Abortion Debate

[widowsmite]

Also, not to be tacky or anything, but since part of the"abortion rights" schtick involves relating "privacy" to the "right" to abort, then why don't these very same private people pay for their private elective medical procedures? Why is a taxpayer like myself expected to pick up the tab for other peoples' immoral decisions if this is so private and personal? If people want freedom and privacy then they should pay for the consequences on their own dime.

if diseases such as HIV were contracted from these "immoral decisions" is justifiable then that the taxpayer be expected pick up the tabs thereafter for how many years and how is it differing from a shared experience resulting in the tabs for a perhaps a one time abort

The issue of taxpayers footing the medical bill has nothing to do with the morality of the action that caused the medical condition in the first place.

The issue is whether the procedure was medically necessary and hence should be paid for by the health care system, i.e., the taxpayers.

Treating HIV patients is medically necessary. But pregnancy is not a disease, and abortion is rarely a medical necessity. In fact, abortion is life-threatening to the baby. I find it sad and offensive that I contribute to a system that uses its scarce health dollars for abortion on demand, while seriously ill people wait months and years to get the help they need, sometimes dying while they wait.

Our priorities are screwed up.

[Hugo]

C. Everett Koop, former surgeon-general of the USA, stated that in 38 years in pediatric medicine he had never, ever seen a pregnancy that truthfully threatened the life of the mother.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1% of abortions are perfomed because of birth defects. However, those birth defects include minor and treatable conditions such as cleft palate and club foot. Moreover, the Mayo Clinic states that the amniocentesis procedure used to detect congenital deformity or abnormality has about a 2% chance of causing a miscarriage or other serious complication.

Not that being handicapped is a good reason to abort anyway - John Merick (aka the Elephant Man) said that "my life is full because I know that I am loved", and handicapped people are generally well-adjusted and happy. I used to work with a man without forearms or feet, who was very happy in his life and just as competent at his job as I was. Killing people because they are handicapped was exactly what Adolf Hitler did. Not that this is any surprise, given the pro-abortion connection to Nazism.

Rape and incest account for another 1% of abortions. Of course, the fact here is that one does not hold a child responsible for the crimes of its parents, except in this case, where the child of a rapist is given the death penalty without trial for the crime committed by his father. Feminists for Life America reports that a lot of women are more traumatised by their abortions than by their rapes.

It's also interesting that Morgan brought up the topic of ultrasound. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL and key figure of the pro-abort movement, became staunchly pro-life and now strongly campaigns against abortion after seeing ultrasound video of his own child in utero. He said that he is now certain that he presided over tens of thousands of murders.

RB's point that anti-abortion is anti-choice is simply incorrect. After all, abortion is the removal of an entire lifetime of choices from a human being, because you are killing it. I believe RB inferred that she had an abortion and if so, I do not wish to be harsh but RB's baby is now dead and will never, ever make any choices of her own, because she was inconvenient to her mother.

Furthermore, it's also arguable that abortion has removed choices from women too. The reason why there are not more daycares in universities and workplaces is because abortion is viewed as the right and responsible choice and nobody is going to subsidise "irresponsibility." In this way, "pro-choice" has become "no-choice" because it has succeeded in removing options for women who actually want to bear their children to term and raise them.

Abortion is about the "liberation of women" about as much as the Holocaust was about the "liberation of Germans".

[RB]

no offence to those suffering with any type terminal or other diseases, the example is used as an analogy

ONE ACTION of illicit sex that results in TWO SCENARIOS

1) Situation of pregnancy or

2) HIV

you would like to convince me that we need to outrageously accept cost benefits treatments to the HIV person with our tax dollars and yet disallow tiny bits of benefits to the situation. and my response is this is exactly how carefully we construct our moral in some disjunctive syllogism.

what i meant is that you would like to give two alternatives for the same resultant action that is unequal and disproportional. On one hand we would like to practice democracy, freedom and equality and still yet you somehow expect me to agree to a rule of no abortion necessary whilst we force kids to be raised by parents who don't want them

i clarify that i have not had an experience of abortion but was glad i was "read" my choices of option and was able to correctly judge and make a decsion that is good for me, not to please a whole generation of lobbyist.

[Hugo]

you somehow expect me to agree to a rule of no abortion necessary whilst we force kids to be raised by parents who don't want them

Not at all. Currently, the lists of couples waiting to adopt babies is far longer than the list of babies waiting to be adopted. That is why so many couples are paying thousands of dollars to import babies from the third world.

But furthermore, if one does not want a child, perhaps one could exercise a little discretion? The pro-abort mindset basically seems to be that everybody should be able to have sex with anyone and everyone without thought to the consequences or even being in a meaningful relationship first. What that basically amounts to is making innocent babies pay for their parents irresponsibility with their lives.

I think it's wholly ridiculous to say that "democracy" and "freedom" depend upon the ability of one group of people in society to be able to murder another group in society - the group least able to defend itself - without even the slightest threat of repercussion.

[RB]

these are the very kids that find their way to your neglected consciousness demanding rightful answers when you are 40 years old and all you wanted to do was to camouflage what is past

but why can’t we say democracy. we would like to liberate people minds and their actions, therefore concede that in a democratic system allowances are made for the right to make mistakes

what i meant is that people do not willfully err to abort. i believe every person is bestow at least some intelligence and capable of decision making and should take up responsibilities of decisions and that they accept their resolution once their minds are made.....without avoiding blame if a wrong decision is made

if you agree that democracy does not develop in a haphazard manner and by accident, but is a delibrarate thought, planned self-desciplain and seeks to correct what is natural (democracy is not natural)

then the question in my mind is who are we to judge people as they make their decisions (right or wrong) and who are we to allow others to willingly push overwrite themes of “guilty” and “murders” titles to difficut decisions

why can’t we say freedom. is it because it is a rightful use of something called discretionary power to choose in this society. the only implication is that alternatives are given and not be fearful that we are govern by a one-sided argument.

what i am saying is that reasonable folks do not dare experiment to mistakes but that there is such a process to a wrong choice. and that we must have a possibility of choices to practice freedom.

i would like to suggest instead of looking at women and trying to make decisions on their behalf that we can also look at a contributing partner, and to look at other sources of the issues and find alternatives that men, women and groups can work

i would like to further suggest that example of workable solutions. that at the birth of every male child to practice reversable vasectomy- i am sure the good doctors would be encouraged to improve upon this method

this will save those blames on women and men are totally in control of when they are ready for the offsprings - and we can look forward to actions that would be much more rational and delibarate with proper results

[Mr Farrius]

What's the point of raising a child that'll grow up with a miserable life? A life without decent familial care, without love, without attention? Parents of such a child having sex at an age where they can't take responsibility for their actions is already a sign that something is bound to be wrong in the future. As a result, kids of such parents can only grow up and make more trouble for society. Ruining a potentially successful child's life is worse than not letting them go through the harsh realities of life at all, with the way they're bound to grow up.

[Moderate Centrist]

"What's the point of raising a child that'll grow up with a miserable life? A life without decent familial care, without love, without attention?"

Mr. Farrius

"kids of such parents can only grow up and make more trouble for society. "

Hi Farrius,

I think these are rather blanket statements and a bit cold if you don't mind me saying so. I am familiar with a few people who've had children out of wedlock or at an early age. Certainly there are difficulties but I don't think it's fair to say they'll all grow up hell raisers and anarchists.

[Mr Farrius]

Well, society and reality are cold Moderate Centrist. And of course, there are going to be a "few" exceptions. But I merely state reality.

[Hugo]

Ruining a potentially successful child's life is worse than not letting them go through the harsh realities of life at all

So what you are saying is that the solution to a given problem (e.g. parental neglect and child abuse) is to kill those who might suffer from it?

You mentioned the problem of traffic accidents earlier. Would your solution to that be to execute every motorist?

Death can never be an answer because we don't know what death is. Nobody can ask for death and nobody can be presumed to desire death. Anyone requesting death is actually requesting something else. Therefore, death can never, ever be proposed as the "solution" to any problem.

who are we to allow others to willingly push overwrite themes of “guilty” and “murders” titles to difficut decisions

Why not? We have done it with a vast array of other crimes. Our whole justice system is based on "politically incorrect" terms such as "judgement" and "moral absolutism". If you wish to destroy that then you will destroy democracy and freedom.

i would like to further suggest that example of workable solutions. that at the birth of every male child to practice reversable vasectomy- i am sure the good doctors would be encouraged to improve upon this method

Yes, or people could just stop jumping into bed with people they don't actually want to breed with. Every woman has a choice. She has the choice to keep her legs closed. If she decides against that, and the consequences turn out to be a baby, how can you say she did not have choice?

[Mr Farrius]

Well, what if a woman was raped?

[Moderate Centrist]

"And of course, there are going to be a "few" exceptions. But I merely state reality. "

I think we're going to have to get into numbers here. Also define "few" and "reality".

To do this you'll have to get some demographic data on children of young mothers and single parents and link it to crime statistics.

Further, those statistics will have to be broken down into violent/non-violent, serious/non serious crimes etc...

From there you'll have to build a case that abortion would have prevented these crimes.

You may also want to make a case regarding quality of life, how it is judged and who judges it.

Abortion has been available for rape victims for a long time. However this is clearly a minority of abortions.

Since you brought it up can you provide statistics on abortions as a result of rape and a % of total abortions performed in say the US or Canada?

[Hugo]

Well, what if a woman was raped?

I already answered that. Rape and incest account for 1% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute (run by Planned Parenthood, who has a vested interest in exaggerating that figure), and nevertheless, it remains that it is not moral to kill a child because of the crime of her father.

To do this you'll have to get some demographic data on children of young mothers and single parents and link it to crime statistics.

As I said before, Edward Lenoski of SoCal University discovered that 91% of abused children were, in fact, planned pregnancies. When abortion was legalised in the US in 1973, there were 167,000 reported cases of child abuse. In 1982, that number had climbed to 929,000 and in 1991, to 2.5 million.

If abortion is a "cure" for child abuse, neglect and misery, it's an absolute failure. Since it's known that children who were abused or neglected are more likely to become criminals, it's easy to see that, from the figures above, the problems Farrius is talking about have actually gotten worse since abortion was legalised.

[Mr Farrius]

nevertheless, it remains that it is not moral to kill a child because of the crime of her father.

oh really? Why should a woman have to deal with a child that she never intended to have? You always talk about the woman taking responsibility for her actions. Rape isn't her action. Therefore, the responsibility does not lie on her.

[Hugo]

You always talk about the woman taking responsibility for her actions. Rape isn't her action. Therefore, the responsibility does not lie on her.

My proposal for rape is that aborting the child does not undo the rape and is likely to traumatise the rape victim even more. Let the woman bear the child and be compensated for the pregnancy and if, after her birth, she does not want her baby, let the baby be adopted.

Rape accounts for 1% of abortions, Farrius. Trying to make a judgement on abortion based upon rape cases is utterly ridiculous. Either make a decent argument, or stop flailing around.

[Mr Farrius]

You always talk about the woman taking responsibility for her actions. Rape isn't her action. Therefore, the responsibility does not lie on her.

My proposal for rape is that aborting the child does not undo the rape and is likely to traumatise the rape victim even more. Let the woman bear the child and be compensated for the pregnancy and if, after her birth, she does not want her baby, let the baby be adopted.

Where does the man come into play??

[Hugo]

Where does the man come into play??

Who cares? He's a rapist. As a society we will strip him of his civil rights and liberties after he is convicted, and that would probably include any parental rights to the offspring of his crime. Morally he should probably also be financially obligated to his victim, however, no such compensation exists in law and the criminal code would have to be overhauled to put such a scheme into place.

But it is interesting that you raise the point of 'the man'. A father has no choice. If he wants the baby and his girlfriend or wife does not, that baby will be aborted against his wishes. If he does not want the baby and his partner does, he will be forced in a court of law to pay paternity benefits for a child he did not want.

Basically, as far as men are concerned, you play, you pay. But women have a "get out of jail free card" in legal abortion. Notwithstanding the fact that this is institutionalised sexual discrimination, this is also a big step backward for the emancipation of women, because it basically assumes that while a man is responsible and mature enough to be held accountable for his actions, a woman is far too hysterical and idiotic to be held accountable for hers. This is basically a continuation of the Victorian idea of "silly little women", and the great irony is that modern feminists are the ones shouting loudest for a return to that kind of view of women. It should be noted that the Suffragettes and virtually all founders of the women's rights and emancipation movement were pro-life.

Another point regarding the abuse and neglect of children that you have brought up is that abortion has given us a society where children are throwaway and unimportant, where the idea of their rights being totally subverted to those of adults is not only countenanced and seriously discussed, it's actually law. Therefore it is not surprising that a society of this kind has eroded respect for children to produce such a mind-boggling increase in child abuse.

To sum up in a single sentence: abortion does not prevent child abuse and neglect, it causes it.

[Mr Farrius]

Really. Abortion causes child abuse and neglect when, excuse my bluntness, it gets rid of the child? I realize what you are saying, but abortion in no way, shape, or form, has a direct impact on child abuse and neglect. Rather, in a more obvious sense, it prevents more children from having to deal with it. To bring up another point: anti-abortionists make the assumption that every woman has the same personality. Well let me ask you this. Just because one woman is able to handle her mistakes and take responsibility for them, doesn't mean others can all do the same. Some women might be in shock or even traumatized with the idea of having to raise a kid they don't want. Whatever happens, they can't deal with it. Some might be angry at the fact that they have to raise a kid but accept reality, having the kid anyway, but not really loving or caring that child. Others however, might be able to accept responsibility for their child. I find it cruel to presume that all woman can deal with a sensitive situation like this in the same way. Of course, there will be the argument that women shouldn't be punished or killed if they commit murder because they're "sensitive", or something to that extent. But I hope we're all intelligent humans here. Men are just physically and mentally different from women. Men deal with things better, no offense to women. I respect women, and hope for a society in women aren't considered inferior or incapable, I advocate their rights strongly, especially in an issue like this.

[SirRiff]

i recall reading a stat that there are 30,000 rape pregnancies in the US every year. source was listed as some US agency. if true, its sickening, but also another reason why abortion must be an option, not to mention many other instances of unwanted pregnancies that dont classify as pure criminal rape.

sirriff

[Hugo]

if true, its sickening, but also another reason why abortion must be an option, not to mention many other instances of unwanted pregnancies that dont classify as pure criminal rape.

If we're going to say this, we establish that abortion is bad. What we are looking at here is the "hard cases" and I think you can agree, Riff, that abortion for convenience or birth control is not ethical. Even the loudest of the pro-abort movement view abortion as a "necessary evil".

What we have, then, is an ethical weighing on the scales of justice. On the one hand, we can force a woman to bear the child of a rape for 9 months. On the other, we can force her child to die, which is obviously permanent.

It's my opinion that forcing a woman to bear a child is a lesser moral outrage than killing her child. Of all the crimes we recognise, the worst is homicide, and the worst homicides are those committed against children. This position is reinforced by the fact that abortion cannot undo the rape and frequently makes the trauma of it even worse.

I find it cruel to presume that all woman can deal with a sensitive situation like this in the same way.

But you are weighing their sensitivity against human life. This is not a question of providing wheelchair ramps or using non-offensive terminology. In order to spare the feelings of these women you are advocating murdering innocent human beings, and I'm sorry, but in my book the right of one human to live takes precedent over the desire of another to avoid "shock" or "trauma".

Rather, in a more obvious sense, [abortion] prevents more children from having to deal with [abuse].

--Mr. Farrius

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

--Joseph Stalin

That's basically the crux of this argument. Like Stalin, you believe that a valid solution to a problem is to murder those who suffer from the problem or 'cause' the problem.

[Mr Farrius]

I must protest! Prevention isn't murder. I hope to never compared to Stalin, who abused women, calling his own mother a whore. You have kids growing up who end up committing suicide anyway. I just find it more humane to help those kids not experience all of that.

[Hugo]

I just find it more humane to help those kids not experience all of that.

Did you know, Farrius, that black people are much more likely than whites to be victims of crime, die young or become addicted to drugs? Seeing as that is the case, would it not be "more humane" just to round up black people, especially those below the poverty line and living in bad neighbourhoods, and have them euthanised? After all, they'll probably end up getting shot or doing drugs anyway. We could do it quite simply - just get some crop-dusting aircraft and have them spray nerve gas over black neighbourhoods and ghettoes.

You see, if you apply this logic to other problems you find that your advocacy is straight from Hitler's playbook.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Is all human life sacred?

[Moderate Centrist]

"Is all human life sacred? "

Lost

Well I sure as hell hope so! Although this is often not the case we must hold human life as sacred in principle if nothing else. Do deny this we're heading down the wrong path.

Mr. Farrius,

I think your arguements are based on presumtion. Many, if not most women, would disagree with you I believe. Your comments seem somewhat condescending towards the opposite sex.

Bottom line is that abortion is available to women who have been raped. However the amount of abortions performed in the United States and Canada go way beyond what the law intended:

Abortion in the case of rape or if the life of the mother was in danger.

Anti-Abortion as an issue is politically unwinable in my view - at least as arguements are currently put forward.

However abortion is best viewed as a nessessary evil - let's not try to paint it as progressive social policy.

[righturnonred]

I must protest!  Prevention isn't murder

Birth control is prevenative, abortion is reactionary.

Abortion, for me, is an issue I have great difficulty with. There are valid argements on both sides but I find myself siding with the pro-choicers on this simply because it is, as Moderate put it, a neccessary evil. It is an imperfect solution to a complicated social problem, a problem caused in large part by the growing pervasiveness of liberal social values and ideology over the course of the past 50 years.

Essentially abortion, barring medical and sexual assault considerations, goes against the precepts of personal accountablility and as a result encourages bad behavior.

Alternatively, to suddenly abolish abortion as a "remedy" would undoubtably have destructive consequences on society.

Like many social problems in our society, this goes back to the family and religion, two institutions under attack in America. The nuclear family structure, particularly in the black communities, has all but evaporated. Without that stablility and guidance, many children are destined to live lifes of crime, proverty, and immorality.

[Morgan]

Righturnonred,

I agree with what you said:

Alternatively, to suddenly abolish abortion as a "remedy" would undoubtably have destructive consequences on society. Like many social problems in our society, this goes back to the family and religion, two institutions under attack in America.

City Journal often has top calibre writing, and the following piece I'm about to quote from is no exception. As well, it's a propos to the discussion, providing statistics I was not aware of before reading it here. They confirmed the description of abortion which a few of us expressed: that abortion is, regretably, a necessary evil of modern society as things stand today.

Why we don't marry by J.Q.Wilson, NY City Journal, Winter 2002

-Everyone knows that the rising proportion of women who bear and raise children out of wedlock has greatly weakened the American family system. This phenomenon, once thought limited to African Americans, now affects whites as well. For whites the rate is one-fifth; for blacks it is over one-half.

-Now that our social security and pension systems have dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly, growing up with only one parent has dramatically increased poverty among children. In this country we have managed to shift poverty from old folks to young folks. The illegitimacy ratio in the late 1990s was 33 percent for the United States, 31 percent for Canada, and 38 percent for the United Kingdom.

-Former Clinton advisor William Galston sums up the matter this way: you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty—finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20.

-There has been a sharp increase in children who are not only born out of wedlock but are raised without a father. In the United States, the percentage of children living with an unmarried mother has tripled since 1960 and more than doubled since 1970. In England, 22 percent of all children under the age of 16 are living with only one parent, a rate three times higher than in 1971.

-Why has this happened? There are two possible explanations to consider: money and culture...

I recommend reading the full text of this article. Wilson makes interesting observations on how the Enlightenment, as exciting and progressive as it was for the West, exacted a huge cost.

Perhaps that's why Islamic fundamentalists like OBL are obsessed with destroying the West - it's the only way for them to stop the advance of Enlightenment on their culture.