Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

I'm for a parent having the 'right' to slaughter their child at any point in time.

For me abortion is justified because the fetus is not yet sentient and therefore only has the rights of a non-sentient lifeform.

Cthulhu is against abortion, because it means there are less people for him to eat.

There are no laws against using multiple forms of contraception to make sure they don't.

Blame the Catholic Church, my friend.

No contraception is 100% effective, especially when one takes into consideration that people have sex many times.



This is not the case.



(source link)

Partial-birth abortions are performed on fetuses from 20-26 weeks. There are 2,200 of these abortions annually.

ADDENDUM: Extreme prematures are born from 22 to 26. Few 22 week babies live, sadly. About half of 23 week, and three quarters of 24 weeks do. It is not untypical for these babies to have a myriad of long term health and handicaps.

(source link)

I was born at 30 weeks. Under current Supreme Court precedent abortions even at this stage cannot be be effectively banned (honestly, they cannot even be banned at 9 months). Fortunately abortions at this stage at extremely rare.

Birth Control pills are exceedingly effective (even when taken improperly they are superior to the ever popular condom, when taken properly there is pretty much no chance), as are IUDs.

The IUD may be effective but it is also a aborticide, like RU-486. (I realize this may not concern you, but it does me) The average failure rate of the male/female condom per year is 15/21 per 100 couples.

(source link)

I am not arguing in favor of banning contraceptions, BTW, although I still feel the court decision saying the states may not do so is incorrect constitutionally (those are separate questions).

Let's not also forget that implantation is quickly becoming the new definition of 'conception'.

So your sources are the National Right to Life and and an AOL homepage?

It's better than the nothing we get from you.

Ummm... your statistic of 95% percent is that high because of abortion. Thats right, because of abortion. The adoption rate is about 200,000 children a year. Now, take into account that there are over 1,000,000 abortions a year. Outlaw abortions and your adoption percentage becomes a paltry 20%. Now, thats over 800,000 orphans a year who are gauranteed never to be adopted (this is a statistical certainty, the only way this wouldn't happen is if there were a 100% adoption rate and a waiting list of hundreds of thousands) and who will spend their entire first 18 years of life in the foster care system, or under the care of people who never wished they were born.

800,000 more children in the foster care system means that we would have to expand the foster care system almost twenty-fold. Which means twenty times the funding, twenty times the foster parents, twenty times the case-workers, twenty times the agencies, etc. Why twenty-fold? Because these are orphans for life, children who will never be adopted. And, every year they do not go away, they add up. Over 17 years thats a build of over 13 million more kids in todays foster care system.

Where is all the money going to come from? Where are all the case workers going to come from? Where are all the foster parents going to come from?

And, this is just America. Outlaw abortions internationally and you've got major problems.

My argument is not faulty, it is a legitimate argument, the numbers do not lie. The only way your logic holds any weight would be if abortion was illegal and the adoption rate was still 95%. Unfortunately, thats not the way it is.

I used that link regarding fetal development because it was simplified, not because of it's partisan nature. Here is another link that expresses most of the same information in the same format.

The AOL link, which was directed (although the link itself does not comment on it) more at partial-birth abortion then the general abortion debate, is not inaccurate from the best I can tell.

First the assumption that all the children that one have been aborted would have now be born is not necessary correct. Before abortion laws were liberalized in the United States the amount of abortions wasn't even ten percent what is was now. The change in the laws has resulted in a change in behavior.

Second off, there are more people that desire to adopt currently in this country then there are children available to adopt. This isn't to say the bureaucracy isn't a mess.

Thirdly, I would rather a child be given the chance to live then simply killed off in the assumption it as better for them as is the case now. Orphanages today are actually not funded enough anyway. There used to be a solid establishment of orphanages across this country for unwanted youths but they vanished in the 1960s and 1970s with the change in culture.

Finally, if abortions laws are going to change it is going to come gradually. Honestly I wish it could be in one stroke but that isn't going to happen. This gradually change will be have to be both legally and culturally.

I would have thought that the father of the unborn child should bear some responsibility. As you rightly point out, the blame would be ENTIRELY his if he is a rapist. In the case of a fourteen year old girl, (she is below the age of consent for crying out loud!) I would have thought this was a matter of concern and responsibility for several people: obviously the father of the foetus, both parents of the girl, her teachers and society, ie us. And at fourteen putting the bulk of the burden of the blame on the unwed mother seems brutally unfair. I agree that abstinence, or at least temperance with some fidelity would be a brilliant idea but persuading people of any age to be rational is at times difficult. Inculcation of some sense of responsibility for the consequences of one's actions for others and oneself would be desirable, but one child conceived out of wedlock does not exactly immediately equal promiscuity in the sense of deliberate wanton encounters with multiple sexual partners. Surely if fourteen year old girls, even not taking into account the relative age of the boyfriend/abuser are having unprotected sexual congruence this is a matter of grave concern for us all! I probably incline to pro-life with regard to abortion.

Probably a fair call with regard to pro-life people like myself and adoption (though I am unmarried and likely to remain so for some time, possibly for the term of my natural life, currently unemployed though studying and hoping to get some work experience, my parents are middle-aged and formula milk may not be the best start in life, particularly given the lack of antibodies. Do you think that I would make a responsible foster parent?) Are there not many childless couples, some of whom at least would be interested in adoption? Obviously a rigourous system should be in place to protect against the danger of any form of negligence or abuse, though even with blood-kin this can be an issue.

Agreed.

The problem with children in the foster system has a lot to do, unfortunately, with that rigorous, but broken system, that leaves couples wanting to adopt, especially couples wanting to adopt U.S. children, on extremely long waiting lists as time is spent (eventually) checking each individual couple for things that might make them unacceptable. More here.