes (despite Nappy's claims to the contrary) that late term abortions should occur "on demand". Nor should abortions to save the life of the mother, her future reproductive health or to remove an already dead child be prohibited.

The rest ... at what point a group of cells becomes a child, how severely injured a child must be to before abortion is a sane alternative to attempting birth.... those are all "grey areas" and subject to a whole range of opinion. Fundamentally, it is that very divergence of opinion that proves this is NOT such a straightforward issue as some would like to claim. Further, the evidence used in support of the idea that life is life at EVERY stage ... is a religious idea, and in no way a universally accepted idea. Human rights to which you refer ARE different.

The primary objectors to abortion are Christians & moslems. Christian Fundamentalists and the Roman Catholic Church, and fundamentalist moslems. (and I have to say there is a supreme irony in a group of men who will never be fathers feeling that they can fully and completely understand what is involved in pregnancy and childbirth!)

There are many children who die because of abortion. Not all these children have terrible life threatening and quality of life screwing problems.

Within the first trimester, yes. After that, the number of truly healthy children aborted is very, very low.... (despite Napoleon's claims to the contrary). And, in those cases the health and ability of the mother to carry the baby to term ... whether for strict physical reasons or mental/emotional reasons is seriously in question. It matters not if a mother-to-be dies of suicide, at the hand of an abusive parent/boyfriend or of a physicial impairment, they are still just as dead. And, sometimes allowing a woman to abort under those circumstances is the best (perhaps only) way to allow at least one to survive.

That is the part that is missing.... along with the absolute medical dilemmas, that just carrying a baby is extremely trying emotionally. AND, the more we learn about hormones and such, the more we realize that a mother who is NOT happy about her baby, who is not eating properly, not doing the number of other things that help promote fetal health... all of these things make a "positive outcome" less probable. There is a MILE of difference between even a teen who discovers she is pregnant, is scared, BUT finds help, has people to whom she can turn, is able to see options and one who does not. Just because a child is a surprise and the mother was not really wanting to get pregnant doesn't meant that child is unwanted. Even a mother who is willing to carry her child to term and then give it up for adoption has to have some love for that child.

As for the first trimester ... if there is a good education program in place, if birth control is available, there will be fewer unwanted pregnances and abortions. At this point it is a moral issue.

BUT, per Nappy's claim that laws limit abortions. A NOVA program from a few years ago showed Italy as a contrary example. In Italy, one cannot get birth control. Abortions are not supposed to be legal, but for some reason (I think because as a medical procedure, it is easier to disguise than a percription), abortion is the most commong form of control.

There are also many who want children. They want them so badly that they have to look to foreign countries for children for adoption.

On the surface, adoption might seem like a viable alternative. BUT, you have to keep a few things in mind. First, let me clarify that I firmly believe ... and the LAW specifies that abortions after the first trimester must be for medically valid reasons. We can debate what constitutes "medically valid", but I firmly believe that is an issue best left up to the mother, her docter and whatever counselors or clergy are available. Husbands and parents are somewhat grey areas that require a full discussion onto themselves, but I will say that the protection laws .. the laws that make a minor girl autonomous in this matter have to do with a long-standing practice of serious abuse by some parents. A friend of mine, when I was in high school successfully hid her pregnancy (this was the time of those poofed out shirts ... cannot remember the name) up until roughly 7 months or so. When her Dad found out, she was kicked out of the house. Her brother and sister were not even allowed to mention her name in the house. THAT is why you keep hearing of desperate teens who have a baby and then abandon them.

Also, as per your reference of girls with complications (made earlier). This is a prime reason to give girls and women each ready access to SAFE abortions. The the incidence of those injuries ... injuries from bad abortions was so very, very high BEFORE the Roe decision that nurses of the day, including my grandmother, were in support of legalization. Now, that number has been so highly reduced that the numbers of injuries to the mother from poorly performed abortions is minimal .. at least in legal facilities. (some states are so restrictive or require so much expense that chop shops are coming back) AS for the argument that if parents don't know of hte complications, the doctors won't be able to treat them properly. Sorry, but one of the first thing you are taught in emergeny medicine is to consider that ANY female under about 70 and over 8 might be pregnant, might be experiencing problems without their knowing and that it is best not to just trust the woman ... mostly because they might not know. In the case of abortion, there is evidence. Are there a few isolated cases where that didn't happen? Probably, but the key is isolated. And, again, this is as much an argument for better doctors (which you did make) as an argument against abortions.

And, on that topic .. the "better doctors" part, you get back to the old medical costs issue as well ... soemthing covered well in other threads, so I will just mention it as important to the debate here, rather than actually getting into the cost issues. If it costs more, that can drive girls and women to unregulated clinics almost as surely as a prohibition law.

Are there some children who are "better off not being born?" I have no clue. I've never not been born so I can't say. As the old saying goes, "life sucks, but it's better than the alternative."

Sometimes. But if you were in constant pain.... if you had NO use of your arms and legs or head muscles. If you were born without a brain (there is enough in the brain stem to keep one breathing and "living" without a brain). If you were born into an extremely abusive home, etc. (and note, the last is a major cause of juvenile delinquency ... so a societal problem, not just individual).

Bottom line: This is an individual choice, not up to legislators.

OK on the side issues. As I always say I can't speak for others and every group has those wacky people who you only tollerate because you need them for the bigger issue. I generally take issue with the minimum wage for this reason only ... as long as there is a potential supply of illegal labor it is possible to get workers below the minimum wage. I don't want to get rid of welfare but I don't want it to be a trap or a prison. Even retired people should get out and do something because that's good for a person's overall health. Oh by the way,I do admit that I do tend to appreciate and overuse the etc. I also love ...

This really wasn't directed at you. Sorry if you thought it was.

[suggs]

Awful lot of guff, there Player. Whats your point?
Try and keep your feminsit garbage out of this.

ps my main point can be viewed in the latest post in "Hot and Sexy".I think you'll find it educational, Player.

[Napoleon Ier]

Within the first trimester, yes. After that, the number of truly healthy children aborted is very, very low.... (despite Napoleon's claims to the contrary).

And you can tell it's true, because she's written it on the intrawebs, and not preceded it by the acronym 'LOL'.