The mod in me wants to warn him not to personally attack posters. The women's rights segment of me wants to look the other way. The gay rights part of me wants to look the other way.
Mod got out voted. Just... cool it with the personal attacks Wonderbra, he can have whatever opinions he wants. No matter how insensitive and bigoted it is... >.>
~Rico
(replaces the anti-sex with anti-abortion)
Better.
I still can't see how an average of 8,905,882 aborted babies a year globally can be seen as a good thing.
This is simple. You've run into a logical flaw in anti-murder rules. Who gets protected? Your answer, if you say anybody, will necessarily be a compromise with senseless and non-universal boundaries.
Calling for zygote protection makes about as much sense as calling for sperm and egg protection.
But saying that it's not alive 5 minutes before it's born but is alive after doesn't make a lot of sense either.
I'm killing an infinite number of future people every time I do anything, so I'm a mass murderer.
The best compromise is to make graduated levels of protection depending on brain development. Of course this will also be arbitrary and runs into the other question, why should the government have the right to make such arbitrary definitions and legally prosecute people who don't agree with them?
So my answer is that such protections would have to be VERY VERY loose, and would probably have little difference from the legality of abortion now, except to be more fair.
Do you believe that politicians should be able to dictate definitions of what makes a person?
To err on the side of liberty is the correct choice.
Replies
Quote:
I still can't see how an average of 8,905,882 aborted babies a year globally can be seen as a good thing.
So you would create more social problems with these aborted babies, causing more deaths of people who are actually conscious.
And your statistics almost certainly include zygotes, etc., which I don't see any reason why we should care about.
Quote:
This is why I believe in abstinence-based sex education, instead of one focused on condoms, birth control, and 'safe sex'.
It's just absurdly obvious that you're trying to push your own religion onto education. Nobody says that unless they're trying to push religion, because it's absolutely ridiculous. How about making education something to educate and inform? I'm going to accept that you see your religion as fact, so you might consider that education, but abstinence is not the only method of contaception. Therefore education on the subject should include multiple ideas and let people decide for themselves.
Quote:
I am against using abortion as birth control. There are so many contraception methods that abortion really could be a much rarer event.
In cases of rape, incest, the idea of abortion becomes much more defensible. I do not want women to become victims twice, first raped then forced to carry the child.
So I support empowering women with knowlege and support before they start having sex, so that they start in control and stay in control without having to go through something like an abortion. Of course there are conditions where abortions are medically necessary.
And this I agree with, as would most people. Of course being against using it as birth control as a personal opinion doesn't mean I want it to be illegal, because that's government intrusion. But on the subject of contraception and empowering, that brings me to an idea.
People seriously need to be sterilized or learn contraception. There are too many, and a lot of them aren't planned. I was planned, and thanks to that I had a lot of advantages.
If education isn't enough, there should be research into safe reversible sterilization that would only allow people to conceive when they want to and have done something to turn it off. That may not sound immediately feasible, but somehow I think it might become possible faster than all cultures evolve to stop overpopulation.
Quote:
Of course, my dear SX and Ultra, I have the utmost respect for your disagreement with abortions; and I believe you should both feel free to stand up and express this right by not having an abortion.
Speaking of Republicans, note how quiet they've been about abortion since it's not an election. It's all a campaign issue to Republican politicians.
Note how they refuse to support late term abortion restrictions unless those restrictions don't include exceptions for the mother's health. This means their "attempts" at such laws get shot down so that they can continue to campaign on it. Of course, they could just support such a bill, which would easily pass, and if they really had a good reason try support a bill to cancel health exceptions... but such a bill would expose how ridiculous such a position is, and no sane politician would vote for it. So why be against health exceptions in the first place? Either they really are that barbaric, or the whole thing is a political ruse.
Quote:
Do you believe that politicians should be able to dictate definitions of what makes a person?
I believe that Roe Vs. Wade be overturned and abortion should be a matter left to the people. It SHOULD be a states' rights issue to begin with. A matter for the people to settle, not the federal government.
Quote:
It's just absurdly obvious that you're trying to push your own religion onto education. Nobody says that unless they're trying to push religion, because it's absolutely ridiculous. How about making education something to educate and inform? I'm going to accept that you see your religion as fact, so you might consider that education, but abstinence is not the only method of contaception.
It's also absurdly obvious that abstinence has no chance of failing compared to a condom, the pill, and other contraceptives. It all comes down to willpower in abstinence.
I haven't mentioned religion once in this entire topic. It just seems quite clear that teenagers shouldn't be having sex - even if it is protected - because there is the possibility a child will be conceived. Raising a child as teenagers is an infinitely more risky proposition than raising a child as adults, because adults tend to have a more secure financial base than teenagers.
The teenagers could get an abortion, but then that would most likely lead to the stress and trauma that comes after the fact (as I've pointed out repeatedly).
Quote:
Calling for zygote protection makes about as much sense as calling for sperm and egg protection.
Yeah, I'd have to be prosecuted for all these years I've had my period and didn't conceive if we were ever that strict. I mean, every time I let my egg not come in contact with sperm and let it end up in the garbage I have basically "killed" a potential life.
Quote:
I believe that Roe Vs. Wade be overturned and abortion should be a matter left to the people. It SHOULD be a states' rights issue to begin with. A matter for the people to settle, not the federal government.
This is the part I don't understand. How is it not a states' right issue now considering every state in the U.S. has different laws concerning abortion and its availability? The federal courts/government do insist that an exception for the women's health be included in a state law so states that have their abortion laws challenged are usually told to amend it if that exception is not included.
Quote:
It's also absurdly obvious that abstinence has no chance of failing compared to a condom, the pill, and other contraceptives. It all comes down to willpower in abstinence.
The Virgin Mary gave birth to baby Jesus!!!11 Oh noes @ abstinence.
Quote:
Yeah, I'd have to be prosecuted for all these years I've had my period and didn't conceive if we were ever that strict. I mean, every time I let my egg not come in contact with sperm and let it end up in the garbage I have basically "killed" a potential life.
I can help you with that problem dear 
for together we can make sweet sweet burgers.
contact me at
the_burger_king [at] hotmail.co.uk
(new email as I am running for king in the uk :D)
First of all babies become people. People become idiots... or smart in rare cases or acrio. Plus its not like the fetus cares that much for life. It probaly would of been an emo anyways and commited suicide. Also god climbed up maries womb and surgicly attached jesus, who was not yet a super saiya-jin, to her.
Ultra, I just love how you completely ignored my statistics on the adoption thing. You rock, man.
Quote:
Yeah, I'd have to be prosecuted for all these years I've had my period and didn't conceive if we were ever that strict. I mean, every time I let my egg not come in contact with sperm and let it end up in the garbage I have basically "killed" a potential life.
There's a difference there; even though the egg cells existed, there's no sperm there because there was no sexual intercourse, which would be necessary for childbirth in the first place.
Quote:
This is the part I don't understand. How is it not a states' right issue now considering every state in the U.S. has different laws concerning abortion and its availability? The federal courts/government do insist that an exception for the women's health be included in a state law so states that have their abortion laws challenged are usually told to amend it if that exception is not included.
What I mean is that Roe vs. Wade paved the way for legalized abortion through all nine months in all 50 states. It should be left up to the individual states and the people; for instance, a state like New York would keep its abortion laws, while a state like Texas might decide to have no legalized abortion.
Besides, the 10th amendment leaves matters not granted jurisdiction by the federal government to the states anyway.
Quote:
Ultra, I just love how you completely ignored my statistics on the adoption thing. You rock, man.
Speaking of adoption, I have to say that education would go a long way to allowing more adoptions by parents (thus allowing the children to be placed in a private home instead of a public orphanage; I think they'd take the former anyday). According to this, 81.5 million American adults have considered adoption. If only one in 500 adopted a child, the 134,000 children in foster care waiting for adoption (as of 2002) would be placed in private homes with parental support.
All of the information of this adoption study points that Americans are showing a growing interest in adoption.
Also, it should be noted that out of all adoptions, few are ever disrupted or dissolved. A note of interest would be that the rate of infant adoption disruption is less than 1%. For children from 12-18, it's 13.5%.
Now imagine what would happen if the children that grew up in a foster care or orphanage had instead grown up in a home. Do you think many (if not all) of the problems of the foster care system you cited would have occured in such a tremendous capacity?
Also, on finalized adoption numbers from foster care for 1998, take a gander at the bottom. States that showed dramatic increases in adoption numbers had the following reasons to show:
- reduced caseloads of workers
- streamlined court processes
- state laws that limited the time children spend in foster care
- administrative reforms where more staff were assigned to moving children to permanence
- an increased focus on terminating rights of parents where reunification was not possible
- expanded recruitment activity
- the creation of adoption specialist positions
All in all Cycle, I would have to agree with the numbers you posted in the fact that people who grow up alone in the foster care system would have a worse chance at life than children that were adopted into private homes (and preferably early). It's kind of like saying that a guy who works at McDonald's makes less money than the CEO of a large company.
Quote:
Relying on adoption to replace birth control would be like relying on private charity to end world hunger.
Birth control is here to stay (unfortunately). However, people who DO use birth control should know that there's always the chance their contraceptives will fail...and it does, and they don't want the baby, put him/her up for adoption instead of aborting him/her.
Vec, stop trying to be logical about this. You know noone else is. 
~Rico
If your just going to give the baby up straight away...
It's not, it really ISNT.
I say we make Ultra have a baby. A big one. Cj's.
But that would be rape and of our own arguements Abortion should be an option in cases of rape. o.o
Wait, what? Having a baby is rape now?
No, SX is saying if you MADE Ultra have a baby THAT would be rape...
Still I stand by three points:
Unborn babies arent alive so it isn't murder
Pregnancy isnt worth going through if your going to give up the child straight away
If you ban abortion people will do it anyway, but end up hurting themselve because they'll do it illegally and things are more likely to go wrong.
Basically here's what it comes down to:
- Whether or not abortions are legal, there will be abortions.
- We don't have the social services to take care of all the unwanted children that are born now.
- We have to choose some point at which a child becomes "alive," and the vast, vast majority of the medical community puts it some time in the second or third trimester. This is like when we decide to "err on the side of life" and keep a woman with half a brain alive on a feeding tube for a couple decades.
- Bringing children into the world with severe mental disabilities is not a kindness. I would choose to not be born rather than be born with a sub-80 IQ; obviously, not everyone feels the same way, but who better to make that decision than the parents?
Quite. Things like that, I can see abortions happening. I wouldn't want to be literally retarded, and I would not want to bear a retarded child. So thing slike that, sure, I can see.
But abortion because you're too damn irresposible to not just, I dunno, spermicide or condom or pill or abstinence or surgery or any other number of options? No.
What swift said. Cycle's was a little extreme but sadly its correct.
Quote:
But abortion because you're too damn irresposible to not just, I dunno, spermicide or condom or pill or abstinence or surgery or any other number of options?
No.
I'm saying people SHOULDNT use those things, even I think it's sickening to not use condoms just because you think, "Nah, I'll have an abortion further down the line." but I doubt many women DO think that, abortion is a harrowing experience and I expect the mothers would rather not have one, but sometimes its needed. But even for the people who don't use contraception, whether it was deliberate or just a mistake, they should still be ALLOWED to use abortion as a last ditch effort...
There just ISNT a managable system that we could implement to make sure that people did use condoms or the Pill, so that people only got an Abortion if they deserved it (Ie. the contraceptives failing)... And I say deserve it from your point of view, not mine, as far as I'm concerned an abortion is called for if the child is on it's way and its neither wanted, needed or has good prospects...
I mean can you imagine the doctor saying before every operation; "Did you use a condom?"
They'd just say yes, you wouldn't be able to check or enforce such a rule.
You just cant do it, and I don't think it's fair to take the possibility away from anyone. You can do what Ultras suggestion and enforce better education, better awareness, better whatever but you CANT, SHOULDNT and hopefully WONT remove abortion as an option.
And, if what I've seen of people wanting knee surgery is anything to go by, if you ban abortion in the US you'll get a hell of a lot of women takin a short trip oversees for an emergency medical operation...
Quote:
I wouldn't want to be literally retarded, and I would not want to bear a retarded child. So thing slike that, sure, I can see.
That's a VERY dangerous line of thinking SX. Down that line of thought lies...
-Euthanizing children with birth defects, mental or physical.
-Euthanization of old people, cripples, and people with defects. (Beethoven would've been euthanized because he was deaf.)
-Finally, the euthanization of adults that have 'nothing to offer to society', aka the homeless, jobless, or people of different religions or races.
It sounds unrealistic. But it has happened before.
Quote:
You can do what Ultras suggestion and enforce better education, better awareness, better whatever but you CANT, SHOULDNT and hopefully WONT remove abortion as an option.
Abortion is an option that should only be an absolute LAST resort. As the article I pointed out earlier indicates, a lot of doctors in abortion clinics don't notify women of alternatives to abortion (because then they'd lose the money given.).
Proper education about alternatives to abortion and the risks of having sex before you're ready to bear a child will lead to less abortions that are deemed 'necessary'.
Here's an old article from the Washington Times. It required an ID to access it (it's from 2000), so I'll just cut and paste it here.
Quote:
The Washington Times
The sisterhood, 27 years later
January 24, 2000Barbara Curtis
Twenty-seven years ago, nine black-robed men handed feminists a triumph that would try our souls, and - I have come to believe - find them wanting.
On Jan. 22, 1973, when the "Sisterhood is Powerful" crowd rejoiced at the outcome of Roe vs. Wade, I was with them - a Washington radical feminist scholar/abortion rights advocate, much in demand as a spokeswoman by virtue of my motherhood. After all, who better to illustrate the righteous need for abortion than a young woman with a future, already encumbered by a 3-year-old in day care?
Five years later in San Francisco, that same little girl clutched my hand as we struggled against the chilly Van Ness Avenue wind on our way to some euphemistically styled "women's health clinic."
"Samantha," I explained, ever the politically vigilant parent, "Mommy is pregnant. But since Jasmine's only 2 and I'm not married anymore, this just isn't a good time to have a baby. We're lucky women have a choice."
I was proud of the legacy we would leave my daughter's generation. Thanks to the second wave of feminism, abortion was now available, accessible and not much worse than a trip to the dentist. Paid for by the state of California, to boot. And on the morning of my own abortion, I was feeling a little extra righteous. After years of posturing and sloganeering, I finally had an opportunity to demonstrate my core beliefs - like a rite of passage.
Or a sacrament.
And in the 27 years since Roe vs. Wade, isn't that what it's now become? Consider the sacred ground around abortion temples, free speech suspended so as not to hinder partaking of the ritual within and abortion providers occupying pedestals for their noble efforts. Heretics dare not blaspheme by calling a fetus a baby or what happens to it murder. And as though in the grip of a state religion, the media use only sanctioned terms: pro-choice, reproductive rights, products of conception.
Consider: While every other political group is permitted to baptize itself and demonstrate publicly, those who call themselves pro-life are branded by the media anti-abortion extremists and charged with racketeering.
But who's extreme? For all the left's vaunted respect for multiculturalism, pro-abortion evangels - like missionaries of old - spend vast amounts of time, energy and taxpayer money crusading into the Third World to bring the "good news" of "family planning" to primitives whose backward belief systems stand in the way of their salvation. Like religious zealots arriving on your doorstep when what you really need is an ambulance, they rush to ravaged lands such as Kosovo with abortion kits aplenty for those in dire need of more life-sustaining commodities such as medicine, food and water.
And what about here at home? In the United States, according to the very pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, 34 million abortions took place from 1973 to 1996. That's a million and a half per year. Who knows what genius men and women were whooshed away from our midst and with them what art, what music, what inventions, what cures.
How about it, sisters? Especially those of you who rode the crest of the second wave with me: Did you ever dream that this was where we were headed? Did you ever dream we would call a politician a friend to women - no matter how flagrantly he exploited them - as long as he continued to back abortion on demand? Did you ever dream we would enter the realms of denial required to condone a procedure in which a perfectly viable infant is pulled feet first through the birth canal until all but herhead is exposed, then stabbed in the skull to suck out her brains, delivered dead and sold to the highest bidder for body parts?
That's "a certain type of late-term procedure," according to modern feminists, who have twisted themselves like pretzels to pretend the dream did not turn into a nightmare.
Perhaps it's time to wake up and slap some cold water on our faces. Time to stop the hypocrisy, to sever the ideals of feminism - dignity for women, equal status, equal opportunity, equal pay - from what has become a religious devotion to death.
We should have listened to our mothers - the feminist ones, that is.
Susan B. Anthony, now featured on our currency, wasn't thinking of political correctness when she referred to abortion as "child murder." Nor when she wrote: "No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with her anti-slavery perspective, wrote, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Mattie Brinkerhoff said: "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
Think that one over next time you're standing in line at the grocery store - as I was recently - and overhear a teen-age girl nonchalantly discussing with a friend the abortion she's having tomorrow.
Some legacy.
As the article I pointed out earlier indicates, a lot of doctors in abortion clinics don't notify women of alternatives to abortion (because then they'd lose the money given.).
This is a textbook example of why privatized medicine is crap, but that's off-topic.
Cycle,
I agree that we have inadequate social services to deal with all the unwanted children. However that argument can also be used to support faith based community and adoption services.
I am not saying spend more or less money on abortion or social services, but more money on education. Education is not a cure all, but level of education is a good indicator of quality of life.
Jimro
I am not saying spend more or less money on abortion or social services, but more money on education. Education is not a cure all, but level of education is a good indicator of quality of life.
Hell yes.
Jimro: I am not saying spend more or less money on abortion or social services, but more money on education. Education is not a cure all, but level of education is a good indicator of quality of life.
Cycle: Hell yes.
Agreed.
Agreed.
BUT.
Ultra, you're saying I'd go to exterminate anyone not good enough? I'm right, but not Hitler right. Sheez!
I'm merely saying that maybe abortion could be an option if your own child was such. Humane kinda thing. Not that it'd be FORCED. Only China forces you to abort.
In other news...
Quote:
Mother loses 'right to know' case
Sue Axon believes parents have a right to be told
A mother has lost her court battle for a parent's "right to know" if girls are being advised on abortion.
Sue Axon, 51, of Baguley, Manchester, wanted the law changed to prevent girls under 16 getting confidential advice.Mrs Axon said she regretted having an abortion 20 years ago that caused her "guilt, shame and depression".
But the High Court rejected a review of guidelines which state terminations do not need parents' consent and doctors should respect girls' confidentiality.
Mr Justice Silber, sitting in London, said Mrs Axon, or any other parent, had no right to know unless the child decided otherwise.
Forcing a girl to tell her parents "may lead her to make a decision that she later regrets or seek the assistance of an unofficial abortionist", he added.
But the judge also warned that abortions should not be made available if the young person: lacked the maturity to understand all the advice they were given; medical professionals could not persuade her to tell her parents or every effort was made to persuade the girl to find another adult to offer support.
Mrs Axon, who has five children, also wanted parents to be told of advice or treatment in respect of sexually transmitted infections.
Her elder daughter, Joy, is pregnant and expecting a baby due on her 17th birthday on 25 March.
Her QC Philip Havers had told Mr Justice Silber she did not say that doctors could not carry out treatment without parents' consent but that she had the right to be notified.
Mrs Axon believes current guidelines "undermine" her role as a parent and infringe her parental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Quote:
That's a VERY dangerous line of thinking SX. Down that line of thought lies...
-Euthanizing children with birth defects, mental or physical.
-Euthanization of old people, cripples, and people with defects. (Beethoven would've been euthanized because he was deaf.)
-Finally, the euthanization of adults that have 'nothing to offer to society', aka the homeless, jobless, or people of different religions or races.
See Gattaca for a reasonable examination of the idea of "tailor-made" children, which would be the natural result of that route. While I have some sympathy for preventing the life of a being which would genuinely have a poor quality of life, most conditions do not warrant action.
On the topic of the legality of abortions, I believe that it should be the woman's choice, but that education is the main key - if people understand what the consequences of their actions could be, then better decisions can be made. Of course, there's a large number of cases where people who have been well educated still do things they consider stupid, and so education won't solve the problem - which leads me to prefer to allow abortion as an option (I don't think people should be punished THAT much for mistakes that are (unfortunately) relatively common) - but it should help reduce the problem, especially if children are educated while they are still young - it's often a bit late to warn them when they're even 14-15, sadly.
Anyway, this is mostly saying "I agree with a lot of what's been said already", so I'll stop repeating stuff now, and let you get back to the debate
-Finally, the euthanization of adults that have 'nothing to offer to society', aka the homeless, jobless, or people of different religions or races.
Sorry... am I the only one here who's noticed he's bracketed "people of different religions or races" under "have 'nothing to offer to society'"
Campaign away, increase awareness and lower the need for abortions...
Thats a good thing...
But ban abortions? Never...
I'm all for you to try and raise public awareness, reduce the need and risk but I REALLY couldnt stand it if you outlawed abortions unless giving birth would kill the mother or child...
And craig, that is a very interesting point.
Now who's talking like Hitler? 
Quote:
Sorry... am I the only one here who's noticed he's bracketed "people of different religions or races" under "have 'nothing to offer to society'"
I'm only speaking hypothetically from the point of view of the state. Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they had nothing to offer the Aryan society (he believed they were the reason behind German suffering. That, or he knew they'd make an effective scapegoat). Doesn't mean he was right.
Quote:
Ultra, you're saying I'd go to exterminate anyone not good enough? I'm right, but not Hitler right. Sheez!
Nope.
This is the majority of what I see.
Poster1: OMG UR TEH HILTER!!!11122244//
Poster2: No you are. *insert 8 pages of C&P from a biased article* And thats proof that you wrong and I'm right. People that don't think normally like I do are evil and murderous and rape little kids for a living.
People either making direct attacks on other posters or people making flawed blanket statements with fluff as proof and using them to generate extremist viewpoints.
You're lucky this is SHQ or I'd SHOW you hitler and ban all of you. :p
~Rico
Anyway, What SX said is right, and i agree with him.
Dont tell him what ground he can and cannot tread Ultra, from my perspective I'D rather of not existed than be born with a brain disorder, no legs or whatever, but I suspect once it had happened I'd just have to live with it. He never said that he'd rather kill disabled people, he said he's glad he's not one and would like to avoid having a kid who would be one.
He never put any threats, he posted no abuse and he told no lies. He gave a simple and honest opinion that insults nobody, in fact it's praise to people who do have the disability because it prooves that their stronger for coping with it than I or SX am.
But that's off topic.
Although it does raise an interesting question, although I am pro-abortion, I'm not pro-aborting a baby just because they dont want the baby judging by what type of baby it is.
Either your ready to have A baby or your not, so aborting it because its a son not a daughter I'm against and that kind of thing...
...
But, Ultra, unless you can produce figures prooving that 85% of abortions occure BECAUSE of simmilar arguments, there is no way I'd ever in my wildest dreams agree with banning abortion.
...
Damn, I set him a challenge, whats the bet someone discovers said document 
Quote:
He never put any threats, he posted no abuse and he told no lies.
???
Where did I say that he did?
I'm not telling SX what to think, I'm just saying that, historically, that's where that train of thought has led to, be it intentional or not.
Quote:
Damn, I set him a challenge, whats the bet someone discovers said document
In any case...
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing. (It depends; if they mean childbearing as in 'raising a child', then adoption would be just fine. OTOH, if by childbearing the figure means 'giving birth', then adoption doesn't apply.)
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby. (Put it up for adoption then.)
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child. (Just as Susan B. Anthony said, thrice guilty is he that compels the woman to do so. The abortion, that is. If the partner says no but the mother wants it, then we have a conflict of interests that either results in an abortion, a divorce, or an adoption. All are unpleasant, but adoption stings the least, as at least the baby lives.)
12.2% of women are too young {their parents or others object to the pregnancy.} (Depends. If the mother is too young to give birth, then there's no choice. If the mother IS old enough, but others say no anyway, go for adoption!)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career. (Adoption!)
7.9% of women want no (more) children. (Adoption!)
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
So...tallied up...
When compiling the minimum (mother can't afford it, mother doesn't want another child to deal with, mother thinks their careers are more important) where adoption could be a win-win decision, it comes to 40%. Compile the others were circumstances are more complex (mother is told not to keep the baby by her partner, mother is told by relatives/others not to keep the baby, mother isn't ready to raise a child)...and it comes to 91.8%
Hmm. More than 85%.
A lot of circumstances, but either way, a lot of abortions are unnecessary, even if it is a minimum.
What I DO find interesting is the least-used reason where abortions are warranted: 2.8% of woman have an abortion due to a risk to their health.
Huh. Interesting.
(goes searching)
But some people just DON't like adoption, Ultra, not to mention the whole adoption spiel Cyc posted that I can't be arsed to dig up.
Child birth is a real @#%$ too.
At least adoption gives the child a chance to live. Better than cutting the life out before the child has the chance to even live that life.
Quote:
Child birth is a real @#%$ too.
Like I said earlier, there are much greater and longer-lasting pains than childbirth. I'd also like to wager that holding your newly-born child would immediately make up for the pain of childbirth. At least, according to the words of my mother, my stepmother, and the words of other mothers I've spoken to.
In any case...
I often hear that legalizing abortion has saved women from doing back-alley abortions, and that trying to reverse Roe v. Wade would result in a return to back-alley abortions...or, as some have so eloquently put it, using a coat hangar (even though there has been no such reported case of any abortion that used a coat hangar).
This chart was used in a US Senate debate about abortion in 1981. Note that the first sharp decline in the death of women came after the discovery of Penicillin, and the total death figures hovered around 250 for the 1950s. Then came another sharp decline. The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970, sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand.
Now look at the chart carefully. The legalization of abortion should've introduced another radical decline, right? But it didn't. Why? Because the death rate of women who had illegal abortions was ALREADY incredibly low.
Now, looking back on the percentages I posted earlier...
An estimated 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be due to a risk to maternal health. A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But lets say they did for the sake of discussion. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
I'd also like to wager that holding your newly-born child would immediately make up for the pain of childbirth.
And unless you, Ultra Sonic 007, are a woman, and have had a child, you have real basis for this statement.
And you immediately disregarded the words following it.
Quote:
At least, according to the words of my mother, my stepmother, and the words of other mothers I've spoken to.
So yes, I say I do have a real basis for this statement.
Quote:
I believe that Roe Vs. Wade be overturned and abortion should be a matter left to the people. It SHOULD be a states' rights issue to begin with. A matter for the people to settle, not the federal government.
It probably should, but that has little to do with my point that politicians and voters aren't qualified to dictate to everybody what qualifies a legal person. They basically have to, to have laws, but such subjective things should always use extremely liberal definitions.
Quote:
It's also absurdly obvious that abstinence has no chance of failing compared to a condom, the pill, and other contraceptives.
Of course abstinence is the most effective. Nobody's saying that it shouldn't be part of such education (unless they're cooks). I may have misread abstinence-based as abstinence-only though. If you only mean that abstinence should be recognized as the most effective of many contraceptions, then sorry and I agree.
Quote:
I am not saying spend more or less money on abortion or social services, but more money on education. Education is not a cure all, but level of education is a good indicator of quality of life.
Agree big time. Education > government restrictions. And would do a LOT more on the issue of abortions than some law which would just lead to them being done illegally and causing more stress for the mothers.
And you immediately disregarded the words following it.
Kind of annoying, Isn't it?
Quote:
I'd also like to wager that holding your newly-born child would immediately make up for the pain of childbirth.
And then you have to give it away. =D
Quote:
I may have misread abstinence-based as abstinence-only though. If you only mean that abstinence should be recognized as the most effective of many contraceptions, then sorry and I agree.
That's what I was saying; by abstinence-based, I mean a sex education where abstinence is a highlight, as teenagers having sexual relations at their age can lead to a whole dose of problems. Even though contraceptives exist, I think that the existence of contraceptives allows for the mindset of teenage 'safe sex' to exist in the first place.
Teach why abstinence works. Teach that sex at a young age leads to problems. Make note that contraceptives such as condoms and the pill exist, but are not foolproof. Couple that with the biological and anatomical aspect of human intercourse, and you have a comprehensive (and, ironically, a TRULY safe) sex education.
Quote:
And then you have to give it away. =D
Do I even have to say that the mothers I mentioned ended up keeping their children?
Adoption > Abortion
Or in other words:
Life > Death
That wouldn't really apply to your "25.5% of women... (Adoption!)" though would it?
Like I said earlier:
It depends; if they mean childbearing as in 'raising a child', then adoption would be just fine. OTOH, if by childbearing the figure means 'giving birth', then adoption doesn't apply.
All in all, I believe that foster care and orphanage centers need to be more properly maintained to make adoption a more attractive alternative to abortion.
But apparently (and unfortunately), Stalin was right about one thing.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
I was commenting on how ridiculous it is to expect women to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to a child just to put it into the crowded adoption system, rather than abort the foetus whilst it's still undeveloped.
It's even more ridiculous that millions of people never got the chance to live.
Then you'd better avert your eyes from the tissues in my bedroom waste bin.
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing. (It depends; if they mean childbearing as in 'raising a child', then adoption would be just fine.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby. (Put it up for adoption then.)
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child. (Just as Susan B. Anthony said, thrice guilty is he that compels the woman to do so. The abortion, that is. If the partner says no but the mother wants it, then we have a conflict of interests that either results in an abortion, a divorce, or an adoption. All are unpleasant, but adoption stings the least, as at least the baby lives.)
12.2% of women are too young {their parents or others object to the pregnancy.} (Depends. If the mother is too young to give birth, then there's no choice. If the mother IS old enough, but others say no anyway, go for adoption!)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career. (Adoption!)
7.9% of women want no (more) children. (Adoption!)
We went through the adoption thing like three pages ago, and you simply did not acknowledge a single word I said. There are not enough people willing to adopt to cope with the current population children waiting for adoption. Most kids just end up being bounced around the foster care system until they age out, and half of those are unemployed. 24% of all youths ages 12 through 17 admitted to these programs are juvenile delinquents, and 24% of males are incarcerated within 18 months of aging out of foster care. A significant number of kids living in foster care commit suicide. This is to say nothing of kids who have fetal alcohol syndrome, or an even worse birth defect. You can't just give a kid up for adoption, and expect them to be picked up shortly thereafter by a loving family and live a happy, productive life. Stop going on about adoption unless you are willing to respond in any meaningful way to our comments about the state of the foster care system.
This chart was used in a US Senate debate about abortion in 1981. Note that the first sharp decline in the death of women came after the discovery of Penicillin, and the total death figures hovered around 250 for the 1950s.
So now you're basically making your case by saying, "let's make abortion illegal, because the rate of deaths from illegal abortions is down anyways!" What the hell, man?! And besides, there was a sharp decline in deaths from just about everything when penicillin was discovered.
Quote:
Stop going on about adoption unless you are willing to respond in any meaningful way to our comments about the state of the foster care system.
I already have. Basically, I said 'properly maintain orphanages and foster homes, properly educate hopeful parents about adoption (because there are a lot of misconceptions about adoption), and try to have children adopted early'.
Quote:
So now you're basically making your case by saying, "let's make abortion illegal, because the rate of deaths from illegal abortions is down anyways!" What the hell, man?!
No. I was making an observation about one of the original pro-abortion arguments (particularly how false it was). Nothing more.
So you're suggesting taking away people's right to abortion AND charging them extra tax money to pay for the orphanages as a bonus. Sounds delicious! Where do I sign?
