Haven’t you guys ever heard of ‘freemartins’? Geez, problem solved already…
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Freemartin
That one was for you, Push!
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So Em, am I right in assuming that you support ending abortion only after the problems that necessitate it are resolved?
Correct.[/quote]
Since that is likely never to happen, I have another question. What level of importance do you give a human life, like on a scale of 1 to 10?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
I don’t presume to speak for Emily, but the issue for me is not, what do we do for these people after we outlaw abortions.
The issue is that the societal problems you have mentioned cause people to get abortions. Even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow people who aren’t ready to have children, either financially or emotionally will still get knocked up, and will still want to get rid of their un-born children.
The difference will be that rather than having a safe legal clinic to go to, they will either go to a back alley doctor, or jam a coat-hanger into themselves, or OD on Asprin, or god knows what else.
The choice is between legal abortions and illegal abortions, not between abortion or no abortion.
For the record I am against late-term abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother.
I envision dead babies in back alley dumpsters, too. I envision babies pouring into hospitals with failure to thrive syndrome, which leaves children mentally retarded, as does fetal alcohol syndrome, the incidence of which would rise. The number of physical abuse cases would rise so as a consequence the crime rate would also as the resented kids aged.
None of that would be my watch except possibly the last point. I’m concerned about “nightmares” because they are comprised of hurt people. Why is my concern for the living child somehow less noble than your concern for the as-yet-unborn child, Push? That doesn’t seem silly to you? I’m not talking about social services. I’m talking about people. These kids you find so precious…you can coldly say you don’t give a shit what happens to them once you’ve had your moral victory?
Why on earth would you snarl (yes, snarl) at me about doing the right thing? You can’t even be bothered to consider the costs of the policy you say is good and right. What is it worth to you? Very little it would seem.
I’m not asking how many unborn babies you’re going to adopt. I’m more likely to adopt unwanted children than you are (which is ironic, isn’t it, given the tone of this discussion?). I’m asking if there are ANY policies you would support that would support this policy change you seek. [/quote]
You are flat guessing at problems that may occur and may not. It’s almost absurd. Would there be some additional burden on the general infrastructure if there were more kids born than there are now, probably. But you have no idea what that would be in reality. Unless you have some sort of Nostradamas like premonitions, there is no way to know what would happen.
But since you are guessing I throw some around too. First, you�??d likely find fewer people get themselves in a situation where they think killing off their off spring is a good idea when the option is taken off the table. Second, many would find that when the kid is born that they will love it and raise it and likely regret ever considering cutting up and sucking out the kid from their wombs (those of us who have kids understand this far better than those who do not).
Now what do we do with the rest of them? Well a complete overhaul and streamlining of the adoption system in this country would be a good start. If a mother dumps her baby, that�??s attempted murder which is prison.
If some dumbass wants to stick a coat hanger up her twat in an effort to get rid of the baby, then the dumb bitch get�??s a Darwin award in my book.
If abortion were illegal, some people would still seek them but I promise it would not be anywhere near 1.2 million a year.
With out abortion the world would be a better place, not worse. I don�??t see anybody missing slavery.
[quote]pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
I don’t presume to speak for Emily, but the issue for me is not, what do we do for these people after we outlaw abortions.
The issue is that the societal problems you have mentioned cause people to get abortions. Even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow people who aren’t ready to have children, either financially or emotionally will still get knocked up, and will still want to get rid of their un-born children.
The difference will be that rather than having a safe legal clinic to go to, they will either go to a back alley doctor, or jam a coat-hanger into themselves, or OD on Asprin, or god knows what else.
The choice is between legal abortions and illegal abortions, not between abortion or no abortion.
For the record I am against late-term abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother.
I envision dead babies in back alley dumpsters, too. I envision babies pouring into hospitals with failure to thrive syndrome, which leaves children mentally retarded, as does fetal alcohol syndrome, the incidence of which would rise. The number of physical abuse cases would rise so as a consequence the crime rate would also as the resented kids aged.
None of that would be my watch except possibly the last point. I’m concerned about “nightmares” because they are comprised of hurt people. Why is my concern for the living child somehow less noble than your concern for the as-yet-unborn child, Push? That doesn’t seem silly to you? I’m not talking about social services. I’m talking about people. These kids you find so precious…you can coldly say you don’t give a shit what happens to them once you’ve had your moral victory?
Why on earth would you snarl (yes, snarl) at me about doing the right thing? You can’t even be bothered to consider the costs of the policy you say is good and right. What is it worth to you? Very little it would seem.
I’m not asking how many unborn babies you’re going to adopt. I’m more likely to adopt unwanted children than you are (which is ironic, isn’t it, given the tone of this discussion?). I’m asking if there are ANY policies you would support that would support this policy change you seek.
You are flat guessing at problems that may occur and may not. It’s almost absurd. Would there be some additional burden on the general infrastructure if there were more kids born than there are now, probably. But you have no idea what that would be in reality. Unless you have some sort of Nostradamas like premonitions, there is no way to know what would happen.
But since you are guessing I throw some around too. First, you�??d likely find fewer people get themselves in a situation where they think killing off their off spring is a good idea when the option is taken off the table. Second, many would find that when the kid is born that they will love it and raise it and likely regret ever considering cutting up and sucking out the kid from their wombs (those of us who have kids understand this far better than those who do not).
Now what do we do with the rest of them? Well a complete overhaul and streamlining of the adoption system in this country would be a good start. If a mother dumps her baby, that�??s attempted murder which is prison.
If some dumbass wants to stick a coat hanger up her twat in an effort to get rid of the baby, then the dumb bitch get�??s a Darwin award in my book.
If abortion were illegal, some people would still seek them but I promise it would not be anywhere near 1.2 million a year.
With out abortion the world would be a better place, not worse. I don�??t see anybody missing slavery.
[/quote]
If you’re talking to me, I’m not guessing about anything. This shit happened. Would it be less that 1.2 million a year? Probably. No one has real figures of how many abortions were performed before they were legalized, but abortions happened, and they would still happen after they were made illegal again in this country. I’m not “pro abortion”, I find it morally reprehensible. But I’m also not a starry eyed dreamer who believes that all would be right with the world if we just outlawed all abortion.
We should outlaw late-term abortions, and do everything we can to socially to reduce the number to zero. But simply banning it changes nothing for the better.
Something is seriously fucking wrong with you.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
I don’t presume to speak for Emily, but the issue for me is not, what do we do for these people after we outlaw abortions.
The issue is that the societal problems you have mentioned cause people to get abortions. Even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow people who aren’t ready to have children, either financially or emotionally will still get knocked up, and will still want to get rid of their un-born children.
The difference will be that rather than having a safe legal clinic to go to, they will either go to a back alley doctor, or jam a coat-hanger into themselves, or OD on Asprin, or god knows what else.
The choice is between legal abortions and illegal abortions, not between abortion or no abortion.
For the record I am against late-term abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother.
I envision dead babies in back alley dumpsters, too. I envision babies pouring into hospitals with failure to thrive syndrome, which leaves children mentally retarded, as does fetal alcohol syndrome, the incidence of which would rise. The number of physical abuse cases would rise so as a consequence the crime rate would also as the resented kids aged.
None of that would be my watch except possibly the last point. I’m concerned about “nightmares” because they are comprised of hurt people. Why is my concern for the living child somehow less noble than your concern for the as-yet-unborn child, Push? That doesn’t seem silly to you? I’m not talking about social services. I’m talking about people. These kids you find so precious…you can coldly say you don’t give a shit what happens to them once you’ve had your moral victory?
Why on earth would you snarl (yes, snarl) at me about doing the right thing? You can’t even be bothered to consider the costs of the policy you say is good and right. What is it worth to you? Very little it would seem.
I’m not asking how many unborn babies you’re going to adopt. I’m more likely to adopt unwanted children than you are (which is ironic, isn’t it, given the tone of this discussion?). I’m asking if there are ANY policies you would support that would support this policy change you seek.
You are flat guessing at problems that may occur and may not. It’s almost absurd. Would there be some additional burden on the general infrastructure if there were more kids born than there are now, probably. But you have no idea what that would be in reality. Unless you have some sort of Nostradamas like premonitions, there is no way to know what would happen.
But since you are guessing I throw some around too. First, you�??d likely find fewer people get themselves in a situation where they think killing off their off spring is a good idea when the option is taken off the table. Second, many would find that when the kid is born that they will love it and raise it and likely regret ever considering cutting up and sucking out the kid from their wombs (those of us who have kids understand this far better than those who do not).
Now what do we do with the rest of them? Well a complete overhaul and streamlining of the adoption system in this country would be a good start. If a mother dumps her baby, that�??s attempted murder which is prison.
If some dumbass wants to stick a coat hanger up her twat in an effort to get rid of the baby, then the dumb bitch get�??s a Darwin award in my book.
If abortion were illegal, some people would still seek them but I promise it would not be anywhere near 1.2 million a year.
With out abortion the world would be a better place, not worse. I don�??t see anybody missing slavery.
If you’re talking to me, I’m not guessing about anything. This shit happened. Would it be less that 1.2 million a year? Probably. No one has real figures of how many abortions were performed before they were legalized, but abortions happened, and they would still happen after they were made illegal again in this country. I’m not “pro abortion”, I find it morally reprehensible. But I’m also not a starry eyed dreamer who believes that all would be right with the world if we just outlawed all abortion.
We should outlaw late-term abortions, and do everything we can to socially to reduce the number to zero. But simply banning it changes nothing for the better.
[/quote]
If that would reduce them to a low number I am all for it. Again, if the numbers were far, far lower than they are it wouldn’t be a such a hot button issue for me. Legality is not the end all be all for me, it is getting rid of abortion as much as possible whether it be by law, gun, talking nicely, jumping around in a circle, etc.
It makes sense to make it illegal because it is killing a person and killing a person is already illegal. Killing the unborn is murder outside of an abortion clinic already.
Sure abortions would still happen, just like regular murders still happen, robberies, etc. But just because people would do it doesn’t mean we just let it slide because some folks will do it anyway.
[quote]
If some dumbass wants to stick a coat hanger up her twat in an effort to get rid of the baby, then the dumb bitch get�??s a Darwin award in my book.
Something is seriously fucking wrong with you.[/quote]
Hey, if some cannot figure out that shoving a piece sharp metal is their pussy is a bad idea, I got no sympathies. Especially, when what they were attempting to do was to kill their own child. Fuck 'em.
This may be the most civil thread on abortion I’ve ever read, it made it more than 12 pages before starting to disintegrate.
a few points:
-
a human life begins at conception. So far as I am aware, there is no alternate scientific explanation. So yes, a fertilized embryo is a human being. Is it a person?
-
I think we all agree that murder of a person is wrong. The question is how do you define person?
-
the debate itself is-- is a human being de facto a person as PRCal and a number of others believe? or are there other requirements for personhood? This means that if you want to debate the appropriateness of abortion, you have address this question. If you disagree that human life starts at conception, then there is no hope because it is patently incorrect and can be convincingly argued on scientific evidence and the definition of organismal life.
*****that medical ethicist was a retard and PRcal had a very nice response to her. Individual sperm and egg are not organisms of any kind. It misses the point.
- There are serious societal issues that play into this debate at all levels. However, I respectfully disagree that the legality of a current situation has any bearing on its rightness or wrongness Varq. It is a separate issue. Talking about the current legality of the situation does nothing to address the main crux. Additionally, rights are guaranteed to persons only insofar as they do not cause undo imposition on another person’s rights.
Thus, if you accept the premise that a fetus is a person, you are obligated to recognize that the termination of said person represents an incontrovertible denial of that persons rights. And a right to deny another person a right has never been passed (or would ever be accepted) by our founding fathers.
If you do not accept the premise of fetus = person, this is not an issue.
Alternately, if you do not accept the premise that person = automatically deserving of full protection under law, this is also not an issue.
Emily–I empathize with your situation in dealing with young single parents. It is not easy. I have several friends I’ve had long conversations with about these sorts of things. A lot of them need a place to kinda vent and break away from the things they see every day when dealing with kids like this, or abused kids, etc. It’s rough and I really respect them for doing what they can to improve the status quo.
I too have reservations about the wide-ranging implications of illegalizing abortion, including many you have mentioned. However, it is my belief that one can only rationally decide an ethical situation in the absence of the superfluous policy issues. As Push said, one has to decide on what the right thing is, and how we know it’s the right thing, and THEN and only then proceed to public policy considerations.
However, I do disagree that miscarriages would need to be investigated as murder. That is absurd to me. A large, large number of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages. This is to be expected, and It would only be justifiable to investigate if there were clear and undeniable evidence that there was intentional effort to terminate it. This would likely never, ever, be enforced simply because it is near impossible and certainly an invasion of privacy in the majority of cases. The sheer number of unintentionally stupid things a person could do when they don’t know they’re pregnant that would cause a miscarriage is staggering.
I disagree that there would be any moral imperative leading to the situation you described a while back.
[quote]pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So Em, am I right in assuming that you support ending abortion only after the problems that necessitate it are resolved?
Correct.
Since that is likely never to happen…[/quote]
Does that make it wrong to try and fix them though? It seems rather negative to not look at alternate paths to the same finish line.
I think it is entirely possible to remove the problems that cause abortion to be necessary. Of course, I didn’t say it would be easy.
[quote]pat wrote:
Hey, if some cannot figure out that shoving a piece sharp metal is their pussy is a bad idea, I got no sympathies. Especially, when what they were attempting to do was to kill their own child. Fuck 'em.[/quote]
So you support banning abortion, and yet you’re OK with the coat hanger method?
Hm…
[quote]pat wrote:
You are flat guessing at problems that may occur and may not. It’s almost absurd. Would there be some additional burden on the general infrastructure if there were more kids born than there are now, probably. But you have no idea what that would be in reality. Unless you have some sort of Nostradamas like premonitions, there is no way to know what would happen. [/quote]
Well, I know what it is now. The infrastructure is already overburdened. So the thought of further burdening it worries me. Particularly when I see indifference to the living coupled with concern for the unborn.
I agree completely. Quite a number of pregnancies would never occur. I think too that many abortions come about because of assumptions that are completely baseless. I had a student a couple of years ago who became pregnant. The student wasn’t interested in abortion, but was terrified to tell her parents. Week after week we role-played telling, discussed what terrible thing might happen and how to keep safe, discussed the need to tell them so she could get prenatal care, etc. She finally did tell them at around 5 months. They were a little chilly, but otherwise okay with it, and when she miscarried at 7 months gave the…I don’t know, fetus? baby?..a lavish funeral. I know because the student brought a photo album in to show me.
So yes, love comes unexpectedly, and if not from the girl herself, maybe her parents.
All good and well, but I think the recent safe drop-off push has come about in an effort to keep the babies safe. If a person is desperate enough to dump her child (why? did she have an affair and can’t bring it home to the wrongly-colored husband? are her parents religious fanatics? is the pregnant woman mentally ill, and just can’t muster the rationality to think sequentially about giving her baby up for adoption?), she’s going to do it. I want those babies dumped at door to the hospital emergency room with a note that says “goodbye.” Then we can quickly adopt the child out into a loving home.
I don’t even know what to say to this. If someone is tormented enough for whatever reason to do this, she has my sympathy. Do you really think girls and women do it for mere convenience? Because to me it speaks of desperation I can’t even imagine.
[quote]pat wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
If you’re talking to me, I’m not guessing about anything. This shit happened. Would it be less that 1.2 million a year? Probably. No one has real figures of how many abortions were performed before they were legalized, but abortions happened, and they would still happen after they were made illegal again in this country. I’m not “pro abortion”, I find it morally reprehensible. But I’m also not a starry eyed dreamer who believes that all would be right with the world if we just outlawed all abortion.
We should outlaw late-term abortions, and do everything we can to socially to reduce the number to zero. But simply banning it changes nothing for the better.
If that would reduce them to a low number I am all for it. Again, if the numbers were far, far lower than they are it wouldn’t be a such a hot button issue for me. Legality is not the end all be all for me, it is getting rid of abortion as much as possible whether it be by law, gun, talking nicely, jumping around in a circle, etc. [/quote]
I can appreciate your attitude as expressed above. If I felt as strongly as you do about any issue I’d go after the fence-sitters. You already have the people on your side of the debate. You’re never, ever going to get the “IT’S MY BODY, MINE!!!” camp. You might get me, though. And I might bring along my fence-sitting friends. Gabby and I have both said we find abortion repugnant to one degree or another. Varqanir, too, said it is not something he, personally, could ever do.
I think we disagree as to the “personhood” of the fetus, though, and are therefore allowing other concerns to take priority. I don’t want young girls in prison, I don’t want coat-hanger-damaged young women, I don’t want hungry babies, or babies left in apartments and hotel rooms alone. I don’t want abuse and disease. I simply want us to be able to take care of the people we have in a compassionate manner.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:.
Thus, if you accept the premise that a fetus is a person, you are obligated to recognize that the termination of said person represents an incontrovertible denial of that persons rights. And a right to deny another person a right has never been passed (or would ever be accepted) by our founding fathers.
If you do not accept the premise of fetus = person, this is not an issue.
Alternately, if you do not accept the premise that person = automatically deserving of full protection under law, this is also not an issue. [/quote]
Aragorn, I enjoyed your post. I agree that life begins at conception, but personally feel that personhood is reserved for people who are born. The view is problematic, of course, which I recognize. If a fetus becomes viable at x number of weeks, is it not then a person? It seems absurd to say no, since it could be born at any time and survive independent of the mother. But the view of an embryo as a person is problematic, too, of course. I liked Christine’s (I think) “dropped petri dish = murder?” as a clarifier.
I think what a lot of pro-lifers (and pro-choicers, for that matter) fail to really understand is that certainty is a luxury not everyone shares.
Thank you. The rewards are pretty significant. It may not come through in a discussion like this, but I love my work.
See, where we’re falling apart in this conversation is that I don’t find these issues superfluous.
[quote]However, I do disagree that miscarriages would need to be investigated as murder. That is absurd to me. A large, large number of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages. This is to be expected, and It would only be justifiable to investigate if there were clear and undeniable evidence that there was intentional effort to terminate it. This would likely never, ever, be enforced simply because it is near impossible and certainly an invasion of privacy in the majority of cases. The sheer number of unintentionally stupid things a person could do when they don’t know they’re pregnant that would cause a miscarriage is staggering.
I disagree that there would be any moral imperative leading to the situation you described a while back. [/quote]
I’m not sure, is that to me? I didn’t bring in the miscarriage-as-murder thing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So Em, am I right in assuming that you support ending abortion only after the problems that necessitate it are resolved?
Correct.
Since that is likely never to happen…
Does that make it wrong to try and fix them though? It seems rather negative to not look at alternate paths to the same finish line.
I think it is entirely possible to remove the problems that cause abortion to be necessary. Of course, I didn’t say it would be easy.[/quote]
The contention is you can’t make it incumbent to correct all the potential pitfalls of a corrective action prior to taking the action. If we worked that way in any capacity from day to day, nothing would ever get done. It’s not that it isn’t important to think about, it’s that you cannot possibly guess and correct all that is needed to make the situation right.
Freeing slaves strained the infrastructure and decimated the southern economy but it was done anyway, and it should have been despite the consequences, because it was the right thing to do.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
pat wrote:
You are flat guessing at problems that may occur and may not. It’s almost absurd. Would there be some additional burden on the general infrastructure if there were more kids born than there are now, probably. But you have no idea what that would be in reality. Unless you have some sort of Nostradamas like premonitions, there is no way to know what would happen.
Well, I know what it is now. The infrastructure is already overburdened. So the thought of further burdening it worries me. Particularly when I see indifference to the living coupled with concern for the unborn.
[/quote]
We deport the illegal mexicans and we’ll have a lot more infrastructure to play with. 
That’s why dumping the baby in a dumpster is attempted murder if the baby survives and murder if it does not. That is already in place, you can take your baby to any hosptial and give it away anonymously no questions asked. There is no excuse.
I understand what you’re getting at. You do not want to replace one tragedy with others. And that’s fine and it should be considered, but even if not considered, we should stop the one we have at least.
I’ll put it to you this way, if you saw me kill my own child would you give a damn about my circumstances? Remember, Susan Smith who killed her two toddlers in that lake? Do you really give a shit what she was going through?
Or the Benoit wrestler dude who killed his own family, do you really care about his feelings?
I have a hard time pitying the selfish when their acts are grievous and heinous.
Serious question to Pat, Push, Tedro and everyone else who feels so passionately about saving the unborn:
Do you feel as passionately about saving the unborn in other countries, say, Bangladesh or Somalia or Pakistan? Or is your concern only for aborted potentially American fetuses?
(I say potentially because of that quirk in our legal system that only confers nationality on people who are born.)
Anyway, do you feel the imperative need to agitate for a worldwide ban on abortion, or only a nationwide ban?
Because if your concern is only for fetuses in this country, you should know that abortion in America constitutes only about 3 percent of the total number of abortions worldwide.
And if indeed your hearts bleed for the other 45 million or so fetuses aborted outside of the jurisdiction of these United States, what then to do? Shall we lobby the United Nations to implement a worldwide ban?
Or better still, should the United States, acting as guardian of international morality, enforce a worldwide ban, just as soon as we ban the grievous and heinous practice within our own borders?
[quote]pat wrote:
If abortion were illegal, some people would still seek them but I promise it would not be anywhere near 1.2 million a year.
[/quote]
Actually, abortion is illegal in Brazil, and the number of annual abortions is conservatively estimated at 1.4 million.
"Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions."
“Where abortion is legal and permitted on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in many circumstances, it is often unsafe. For example, in South Africa, the incidence of infection resulting from abortion decreased by 52% after the abortion law was liberalized in 1996.”
“Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. However, in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.”
So, Pat, the question stands: Do you weep as bitterly for the eight million Chinese, two million Russian, and 1.5 million Vietnamese babies prevented every year, along with the 40 million of every other nationality? Or is your crusade confined to the wombs of women in the United States?
And if the former, will you attempt to use your aforementioned methods (law, gun, talking nicely, jumping around in a circle) in those countries as well?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Liken it to the challenges of space exploration in 1963. Let’s land on the moon first. We’ll get to Saturn someday.
[/quote]
What constitutes “landing on the moon?”
A national ban of abortion? Because in that case, we would be joining the ranks of such enlightened nations as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, none of which can seem to keep those pesky scofflaw mothers from seeking extralegal (and in most cases, extramedical) ways of dealing with the problem.
Perhaps the governments of these countries just aren’t authoritarian enough.
What, then, constitutes “getting to Saturn?”
A worldwide ban? Again, I point you to the aforementioned article, which states that making abortion illegal has little effect other than to make it less safe for the women getting the procedure.
Perhaps your ultimate goal is for there to be zero abortions worldwide. To use your space program analogy, I’d say this constitutes the colonization of Pluto.
I won’t use the word “impossible,” but I’d say the chances of completely eliminating abortion rank right up there with completely eliminating terrorism, drugs, crime, obesity, and stupidity.