Abortion

[ebola]

I know that this could very easily be in the Politics and Current Events section, but the reasons we believe as we do make the R&P forum a better fit, I think.

Yahzi wrote:

All of you

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm generally against abortion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's because you are for the oppression of women. The abortion debate is not about the fetus - who the hell cares about another baby in this overcrowded world? - it is about who will control the means of production. If women have an unfettered right to abortion, then men have no control whatsoever over childbirth. This is unfair to men. But this biological injustice cannot be corrected by robbing women of their rights. To do so would be like the old canard about equality: will we tie wieghts to the swift and the strong so they can't run faster than the slow?

Concern over the rights of some miniscule bit of tissue is irrelevant. I don't have the right to chain you down for 9 months while I use your internal organs to keep me alive. Your chosing to have sex with someone does not give me that right. End of story. Even if the fetus is a person, it's a person with no right to the property of others unless others want to give it to them.

Amazing, isn't it, how quick men are to defend their property from the clutches of the have-nots when property is defined as taxes -yet how swift they are to dispense with property in the name of the poor and needy when property is defined as a woman's body?

Forcing women to yield their physical assets to these new citizens is the ultimate act of weath transferall. You guys won't even vote tax money to feed or educate immigrants from another country, but you'll vote women's bodies to feed these immigrants from nowhere?

For the most part, I agree with you. I said I was generally against abortion. I did not say that I favored making it illegal. There is a world of difference.

I agree that it is absolutely a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I make no distinction between any cause, whether it is rape, incest, or simple carelessness.

However, life is very precious. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is to be taken far more seriously than the choice of a mate ( given the 50%+ divorce rate ), and information on ALL options should be readily available. A woman should be able to make the most informed decision possible.

The huge number of prospective parents waiting to adopt has driven many couples to foreign countries. It is insane that, given the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and the number of abortions performed, we can't do something to persuade more women to give their future children a chance at a life with a loving couple who desparately want a child.

My wife and I adopted an infant not too long ago. This little boy brings us so much happiness. I can't imagine my life without him. I cannot describe how much I admire the birth mother's choice.

Eric

 

[fidiot]

Sorry for putting it in a cold sort of way, but the demand for adopting kids is way lower than the supply, so to speak. And the difference will only grow bigger as the world population grows.

As for the decision to be taken more seriously, I think it's clear that we need more education on this subject. And I mean education, not religiously imposed(?) morals. The more people know about the subject (both sex education and abortion), the more they will analyze the situation before making a choice.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

However, life is very precious.

Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants. Am okay with animal expiriments. Etc. I don't see why a fetus or embryo is thus so precious.

 

[Akots]

Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants. Am okay with animal expiriments. Etc. I don't see why a fetus or embryo is thus so precious.

Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.

 

[ebola]

fidiot wrote:

Sorry for putting it in a cold sort of way, but the demand for adopting kids is way lower than the supply, so to speak.

On the world stage, I would have to agree. In this country, people are flocking by the thousands to China, South America, and Eastern Europe to adopt infants. The problem with foreign adoption is that, in some cases, particularly Russia, it amounts to little more than baby selling. People go to Russia with a list of items ( and, of course, the items themselves ) that various government officials would like as bribes. It is truly disgusting that people would profit from the welfare of a child.

In the US, there are far more people who want to adopt than there are babies. Just talk to someone who has spent five years on an agency waiting list. There are actually lists for people who want to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. If a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy carries a baby to term here, there is a family to adopt the child.

DialectMaterialist wrote:

Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants.

We all eat. So what? Did you read the part where I said:

I agree that it is absolutely a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I make no distinction between any cause, whether it is rape, incest, or simple carelessness.

Eric

 

[fidiot]

On the world stage, I would have to agree. In this country, people are flocking by the thousands to China, South America, and Eastern Europe to adopt infants. The problem with foreign adoption is that, in some cases, particularly Russia, it amounts to little more than baby selling. People go to Russia with a list of items ( and, of course, the items themselves ) that various government officials would like as bribes. It is truly disgusting that people would profit from the welfare of a child.

In the US, there are far more people who want to adopt than there are babies. Just talk to someone who has spent five years on an agency waiting list. There are actually lists for people who want to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. If a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy carries a baby to term here, there is a family to adopt the child.

This I see as a problem either with laws concerning adoption(the forementioned baby selling) or morals(sadly, some people might not want a child that's not white, or comes from lower class parents for example), or both. The fact is that I'm pretty sure that there are more babies up for adoption than there are families that need a child to adopt, even in USA. Does anyone have any links for more information? It would be interesting to look into this closer.

 

[Tricky]

Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.

If you were to put one-month old dog, horse and human fetuses side by side, I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference without genetic testing.

To me what makes it human is human consciousness. Without that, it is just another piece of tissue.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.

That seems to be a uniquely human concept, and understandably so.

One might do well to qualify the concept a bit and say something like:

" Human fetal life is very precious. " If, in fact that is their position with regard to abortion.

Because, that same person might not have a problem with with executing a full grown human, or dropping a bomb
on a few others.

However, I'm sure they would be sure there were no pregnant humans, in the target area first.

 

[Upchurch]

My take

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't really think anyone is for abortions. I can't see any reasonably minded person attempting to get pregnet just so she can have the "fun" of having an abortion. So, claiming someone is "Pro-Abortion" never made any sense to me.

Now, as a man, I don't see where it's any of my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. In the one situation where I was asked for advice about the matter, I pushed for her to either raise or put the kid up for adoption, but once she had made her decision, I tried to help (emotionally, etc.) her as best as I could. It was her decision and her responsiblity.

My fiancee (who is 100% anti-abortion) and I have decided that when we choose to have kids, we will have no more than one biological child (if that) and adopt all others. (in other words, we'll either have one biological child and one adopted or two adopted children) Adoption is a prefered alternative to abortion, in my mind, but it only works if people are willing to adopt, which means changing some of our social norms, I think.

For example, I'm friends with a couple who the wife has an inherited problem conceiving after a certain age (something like 25-26). When I suggested that there was always adoption, I might as well have suggested that she surgically add a second nose. She was outright offended at the possibility of adopting.

 

[ebola]

fidiot wrote:

This I see as a problem either with laws concerning adoption(the forementioned baby selling) or morals(sadly, some people might not want a child that's not white, or comes from lower class parents for example), or both. The fact is that I'm pretty sure that there are more babies up for adoption than there are families that need a child to adopt, even in USA.

There are currently, in the US, about 150,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. The overwhelming majority of these are children who have been removed from abusive homes. In years past non-white babies tended to languish in foster care. However, today, race is not as big an issue, many minority families have reached a level of affluence that allows them to afford the costs of adoption, and infants get adopted pretty quickly regardless of race.

As for Russia, the problem is system wide, and I am certain that nobody currently on the gravy train is anxious to get off. The corruption and graft in that country truly makes one's head spin.

Eric

 

[Q-Source]

Yazhi,

Wow, I liked your post a lot. I think that before the fetus' right to live, we have to defend the women's right to decide. Ultimately, they are the only responsible for their bodies.

ebola,

I see your concern, however try to isolate abortion from other issues. Abortion is a matter of women's right to decide over their bodies when they don't have the support of their man most of time.

Giving birth is not an easy task, it requires 9 months of care and emotional stress. Furthermore, the problem with adoption is the lack of supply of very young children with some specific characteristics. Couples always prefer new born baby than older children or teenagers.

I see that the only solution to abortion is prevention instead of coercion.

Tricky,

People generally conceive abortions as a human killing practice, when in fact, strictly speaking, there isn't any human involved. It is just a fetus without consciousness.

Q-S

 

[ebola]

Upchurch wrote:

My fiancee (who is 100% anti-abortion) and I have decided that when we choose to have kids, we will have no more than one biological child (if that) and adopt all others.

If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.

Upchurch wrote:

For example, I'm friends with a couple who the wife has an inherited problem conceiving after a certain age (something like 25-26). When I suggested that there was always adoption, I might as well have suggested that she surgically add a second nose. She was outright offended at the possibility of adopting.

It takes many infertile couples years to even consider adoption. Many spend so much on fertility treatments that they cannot afford the expenses associated with adoption. If the couple wants a child badly enough and they have exhausted all other possibilities, they will eventually consider it.

Eric

 

[MRC_Hans]

And, we are quite willing to sacrifice (post-birth) human lives for a number of other causes, such as the comfort of individual transport.

Hans

 

[ebola]

Q-Source wrote:

Abortion is a matter of women's right to decide over their bodies when they don't have the support of their man most of time.

Giving birth is not an easy task, it requires 9 months of care and emotional stress. Furthermore, the problem with adoption is the lack of supply of very young children with some specific characteristics. Couples always prefer new born baby than older children or teenagers.

I agree that abortion is a matter of a woman's right to decide. I have stated this before in this thread.

I never claimed that giving birth was easy. I watched my wife carry our twins, and I cannot imagine trading places.

I agree that the demand for newborns is dramatically higher than for other children. Where I differ is that the demand for newborns is high enough so that those "specific characteristics" become unimportant; if one couple is shallow enough not to adopt based on one or two aspects of the child's background, they will continue to wait, and another couple will adopt the child. Given how long some people have already waited, these "characteristics" that couples desire beome inconsequential.

Eric

 

[Q-Source]

And, we are quite willing to sacrifice (post-birth) human lives for a number of other causes, such as the comfort of individual transport.

What do you mean?

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

 

[MRC_Hans]

What do you mean?

I mean that even if somebody considers a fetus a human (just when does it turn into one?), this "life is sacred" business seems a tad hypocritical

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

Uhh Q, that is a strawman (been around you-know-who for too long?). I have not said I consider a fetus a human. But at some point, it does turn into one, and it might be pertinent to discuss when.

I am certainly against making abortion illegal, for the exact reasons that Yahzi mentions, plus one more: Whether legal or illegal, provoked abortions have always and will always happen. To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks.

Hans

 

[Tricky]

Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

 

[Blue Monk]

Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

Give 'em time. They'll show up.

I've always thought we should divert all of our combative abortion issue energies and unite in a solid movement to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That would not solve everything but every unwanted pregnancy that is avoided is a solid victory for both sides of the abortion issue.

 

[Akots]

What do you mean?

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

A fetus obviously doesn't have a completely matured brain, but is that a prerequisite for conciousness? Do we really understand conciousness enough to conclusively decide wether a fetus is a living human being, and has rights? Untill I was certain, I would treat it as such.

As for potential being equivelant to the fullly matured version, we are all potential Einsteins, Rockafellers, Jane Goodalls, Osama Bin Ladins, and Armstrongs. While w eall have the capacity to be brilliant and influential human beings, not all of us can be, as our civilization isn't able to support tens of millions of super-geniuses, influential leaders, and infamous mass murderers. In a normal sampling, we are not all exceptional.

On the other hand, a fetus, if given a normal chance to survive, has little choice other than to become a human being. There's nothing else for it to become.

Sure, a potential inseminated egg might not achieve maturity; it could be aborted, or could die of unintentional causes. However, we don't look at an inseminated egg and say "I wonder if it will be a human, or something else instead?"

Really, the issue is wether a fetus has a soul or not. Not wether it is concious or not.

EDIT: Hm...in retrospect, i suppose you might summarize my post thusly...
*Repeatedly whacks hornet's nest with baseball bat*
THE RETURN OF EDIT: It's not intentional. I swear.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Really, the issue is wether a fetus has a soul or not. Not wether it is concious or not.

Does something not conscious have a soul?

If yes to that, is it only something with the potential to become conscious that has a soul?

If yes to that, are souls killed?

If no, are souls sacred?

Hans