The Political Taboo

[BHS]

Dear BHS,

Ironically, their newfound responsibility stems from the fact that they are otherwise entirely irresponsible. I don't know that I buy that.

I would guess that 'bastard children' probably made up more than 50% of the earth's aggregate human population.

Okay, I'll bite. What does marital status have to do with my post?

[betsy]

However, why would you say a teen that wants an abortion is making a "responsible" choice? Why is it automatically a "responsible" choice?

The first priority for any teen in our society is to get an education that will allow them to support themselves as adults. Statistics show that teens who try to raise babies are much more likely to end up living in poverty and have kids which have problems. That said, I will take back part of what I said: giving up the baby for adoption would also be a responsible choice. That said, a teen who wants to have an abortion is still making a responsible choice.

"A teen getting an abortion who does not want to tell her parents is likely dealing with parents that might force her to carry the baby to term. No teenager in our society should be having children. A pregnant teen that wants an abortion is making a responsible choice in the circumstances and her parents should not be allowed to prevent her from making that choice."

But if parents are likely to force their daughter tp carry the baby to full term...it's also more likely that they (the parents) would help in raising the baby, or have other plans for the baby.

I've seen that scenario several times. Grandparents are the ones raising the baby! What's wrong with that?

If the daughter is going to have help anyway...then how can that interfere so much? Sure there is still some interference...but hey, you've gotta face some consequences. Figuring out the best course of action for EVERYONE (that definitely includes the baby, first and foremost...since it didn't have any choice at all in being placed in this despicable predicament), and doing just that. THAT, is being responsible.

Irresponsibility cannot be corrected by more acts of irresponsibilities.

Terminating a life just for the reason of being an impediment in one's lifestyle or education is not a responsible act...it is merely taking the easiest way out at the expense of another (this one being the infant's right and chance to live life).

Call it a selfish choice or a new lifestyle choice, or whatever....but it cannot be called a "responsible" choice.

ESPECIALLY when there are other options and support from parents!

[Black Dog]

Terminating a life just for the reason of being an impediment in one's lifestyle or education is not a responsible act...it is merely taking the easiest way out at the expense of another (this one being the infant's right and chance to live life).

Meh. It's not like the fetus will know what it's missing. 30 per cent of fertalized eggs fail to implant. Many more pregnancies end in miscarriages In other words, fetuses come and go even under optimal circumstances and with little outcry. I simply don't see why the termination of a potenial human being is considered such a tragedy and why the choice to have sex is worthy of punishment.

[No truth]

"We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out. Something must not fly with even the most left leaning people when they know this."

As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to kill it unless it's graduated University.

That said, we don't have a law, things seem to be going ok unless you're in the "Bleeding for the unborn" crowd, so obviously no law is required. I kind of hope the idea that we don't need laws to govern every single aspect of our behaviour might just catch on.

[Michael Hardner]

Indeed.

I've been waiting for that argument to surface - why should government prevent me from taking justice into my own hands when they do such a bad job of it ? Police officers are making $100,000 for basically driving around 99% of the time, aren't they ? Why should they get the lion's share of pay increases ?

Well ?

[Black Dog]

BHS:

I've mentioned the Roe Effect in previous threads so I won't go into further detail here. Suffice it to say that as time passes and more abortions are carried out there is a decreased zeal for the procedure. And as you've alluded, there is a long-term negative psychological effect on many women who undergo the procedure, especially if later attempts at pregnancy fail.

Any proof that the "Roe Effect" actually has any basis in reality? The idea that anti-abortion attitudes will decrease as time goes on due to the number of pro abortion people decreasing is based on some very shaky assumptions, including the claim that " children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values." Based on that statement, I must conclude Taranto has no kids of his own or at least has no background in sociology. If he did, he would see the flaws inherent in that assumption. But the biggest flaw is the assumption that pro-choice people have fewer kids. Fact is, the vast majority of women who have abortions either have kids already, or plan to have kids in the future. The fact that support for abortion has been virtually constant since Roe would indicate to me that the hypothesis doesn't hold water.

I also have to take issue with the idea that "there is a long-term negative psychological effect on many women" who have abortions. All the research into "Post Abortion Syndrome" indicates no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma. Indeed, in cases where trauma exists, it is far more likely to be caused by the stigmatization of abortion and other anti-choice activities than the procedure itself (given anti-abortion tactics, it's really hard to believe the mental health of the woman is a concern).

geoffery:

"We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out. Something must not fly with even the most left leaning people when they know this."

How many women get to the delivery room and, while sitting in the stirups, decide "You know what? Sure I've spent the last nine months preparing for this kid, buying baby clothes, preparing the nursery, setting up my maternity leave, but now that I'm here, I think I'll just pass on this motherhood thing." And how many doctors would do it?

I understand you're trying to illustrate the lack of any sort of legislative framework, but such examples, which reside so far outside the realm of possibility, aren't helpful.

We also need parental notification. 14 year olds dumping off a baby every couple of weeks is a serious problem and their parents, however irresponsible they are likely to be to begin with, should at least know about it.

Parental notification laws won't end the problem of "14 year olds dumping off a baby". In fact, it will probably make the problem (if indeed, it is a problem) worse because rather than confronting her parents with the fact she's pregnant, the kid might simply hide it until such a time as she can get rid of the evidence or worse, try to obtain an illegal abortion (the American Medical Association noted that the desire to maintain secrecy has been a leading reason for deaths from illegal abortions since 1973.)

If the kid has a good enough relationship with their parents, they'll tell them. If they don't tell their parents, they may have a compelling reason to do so. Either way, the law should be silent on what is a essentially a family matter.

[Guest Warwick Green]

"We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out. Something must not fly with even the most left leaning people when they know this."

I think viabilty of the fetus should be the factor. I realize that this would result in a Battle of the Boffins but at least it will be a scientific one, not the metaphysical debate one gets into when talking about whether or not the fetus is a person. And such a provision would give women plenty of time to abort the fetus at an early stage, if they so wish.

[fixer1]

Abortion is a subject that must be looked at with the eyes of science and not through the eyes of the religious, or eyes of the heart. It must be looked at by science because that is the only way cold hard fact becomes to the fore front and then it can be reasobably worked with.

The mere fact that a sperm has ferilized an egg, should not then be compelled at that stage to be a whole person. If we let things go all the way back to the sperm and the egg, then any woman who ovulates and does not seek getting that egg fertilized is a murderer? Does the man who seeks to relieve himself thru masterbation, is he a murderer for doing so?

Science must be the one to set a time for the fetus( not child) to become a human child. This would have to be a time where it could servive outside of the womb without technical intervention. At least in my eys that would be where its rights would begin. The woman who is the one where it grows into this child, should have a choice to terminate the pregnancy into the third month, but not there after unless health issues are of a concern.

Some scientist will say that life begins much earlier and others will say it only starts with the first breath. So even a cold hard science does have its arguments about this, but most will agree that abortion should always be an option to any and all mothers to be.

In the case where the people are minors, it would fall upon the parents of the children to make the final decission. No minor should be allowed to keep any aspect of their help from their parents, but then again birth control may suffer with that decission.

The Prolifers will scream and cause a scene at any attempts to allow any abortions period and they are the ones who would go as far a saying that life begins at conception. Yet they was their eggs and sperm all the time. The world need more children and the thing that guides us on how many we can have is our ability to provide for these children. The oponents to this will say that it is society who must help raise those children if the parents can not. It does just open more then a few festering wounds, and that is what we will again be faced with if the government go ahead and brings this out.

[Riverwind]

I think viabilty of the fetus should be the factor. I realize that this would result in a Battle of the Boffins but at least it will be a scientific one

All science can offer is probabilities. i.e. a 8 month old fetus has 50% chance of survival vs. a 99% chance of survival for a 9 month old fetus (I used the number as examples - I don't know what the real numbers are). We would then get into the debate about what percentage survival rate constitutes 'viable'.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I think viabilty of the fetus should be the factor. I realize that this would result in a Battle of the Boffins but at least it will be a scientific one

All science can offer is probabilities. i.e. a 8 month old fetus has 50% chance of survival vs. a 99% chance of survival for a 9 month old fetus (I used the number as examples - I don't know what the real numbers are). We would then get into the debate about what percentage survival rate constitutes 'viable'.

Granted but at least there is some science involved - that's not the case with the "Is the fetus a human being?" argument. Since there would have to be one set of rules for everybody there would be an element of arbitrariness in determining the exact time when the fetus became viable. I still think though that that's better than the vacuum we have now in the law.