Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Also there should be a relaxing of who can adopt a bit. From what I have heard the guidelines behind who can and cannot adopt are a bit rediculous as it requires a much much much much better home then they would have in an emergency foster care home or group home. On a side note I am either about volunteer in either a group home or a childrens mental hospital (don't know where they plan to put me just yet) does that mean I can be pro-life. I plan to adopt a special needs goofball one day too .

It is not an assumption. It is a fact that there were over 1,000,000 abortions last year. Your argument relies on the premise that abortion was never legalized. The fact is, is that it was, and that behavior is ingrained into todays culture. That is not going away. Would things be different today if abortion was never legalized? Perhaps. But that's not how things went. The issue is what would happen today if abortion was outlawed, not what might have happened had it not been legalized.

How long are these waiting lists? Stats? If they are over a million names added to the waiting lists each year, then your argument has merit. But, I'm willing to bet that that is not a plausible assumption. If we outlaw abortion today, in 17 years the amount of unwanted children will be in the millions.

You are right in the fact that the foster care system is not funded enough. Outlawing abortion only makes the problem worse. You not only have to pay for taking care of more children, but the case workers assigned to them. Not only that, these added case workers need to actually care about their job and the children they protect, which is a rare thing these days.

Stringent requirements are somewhat necessary as there may be a lot of pedophiles or people looking for cheap slaves out there.

I am not familiar with the foster care system, but is it the case that once parents adopt, no one checks on the children anymore, so that may be the reason for the strict guidelines? Perhaps a solution would be to allow adoptive parents to take the child in but be subject to "checks" for a year or so, so that children get out of foster care faster, but are still somewhat protected.




If you actually adopt a child, then yes, it's okay for you to be pro-life.

I had typed up a lengthy piece attempting to explain this in a precise manner, however I screwed up somehow and lost it . Anyway, I will just do it in a point by point fashion.

1. I have a correction to make. I wrote this:

2. I consider this information to be suspect. Why? Because of this, from a story from the Associated Press that popped up on Drudge:



3. The information in the story negates what I wrote. I now consider the information in the link to be suspect. Furthermore, I am annoyed with myself, and Headphase was fair to razz me for this, using that link in the first place. The linked looked professional but beneath it's professional like if I had bothered to look around I would have seen it was put together by a, well intentioned, amateur. I am not condemning all amateurs, by the way, or even necessarily this person. But even if I note the good intent, the info was wrong. I was wrong.

4. If anyone notices a factual mistake by me, feel free to point it out. If I see another one I will make sure to correct it. Thanks.

Having nerves and REM sleep is not Sapience. The term I meant to use. It has no ability to reason, no self awareness, no perception.

Thought and judgement are what make someone human not their DNA, for that is only their potential represented in material form though ribsomes and thymine.

^ It irks me how more attention and research is put upon the unborn lives of the panda bear than our own species.

Jimservo, you were right in pointing out the cultural change in behavior. A change in law and policy is not the only fix to be made in our society when it comes to the acceptance and responsibility to raise children. I really have no idea how such a backtrack can be done on such a large scale.

The only way I can see it working is on an individual scale. Instead of holding up placards outside of a clinic saying "End Abortion Now", I'd rather old up one saying, "I have a spare room for you and your child".

Okay, time to hear from me. I recently had to do a paper on this so sorry for rambling and I'll try to be brief.


I think it should be legal in certain circumstances.


In terms of my personal opinions:

If it's endangering the mother's life, go ahead and abort it. I'm not touching the question of rape with a 100-ft barge pole, purely because of how personal it is.

Otherwise, I'm against it. I mean, if you decided to have sex without contraception and then whine about needing to abort the child , who are you calling a ret*d?



Now, politically, I couldn't care less one way or t'other.
I'm not going to nag you about it - just don't expect me to worship you as a genius is all.

I posted this story so I thought I would post the follow up.

(source link)

Something not mentioned by this Associated Press in any of it's coverage:



(source link)

A unborn baby at all stages of post embryonic development is called a fetus, as long as it is inside the womb. Since this is a discussion on abortion I would ask this question, should the procedure be banned at this late point? If not then at what point? I will state my position clearly: Eventually, I would eventually like to see an abortion ban apply to all abortions post-fertilization except for cases that effect the life of the mother (no partial-birth abortion would be allowed in such cases). I understand this is not coming anytime soon. Currently, of course, the people cannot even pass the most modest restrictions (the type they have in Great Britain or France).

Pro-choice. Hypocritical bible-thumpers are NOT going to tell me what to do with my body.

I thump no bible.

ADDENDUM: On that, however I must add something. There is a movie coming on it a few days on a truly great man, William Wilberforce. William Wilberforce in addition to being the abolitionist who helped end slavery in the British Empire, was an evangelist. You could indeed call him a "bible thumper." Is it not the type of men or women a person is rather the religion they practice that a person should be judged? If the cause is just, then even if it is inspired by religious belief, should it not be endorsed?

Is not Sapience wisdom (perhaps you meant sentience)? On this criterion very few are truly human and the Bene Gesserit in "Dune" are/were/will be, if Frank Herbert's future is realised how ever improbable, correct in their application of tests of pain to measure a person's humanity. Or did you mean the capacity to reason? In that case you are only speaking of potential sapience, the very thing considered an insuficient criterion for humanity in a foetus.

Not to pile on, but the question of reasoning is separate from self-awareness* and certainly from the development of the brain. If this was used as a basis then by extension, babies would have less right then adults to live then children, and children less right to live then adults (the widely respected, at least in academia, ethicist Peter Singer, has already suggested the former). Of course, once one starts down this road questions arise for those with serious mental disabilities such as the minority of children with Down Syndrome who are not aborted. Professor Singer (who currently teaches at Princeton) has raised the question of whether the eldery should have reduced rights due to their "mental condition."

I am not claiming that you have these opinions however I doubt it one issue does not have effect on the others. I realize some may right this off as extremist rhetoric however it must be remembered that before the rise of Nazi Germany euthanasia was often regarded as a "progressive" idea. As the years pass it would be most horrible if it were to make a comeback.

*In regards to self-awareness, the fetus seems self-aware enough of itself at fewer then 20 weeks to interact within the womb. We are clearly talking about the same person. I mean this is the same process we all go through. The Supreme Court has said that as long as the child is inside the womb it is not a person but this has no biological meaning. It is a human being, period.

Want an example of how clear this is? Here is excerpt of testimony of Giana Jessen to the U.S. House of Representatives, who survived a saline abortion. This is incredibly rare, but it makes extremely clear the cost of each abortion, and that is the ending of a human life:



(source link with full testimony)

That's a good argument against third-trimester abortions. But it is not relevant to an abortion done at, say, 10 or 12 weeks (first trimester).

I don't consider myself a bible thumper. In fact, it thumps me upside the head quite often.

I think abortion is stupid.

Is someone gets pregnant of unprotected sex,that's THIER problem. Give the baby up for adoption.

I also think that aborting a rape-child is stupid,because it's the FATHER'S fault...NOT the baby's.


-SpaceCase

I don't feel good about the way abortion is now

unfortunatly any conditions I could suggest would just make society worse, so it's not optimum, but I'm going to accept the system as it is

this is a grey area, I think abortion should be much rarer than it is now, I think it should require certain conditions, and I think under most circumstances the choice should have been made before the pregnancy occured, if you don't want a kid don't have unprotected sex


that being said, that isn't always an option for everyone

Excellent point. My opinion on this is completely changed.


(not sarcasm)