In light of recent events, I will open an old wound...

[noxiousdog]

6 weeks. He has brain function, as measured by an electroencephalogram. He moves independant of his mother,

So did Terry Schiavo, but it was ok to terminate her too.

[Poleaxe]

Al and others, are you REALLY trying to say that that child would be better off being dismembered in the womb rather than having a damn chance to be something or someone?

You're still not getting my point. I'll try this one last time.

Social conservatives want to make abortion illegal in this country.

Outlawing abortion without dealing with the additional thousands of additional at risk kids will cause violent crime to ramp up as time goes on.

Eventually, this problem will become large and visible enough that the population will demand action. Quite possibly, one of these actions will be to lift the ban on abortion. Another might be a backlash against conservatism as a whole.

At the very least, if social conservatives want a ban on abortion to be anything other then temporary then it would behoove them to address these other issues. That they won't, almost entirely for ideological reasons, doesn't speak well of their position.

Al, I've been thinking about this since you first posted it. I would like to see the practice of abortion ended for moral reasons rather than religious. Because my reasons are not grounded in faith, I'm not so much anti-abortion as in disagreement with the legal definition of when a person becomes a person. Assuming your figures are accurate, here is my answer:

Even though I understand intellectually that RM9 is right about aid to Africa, I cannot subscribe to his position because... well, the nature of humanity is to "rage, rage against the dying of the light." Perhaps we do more harm, but it is in our nature to feed the starving if we can.

I feel the same way about abortion and the consequences of ending the practice.

[geezer]

This is not a child. And I suspect that +/- 50% of Americans and Canadians would agree with me.

No? (by the way, bringing pictures into an abortion debate on the pro-choice side? Bad move.)

Not really. I don't have any issues with the pix you provided, and I suspect that you're right -- lots of people would probably agree with you if posed with the pictures you just showed.

I'm not of the opinion that it should be OK to abort a fetus right up to birth, and frankly I think that a prospective mother needs to and should decide very early on if she is going to carry the child to term.

That said, I'm not afraid of stating that the well-being of a functional, adult human being is more valuable than a non-sentient bundle of cells, or even an unaware life that has the apppearance of being human, so your pix don't bother me. And I'm CERTAINLY not afraid to state that the unborn should not take precedence over the already living.

We make value judgments about what life takes priority over other life every day. Why should an unaware, nonviable human be untouchable, particularly when we are so ready to sacrific the lifes of fully aware humans (and for that matter, other animals that can certainly feel fear and pain) for much less noble goals?

[Poleaxe]

Saying that a fetus is unaware seems fairly meaningless when we don't know when it becomes aware.

[Grundbegriff]

I'm a little surprised to see our champion of rational debate draw on the tactics of the most crude and repugnant pro-life campaigns.

There's nothing inherently irrational about going into a factual discussion with both eyes wide open. If a plainly descriptive discourse seems rhetorically charged -- as it inevitably must in this case unless it's wrapped in euphemism -- then that fact should underscore the urgency of the issue, not the supposed crudity of a tactic.

To the contrary, it's both crude and repugnant to wrap these particular facts in an emotionally pseudo-neutral caul.

[Enough]

Nah, it is better if we can call each other names and put grotesque pictures on plaques...

What's grotesque about pictures of preborn humans? Or do you mean specifically the pictures that show the results of their having been ripped apart and shredded by suction wands?

I'm a little surprised to see our champion of rational debate draw on the tactics of the most crude and repugnant pro-life campaigns. What's next, spraying pig's blood on women going into abortion clinics?

There's nothing inherently irrational about going into a factual discussion with both eyes wide open. If a plainly descriptive discourse seems rhetorically charged -- as it inevitably must in this case unless it's wrapped in euphemism -- then that fact should underscore the urgency of the issue, not the supposed crudity of a tactic.

To the contrary, it's both crude and repugnant to wrap these particular facts in an emotionally pseudo-neutral caul.

Point of clarification for the confused... Grund are you advocating the use of aborted fetus imagery such as you find on the traveling billboards that visit many colleges? Are you advocating said images be used for this forum? Or are you merely stating that word choice is key for abortion debates? It sort of seems murky.

[noxiousdog]

Saying that a fetus is unaware seems fairly meaningless when we don't know when it becomes aware.

We don't know exactly when it become aware, but we know that it is after 12 weeks.

[Effidian]

We don't know exactly when it become aware, but we know that it is after 12 weeks.

On this note. It looks like around 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. I know reasons why woman have abortions after 12 weeks, but I haven't found percentages. Anyone have a site that gives percentages for the reasons after 12 weeks?

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm a little surprised to see our champion of rational debate draw on the tactics of the most crude and repugnant pro-life campaigns.

There's nothing inherently irrational about going into a factual discussion with both eyes wide open. If a plainly descriptive discourse seems rhetorically charged -- as it inevitably must in this case unless it's wrapped in euphemism -- then that fact should underscore the urgency of the issue, not the supposed crudity of a tactic.

To the contrary, it's both crude and repugnant to wrap these particular facts in an emotionally pseudo-neutral caul.

That assumes it's the method which is used to perform the abortion that's the issue, rather than the abortion itself. If it's abortion which you oppose regardless of method, bringing in the graphic details of how it's done is both irrelevant and repugnant.

[Mr. Fed]

Pro-lifers should stick to sanitized images. You know, like wire hangers.

[noxiousdog]

We don't know exactly when it become aware, but we know that it is after 12 weeks.

On this note. It looks like around 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. I know reasons why woman have abortions after 12 weeks, but I haven't found percentages. Anyone have a site that gives percentages for the reasons after 12 weeks?

One of the links I posted earlier from AGI has it.

[Demonix]

After having grown up in that environment, getting out of that environment, and building a life for myself, I still maintain one thing:

I really do wish my mother had aborted me as opposed to bringing me into this world, and it was a decision I came to at a very early stage.

No offense, but if your life was so horrible, why are you still here? Why didn't you commit suicide? Apparently, it was never so bad that you would have chosen death over life, regardless of what you say you wish your parents had done.

And your life these days must apparently not be so bad now. Why deny aborted children the potential to reach the type of life you have today, regardless of what they might have to go through to get there?

This argument of "abortion is ok because it spares unwanted children the pain of a predestined miserable life" is ridiculous. Not all aborted kids would have had a miserable life. I don't believe most aborted kids would have chosen to be aborted even if they DID have a miserable life...the desire to live is funny like that. At the very least, if their life IS so miserable that they can't bear living it, let them make that decision themselves, rather than making it for them based on an unpredictable future.

This is why I don't get into these discussions...Everyone thinks they know what is best for everyone else, regardless of whether or not they truly have an understanding of the situation.

Are you intimately familiar with the details behind each and every abortion carried out every day? Do you know the people personally, and how they grew up?

We are ask where life begins, we ask where the line should be drawn, but we miss something even more important.

This is not our decision, nor is it our place to force that decision on any one else.

If you are against abortion, for whatever reason, that is fine...it is your decision to make. That does not give you the right to force that view on others.

The greater crime is not how many children are killed every day, but the removal of free will. Are people capable of governing themselves? I wish I could say yes, but its just not the case. Still, what right do we really have to tell someone else what to do?

If there is a god, he gave us free will for a reason. If anyone is going to be punished for thier actions it will be by god's hand, not yours. Tend to your own garden.

As far as my case goes, what's done is done.

[Poleaxe]

This is not our decision, nor is it our place to force that decision on any one else.

But it is our place to prevent late term abortions?

[Captain Caveman]

Pro-lifers should stick to sanitized images. You know, like wire hangers.

NO WIRE HANGERS!

[Tareeq]

If you are against abortion, for whatever reason, that is fine...it is your decision to make. That does not give you the right to force that view on others.

And yet we force our views on others all the time, with our so-called "laws" and "courts" and "taxes" and even our "norms" and "customs." If the parents are even a day late in making this most personal of decisions, we force them into indentured servitude, no...

slavery!

all to pay for the feeding of a useless mouth.

The greater crime is not how many children are killed every day, but the removal of free will. Are people capable of governing themselves? I wish I could say yes, but its just not the case. Still, what right do we really have to tell someone else what to do?

Sing it brother!

If there is a god, he gave us free will for a reason. If anyone is going to be punished for thier actions it will be by god's hand, not yours.

Tell that to the dad who tried to eat a free salad at Chuck E. Cheese! Tell that to Lil Kim! She exercised her free will, and look at what a joke it turned out to be.

There is no god.

[Rowdy]

Noxious Dog wrote: From that, I can only assume you think being in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

Ah, but you know what they say when you make assumptions, right? As I told Josh, my feelings on the war are completely independant of my feelings on abortion, and despite your feeble attempts, there isn't a link between the two.

Yes. Over one million unwanted children. There were an estimated 1.3M abortions last year. For those 1.3M, only 204,000 women actually took any steps to adopt, though, 500,000 were allegedly considering it. Regardless, since less than 150,000 are adopted each year, that 500,000 in the queue (if it were easier) would be quickly absorbed.

My sarcasm was kind of lost on you, hey? Thanks, I understand what a million means.

What makes you think they'd do any better than the current foster care and CWS services?

Already discussed in depth. Reading skills, people!

First, you're not talking about parents. In 83% of the cases you're talking about a single mother. Second, while having a baby can change your life, and I've heard it can change people into responsible adults, I'm not sure that I think that I trust people that are willing to kill their baby with raising it.

Having a baby DOES change your life, and for a liberal, you have depressingly little faith in a persons ability to rise to a challenge! Every parent I know describes mental, physical and emotional changes, all designed for one thing - take care of the child. Of course there are those that break down and can't handle it, but I'd bet the majority of those having abortions would be reasonable parents if forced to take care of their children.

You're absolutely right. But it is a joke. And it was a joke before RvW.

Ah, so you're starting to agree with me then! So lets put our resources into better ways of teaching people it's NOT a joke, instead of trying to find more efficient ways to end childrens lives.

Since we established that you are against Afghanistan and Iraq, does it extend to thinking we shouldn't have been in WWI or WWII as well?

You haven't established anything - you made a wild guess. And wow, you got me - my opposition to killing unborn children does in fact ultimately mean I think we should never have fought against Hitler. (that was more sarcasm).

So why didn't that work prior to Roe v. Wade? See, we tried it your way for 150 years. It clearly wasn't working.

How was it clearly not working? Before the so called sexual revolution, when we started teaching people that sex was just a meaningless fun activity with no consequences on anyones lives, how was it failing us exactly? I must have missed the day in History class when we discussed the huge problem with teenage pregnancies, epidemics of STDs and millions of unwashed, unwanted brats roaming the streets in the 40s and 50s.

We don't know exactly when it become aware, but we know that it is after 12 weeks.

Please cite your source - and while you're at it, please cite where science has defined and mapped 'self awareness' in a sentient being. Please show me where science has proven that babies in the womb don't think, before you tell me it's ok to dismember them and suck them out with a vaccum - at any age.

geezer wrote:We make value judgments about what life takes priority over other life every day. Why should an unaware, nonviable human be untouchable, particularly when we are so ready to sacrific the lifes of fully aware humans (and for that matter, other animals that can certainly feel fear and pain) for much less noble goals?

We don't kill fully aware humans for the sake of convenience. And if you think that animal life, while beautiful, has the same value as that of a human child, then you've got some strange value systems. I'm willing to bet you're not a parent, am I right?

Josh wrote: I'm against it. How about you?

Interesting that you're in favour of prolonging the life of a person who's demonstrated violent criminal tendencies, someone that the court decides is worthy of death, but you're not in favour of doing whatever it takes to give a child a CHANCE to live their lives. You're ok with killing a kid before they're born, but not with killing a condemned prisoner? Doesn't that seem a little... backwards to you?

It isn't impossible but it certainly seems improbable that we will change to take care of these kids. If you are behind reducing our weapons programs to pay for the needy, then I'm all for it.

Well, if it seems improbable, we should just forget it and keep murdering innocents. Change is teh hard, isn't it. And the weapons research thing was simply an example - we spend trillions. We can't find a way to support some kids, while at the same time endeavoring to reduce the number of births of kids that we're going to have to support, through education, or incentives of some kind, or something? Sure we can. We're just scared to try - easier to kill.

If making it illegal does not significantly reduce abortions, then shouldn't we be looking for other ways to reduce unplanned pregnancy?

Making it illegal would for dam sure significantly reduce abortions. Are you saying that we'd have a million women a year willing to stick coat hangers into their nether regions, or that rebel doctors would have the time and resources to simultaneously avoid the law while performing a million abortions in a year? No, it probably wouldn't wipe out the problem, but it's more than a good start. Proscecuting the murders of unborn children might help enforce the idea with people too.

TMH wrote: That assumes it's the method which is used to perform the abortion that's the issue, rather than the abortion itself. If it's abortion which you oppose regardless of method, bringing in the graphic details of how it's done is both irrelevant and repugnant.

The abortion itself is definitely the issue, but the method of abortion, while of secondary importance, is particulary regpugnant and repulsive. We would never think of dismembering a death row inmate while he's still alive, or crushing his head in a vise. But a nearly developed child who's done nothing except be the unwitting victim of his 'parents' mistake recieves no such mercy from our enlightened society. It's abhorrent. It's not difficult to understand the motivations of those who blow up abortion clinics in that light.

[Exodor]

What makes you think they'd do any better than the current foster care and CWS services?

Already discussed in depth. Reading skills, people!

We can read just fine. Here's how you "discussed it in depth":

Actually, when I said I'm sure we could come up with a plan, I didn't mean me and my next door neighbor - I was using a popular turn of phrase. What I literally meant was that perhaps the government of our respective nations could form committees and discuss ways in which to enrich the lives of the one million new children being born.

Your in-depth analysis consists of simply hoping the government will somehow fix the problem?

Having a baby DOES change your life, and for a liberal, you have depressingly little faith in a persons ability to rise to a challenge!

Did you just refer to noxiousdog as a liberal?!

Ah, so you're starting to agree with me then! So lets put our resources into better ways of teaching people it's NOT a joke, instead of trying to find more efficient ways to end childrens lives.

So you admit that abstinence education doesn't work - yet somehow throwing more money at it will suddenly make it work?

Who's the liberal, again?

How was it clearly not working? Before the so called sexual revolution, when we started teaching people that sex was just a meaningless fun activity with no consequences on anyones lives, how was it failing us exactly? I must have missed the day in History class when we discussed the huge problem with teenage pregnancies, epidemics of STDs and millions of unwashed, unwanted brats roaming the streets in the 40s and 50s.

You obviously failed to click the links above, so here's another one for you to ignore.

Because you seem to be link-averse:

When America was founded, abortion was legal. Laws prohibiting abortion were introduced in the mid-1800s, and, by 1900, most had been outlawed. Outlawing abortion did nothting to prevent pregnancy, and some estimates put the number of annual illegal abortions from 200,000 to 1.2 million in the 50s and 60s.

Interesting that you're in favour of prolonging the life of a person who's demonstrated violent criminal tendencies, someone that the court decides is worthy of death, but you're not in favour of doing whatever it takes to give a child a CHANCE to live their lives. You're ok with killing a kid before they're born, but not with killing a condemned prisoner?

You haven't figured out yet that pro-choice folks generally aren't pro-abortion, have you?

And that most of us are pro-choice because we want less government intervention in our private affairs?

Making it illegal would for dam sure significantly reduce abortions. Are you saying that we'd have a million women a year willing to stick coat hangers into their nether regions, or that rebel doctors would have the time and resources to simultaneously avoid the law while performing a million abortions in a year? No, it probably wouldn't wipe out the problem, but it's more than a good start. Proscecuting the murders of unborn children might help enforce the idea with people too.

If we had somewhere between 200,000 and 1,200,000 illegal abortions annually in the 50's (prior to "the sexual revolution"), why do you assume we won't as many or more now, after 30 years of legal abortion?

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that criminalizing abortion will "significantly reduce abortions"?

But a nearly developed child who's done nothing except be the unwitting victim of his 'parents' mistake recieves no such mercy from our enlightened society. It's abhorrent.

A 12-week old fetus is not "nearly developed."

Slaughterhouses are abhorrent, but I still eats me some steak from time to time.

It's not difficult to understand the motivations of those who blow up abortion clinics in that light.

Killing to prevent killing? Does that seem consistent to you?

[geezer]

You haven't established anything - you made a wild guess. And wow, you got me - my opposition to killing unborn children does in fact ultimately mean I think we should never have fought against Hitler. (that was more sarcasm).

Blah blah blah. Enough with the Hitler. What it DOES establish is that you value life on a relative scale, just like those of us you are trying to condemn.

How was it clearly not working? Before the so called sexual revolution, when we started teaching people that sex was just a meaningless fun activity with no consequences on anyones lives, how was it failing us exactly? I must have missed the day in History class when we discussed the huge problem with teenage pregnancies, epidemics of STDs and millions of unwashed, unwanted brats roaming the streets in the 40s and 50s.

You must have missed LOTS of days in history class. Because STD's were a problem not just in the 1940's and 50's, but also in the 1840's and 50's, 1740's and 50's, 1640's and 50's etc. The only thing the sexual revolution did was make it acceptable for this behavior to be out in the open (where hopefully it can be discussed, and proper and corect information can be given). Yes, AIDS and HIV weren't big problems, but Syphyllis certainly was epidemic in some places/times.

As for teenaged pregnancies throughout history, you're kidding, right?

And the contention that historically society hasn't had unwashed, unwanted children complicating lives? You're kidding again, right???

We don't know exactly when it become aware, but we know that it is after 12 weeks.

Please cite your source - and while you're at it, please cite where science has defined and mapped 'self awareness' in a sentient being. Please show me where science has proven that babies in the womb don't think, before you tell me it's ok to dismember them and suck them out with a vaccum - at any age.

At 12 weeks the brain and synaptic pathways are not yet formed to the point where conciousness can occur. My source is my wife, Neuroscientist, Ph.D.

[noxiousdog]

Exodor and geezer took care of the meat, but Rowdy's meaningless drivel can be summed up in one of his lines:

Having a baby DOES change your life, and for a liberal, you have depressingly little faith in a persons ability to rise to a challenge!

Thank you, and good night now.

[D'Arcy]

At 12 weeks the brain and synaptic pathways are not yet formed to the point where conciousness can occur. My source is my wife, Neuroscientist, Ph.D.

Reporting her philosophical orientation would be more relevant in this context, as the relation between the cognitive structure of the mind and the physical structure of the brain is untestable. I suppose she still subscribes to psychological Darwinism?

[geezer]

At 12 weeks the brain and synaptic pathways are not yet formed to the point where conciousness can occur. My source is my wife, Neuroscientist, Ph.D.

Reporting her philosophical orientation would be more relevant in this context, as the relation between the cognitive structure of the mind and the physical structure of the brain is untestable. I suppose she still subscribes to psychological Darwinism?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "psychological Darwinism," so I'll pass on that unless you care to explain it to me?

However, the relationship between the cognitive structure of the mind and the physical structure of the brain is most certain NOT untestable, unless I am greatly misunderstanding you.

We know what areas of the brain are responsible for higher thought, and we have quantifiable ways to measure activity within those areas. We know what can happen when those areas are destroyed or injured when mature, and we know that without certain structures, sentience is not possible (or rather, has never been observed and fits within established theory. Let's not go into the "science can't PROVE anything" nonsense).

If you are using "mind" in this case to mean "soul," then I'd agree with you. But FWIW, she doesn't believe in an eternal soul, and I suspect that's what you're trying to get at.

[D'Arcy]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "psychological Darwinism," so I'll pass on that unless you care to explain it to me?

The theory that the human mind is a Darwinian adaptation. I think we had a thread about evolutionary psychology once where you mentioned your wife's interest in that school of thought.

We know what areas of the brain are responsible for higher thought, and we have quantifiable ways to measure activity within those areas.

I'm not even sure which of my thoughts should qualify as higher thoughts. But whatever they are, someone's having them. Someone's comparing them against sensory impressions and memories. So, even these so-called higher thoughts aren't what we're looking for. They aren't me.

We know what can happen when those areas are destroyed or injured when mature, and we know that without certain structures, sentience is not possible (or rather, has never been observed and fits within established theory.

But how do you quantify sentience? How, for example, would you show that a newborn baby is sentient?

Let's not go into the "science can't PROVE anything" nonsense).

Ignoring for now whether science can prove a positive, it certainly can't prove a negative. It can't prove that there are no pink unicorns in Africa, and it can't prove that there is no mind in a fetus.

If you are using "mind" in this case to mean "soul," then I'd agree with you.

I doubt that.

[geezer]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "psychological Darwinism," so I'll pass on that unless you care to explain it to me?

The theory that the human mind is a Darwinian adaptation. I think we had a thread about evolutionary psychology once where you mentioned your wife's interest in that school of thought.

I don't recallthe thread, but if you are saying that she wouldbe of the opinion that the brain is an evolutionaly mechanism/result just like any other part of the body and is endowed with no special metaphysical "gift" beyond the miracle of biology, then yes, I have no doubt she would agree with that.

We know what areas of the brain are responsible for higher thought, and we have quantifiable ways to measure activity within those areas.

I'm not even sure which of my thoughts should qualify as higher thoughts. But whatever they are, someone's having them. Someone's comparing them against sensory impressions and memories. So, even these so-called higher thoughts aren't what we're looking for. They aren't me.

Then what is it that you would like to define as "you," if not your ability be self aware? "I think, therefore I am." as Descarte put it.

We know what can happen when those areas are destroyed or injured when mature, and we know that without certain structures, sentience is not possible (or rather, has never been observed and fits within established theory.

But how do you quantify sentience? How, for example, would you show that a newborn baby is sentient?

How would I? I honestly have no idea. I am not an expert in cognition. That said, it's crystal clear that without certain physical parts, the brain is almost certainly incapable of thought.

Let's not go into the "science can't PROVE anything" nonsense).

Ignoring for now whether science can prove a positive, it certainly can't prove a negative. It can't prove that there are no pink unicorns in Africa, and it can't prove that there is no mind in a fetus.

But it can prove there in no BRAIN in an embryo,and it can prove that the portions of the brain that react when we are indulging in problem solving, reason and art appreciation, for example, are not physically present or do not have neuronal pathways that would enable the brain to function.

Now, if you are going to take the tack of, "Just because there is no BRAIN doesn't mean there can't be THOUGHT.." well, then ne'er the twain shall meet.

If you are using "mind" in this case to mean "soul," then I'd agree with you.

I doubt that.

You may doubt it, but it's true. But what I mean is, I'd agree that the concept of "soul" probably lies outside the realm of science and more into the realm of faith, and I'm not sure science could or can ever provide a satisfying answer as to the existance of a soul.

edited for multiple typos

[Grundbegriff]

Point of clarification for the confused... Grund are you advocating the use of aborted fetus imagery such as you find on the traveling billboards that visit many colleges?

Here's the flow:

• Josh mentioned the use of grotesque pictures.
• I asked a question about pictures. In so doing, I used vivid descriptive language. (Josh left my question unanswered, as far as I noticed.)
• Hatter compared my use of vivid, descriptive language to the hypothetical use of grotesque pictures.
• In rebuttal, I pointed out that vivid linguistic discourse is appropriate to the topic whether or not vivid pictorial content is. (Pictorial content is semiotic but non-linguistic, except in specially contrived cases.)

Are you advocating said images be used for this forum? Or are you merely stating that word choice is key for abortion debates? It sort of seems murky.

I'm not sure why it seems murky. I hope the outline is helpful.

[Grundbegriff]

That assumes it's the method which is used to perform the abortion that's the issue, rather than the abortion itself. If it's abortion which you oppose regardless of method, bringing in the graphic details of how it's done is both irrelevant and repugnant.

You're unnecessarily exclusive. You assume that an objection must rest either on the Means xor the End; it's entirely possible, however, for both a Means and an End to be objectionable and worthy of note. (Thus, Bubba Sue's objection may weigh against either the one or the other or both). Since means and end are often inseparable in practice in the case of abortion, vivid discourse concerning both may be appropriate.

[Grundbegriff]

Pro-lifers should stick to sanitized images. You know, like wire hangers.

As one hypothetical despot condescended: "Since they'll just resort to using knives and sticks if we disarm 'em, we might as well let the people have their guns and grenades."

Is that really a pattern of reasoning we'd want to endorse?

[Mr. Fed]

Pro-lifers should stick to sanitized images. You know, like wire hangers.

As one hypothetical despot condescended: "Since they'll just resort to using knives and sticks if we disarm 'em, we might as well let the people have their guns and grenades."

Is that really a pattern of reasoning we'd want to endorse?

I hope you didn't miss my point as completely as I'm missing yours.

[Grifman]

Pro-lifers should stick to sanitized images. You know, like wire hangers.

As one hypothetical despot condescended: "Since they'll just resort to using knives and sticks if we disarm 'em, we might as well let the people have their guns and grenades."

Is that really a pattern of reasoning we'd want to endorse?

I hope you didn't miss my point as completely as I'm missing yours.

I think the point is similar to an SAT question:

"Knives and sticks are to guns and grenades as coathangers are to legal abortion tools".

Hope that helps

[Effidian]

(Josh left my question unanswered, as far as I noticed.)

Answer. Unless you meant it wasn't a satisfactory answer? My comment was made because we can't seem to focus on decreasing abortions in other ways besides making them illegal (which as far as I know doesn't work to decrease them). We devote a lot of resources calling each other names and attempting to make it completely illegal or completelly legal without trying to address the real issue.

It is like a lot of things I suppose, but it is a bit frustrating when you happen to be in the center of an issue. At least I think I'm in the center. Considering I agree with ND, I'm pretty sure my position is not far left.

[Grundbegriff]

(Josh left my question unanswered, as far as I noticed.)

Answer.

Thanks. I hadn't spotted your reply.

You raise an interesting point: setting aside the fact that pictures revealing innards make you (in particular) queasy, is there anything to be said for the idea that gory pictures are objectionable in general? If so, what?

My comment was made because we can't seem to focus on decreasing abortions in other ways besides making them illegal

Every anti-abortion activist I'm aware of takes a multifaceted approach that includes lobbying for restrictive legislation but also (and mainly) subsidizing crisis pregnancy facilities and support networks, pursuing adoptions, arranging cooperative parenting, and underwriting personal expenses. It's just that those other benevolent activities, which are widespread, don't make for "exciting" journalism.

We devote a lot of resources calling each other names and attempting to make it completely illegal or completelly legal without trying to address the real issue.

We do?

I imagine the balance varies from place to place, local culture to local culture, and context to context. On the whole, though, I believe enormous resources go to making it possible for women to avoid abortion.

The chief problem in resolving the abortion issue isn't a monolithic focus on legislative solutions; the chief problem is that abortion, like illegal file-sharing, has become so cheap, trivially easy, and widely practiced that for many participants, the ethical issues hardly make a blip on the moral radar. This trivialization unfolds at a time when the ethical distinction between a human and a file is less obvious to some than ever before.

[Effidian]

You raise an interesting point: setting aside the fact that pictures revealing innards make you (in particular) queasy, is there anything to be said for the idea that gory pictures are objectionable in general? If so, what?

Probably not. But really neither does calling people names. Or swearing.

It's just that those other benevolent activities, which are widespread, don't make for "exciting" journalism.

I'm sure your right. Not dealing with this issue every day, I can only relate with conversations I have had and with all that exciting journalism.

We do?

I imagine the balance varies from place to place, local culture to local culture, and context to context. On the whole, though, I believe enormous resources go to making it possible for women to avoid abortion.

Percentage wise, abortions are declining so something must be working. I have no idea what percentage of that is because of better contraception opposed to other types of effort. My opinion of the number of resources may be skewed because of perception. (Same as above.) Edit: Actually, the more use of contraceptives, better or not, can probably be at least somewhat attributed to that effort.

The chief problem in resolving the abortion issue isn't a monolithic focus on legislative solutions; the chief problem is that abortion, like illegal file-sharing, has become so cheap, trivially easy, and widely practiced that for many participants, the ethical issues hardly make a blip on the moral radar. This trivialization unfolds at a time when the ethical distinction between a human and a file is less obvious to some than ever before.

Edit: According to the statistics that ND linked to the percentages have pretty much been decreasing year after year. So why would you think that the ethical distinction between a human and a file is less obvious now than before?

One of the links I posted earlier from AGI has it.

Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for.

[Grifman]

So your solution is to kill them before the problem develops?

I expect more from you than this, Grif. I'm not putting abortion forward as some kind of solution to crime and you know it

To be honest, no I don't know it. That seems to be a major argument around here - no abortion means more unwanted children, which means more crime. So therefore we should continue to allow abortion to avert this potential crimewave. I'd be glad to be wrong about the above, but people here seem to keep bringing up.

I'm saying that banning abortion and doing nothing else will increase the crime rate. It's up to the people who want to ban abortion to address this. It can, of course, be addressed with a simple "Nuh uh!" but that isn't particularly useful.

If this isn't being used as an argument to justify abortion, then why bring it up? Why is it relevant?

[Grifman]

The article that I posted earlier states:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

Now, I'm no statistics expert but it seems to me that if you include population growth, there doesn't seem to be a signifcant increase in abortions since Row v.s. Wade. I'm not sure if there are any better numbers out there from before 1973. Rowdy, if you have some statistics that state there was a huge increase, I think we'd all be interested in seeing them.

Alot of people seem to be referring to and quoting these numbers in this discussion so I looked around First off, I think we all agree that the current number is about 1.3MM abortions per year, right? So let's start there.

Now, for the estimates. There's a big problem with the high end of the above estimate. According to the Allen Guttmacher Institute, itself affiliated with Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions in 1973, the year abortion became legal, was 750k, while the US HHS has estimated 616k. According to Guttmacher abortion didn't reach 1.2MM until 1977, four years (!) after RvW. So if there were 1.2MM abortions pre-Roe vs. Wade, then why did they DROP after legalization? Why did it take four years to reach the pre RvW number? Does that make any sense?

So much for the high end of the estimates! So at best we are now looking at a range of 200k to 800k per year if we accept your range (and btw, I've seen estimates much lower, but let's use your numbers for argument's sake). Since no one really knows, we can't just take the high end of the estimates and use them like everyone has been doing - that's not right any more than me demanding you use the low end of 200k. So let's take the mean of the estimate. That gives us a number of 500k per year.

Isn't an increase from 500k to 1.3MM per year a significant increase?

[Effidian]

Alot of people seem to be referring to and quoting these numbers in this discussion so I looked around First off, I think we all agree that the current number is about 1.3MM abortions per year, right? So let's start there.

If you use the AGI numbers it is 1.3. If you use the CDC (which is what HHS uses right?) then it would be around 1.15 million. Since 1998 the CDC numbers don't cover all the states, here is the 2001 numbers from the CDC. Since 1989, the CDC numbers have been running at about 10% less than AGI, so I took AGI's estimate and reduced it by 10% to come up with 1.15 million. (Prior to 89 CDC's reports were about 15% less than AGIs.)

Here is an AGI document that describes how they got their 2001 numbers.

Now, for the estimates. There's a big problem with the high end of the above estimate. According to the Allen Guttmacher Institute, itself affiliated with Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions in 1973, the year abortion became legal, was 750k, while the US HHS has estimated 616k. According to Guttmacher abortion didn't reach 1.2MM until 1977, four years (!) after RvW. So if there were 1.2MM abortions pre-Roe vs. Wade, then why did they DROP after legalization? Why did it take four years to reach the pre RvW number? Does that make any sense?

So much for the high end of the estimates! So at best we are now looking at a range of 200k to 800k per year if we accept your range (and btw, I've seen estimates much lower, but let's use your numbers for argument's sake). Since no one really knows, we can't just take the high end of the estimates and use them like everyone has been doing - that's not right any more than me demanding you use the low end of 200k. So let's take the mean of the estimate. That gives us a number of 500k per year.

Isn't an increase from 500k to 1.3MM per year a significant increase?

The AGI numbers are from surveying abortion providers and the CDC numbers are from what each state reports. That means that in 1973 any abortions that didn't go through an abortion provider would not get reported in either stat.

I would think it would take awhile for legal abortions to become available to everyone, especially in areas that are very much against it. I could also understand that even if they were available some people may have felt less comfortable going into a clinic than try to get it done using a more private method (and possibly unsafe). Couldn't that account for quite a bit of the reported increase? I'm still looking for a report that estimates the total number of abortions done in 1973-1980, including those not done in a clinic. Anyone have one? Considering we don't have good numbers from before 1973, I doubt we have much on other abortions from that period. So, I don't see that the 200k to 1.2m estimates to be way out of line.

Also, are you suggesting that AGI's reports are biased? If so, why wouldn't they just use the CDC numbers? I don't understand why it would be good for a pro-abortion stance to report more abortions than necessary. Your claim sounds a lot like the one from Georgia Right to Life, which I would think we be at least equally biased.

On a side note:

Results: A total of 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2001 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.5% decrease from the 857,475 legal induced abortions reported by the same 49 reporting areas for 2000. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2001, compared with 245 reported for 2000. This represents a 0.4% increase in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2001, the same as for 2000. For both the 48 and 49 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1997--2001.

I didn't think it was true that abortions had increased under Bush, but this seems to say that it actually has (not volume, but percentage). I've heard this being attributed to the stop of abstinence plus education. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Edit: Mixed up date. Edit2: Doah! No I didn't...

[Enough]

Point of clarification for the confused... Grund are you advocating the use of aborted fetus imagery such as you find on the traveling billboards that visit many colleges?

Here's the flow:

• Josh mentioned the use of grotesque pictures.
• I asked a question about pictures. In so doing, I used vivid descriptive language. (Josh left my question unanswered, as far as I noticed.)
• Hatter compared my use of vivid, descriptive language to the hypothetical use of grotesque pictures.
• In rebuttal, I pointed out that vivid linguistic discourse is appropriate to the topic whether or not vivid pictorial content is. (Pictorial content is semiotic but non-linguistic, except in specially contrived cases.)

Are you advocating said images be used for this forum? Or are you merely stating that word choice is key for abortion debates? It sort of seems murky.

I'm not sure why it seems murky. I hope the outline is helpful.

Yeah whatever, I saw the linguistic discourse angle the first time through my obtuse friend. The vivid language you used made me think you probably would make use of the gross imagery of aborted fetuses also, thus things got murky. I didn't want to assume that you would or you wouldn't. And good lord you are cracking me up with the little lecture on the meaning of linguistic, but sure enlighten us all.

I said word choice is key, it's not like I missed it. Context clues made me wonder what your stance was since it seemed like you were being catty about the images.

Your second response:

"What's grotesque about pictures of preborn humans? Or do you mean specifically the pictures that show the results of their having been ripped apart and shredded by suction wands? "

This made me think: hmm this seems murky, does Grund like the use of aborted fetus imagery to promote his cause, or not? I still don't know LOL.

I look forward to your next berating.

[Defiant]

Now, for the estimates. There's a big problem with the high end of the above estimate. According to the Allen Guttmacher Institute, itself affiliated with Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions in 1973, the year abortion became legal, was 750k, while the US HHS has estimated 616k. According to Guttmacher abortion didn't reach 1.2MM until 1977, four years (!) after RvW. So if there were 1.2MM abortions pre-Roe vs. Wade, then why did they DROP after legalization? Why did it take four years to reach the pre RvW number? Does that make any sense?

Given that estimates are inherently... err... estimated, perhaps another data point - one that would be less reliant on estimates - would be to look at the number of births per capita over a ten or twenty year period and see if there is a signifcant drop that can be attributed to Roe V Wade.

[Effidian]

Given that estimates are inherently... err... estimated, perhaps another data point - one that would be less reliant on estimates - would be to look at the number of births per capita over a ten or twenty year period and see if there is a signifcant drop that can be attributed to Roe V Wade.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf

The birth rate looks like it had been dropping since about 1960. Strangely enough, it evened out in 1973. Now, since I doubt we are going to attribute Roe v.s. Wade with stopping the decline in birth rate, I have no idea why that is.

Edit: A little data from the above link. It is interesting to see how close the birth rate and number of births from 1973 on is. I would think those would have dropped if legalization of abortions impacted the numbers at all.

Code: Select all

Year Number    Rate
1980 3,612,258 15.9
1979 3,494,398 15.6
1978 3,333,279 15.0
1977 3,326,632 15.1
1976 3,167,788 14.6
1975 3,144,198 14.6
1974 3,159,958 14.8
1973 3,136,965 14.8
1972 3,258,411 15.6
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1970 3,731,386 18.4
1969 3,600,206 17.9
1968 3,501,564 17.6
1967 3,520,959 17.8
1966 3,606,274 18.4
1965 3,760,358 19.4
1964 4,027,490 21.1
1963 4,098,020 21.7
1962 4,167,362 22.4
1961 4,268,326 23.3
1960 4,257,850 23.7

[Al]

That seems to be a major argument around here - no abortion means more unwanted children, which means more crime. So therefore we should continue to allow abortion to avert this potential crimewave.

At the very least you are misunderstanding me then. While I do hold that abortion does effect crime rates it is not for ideological reasons but because evidence from the US, Canada and Australia suggests that legalizing abortion caused crime to drop in those countries while evidence from Romania suggests that banning abortion caused crime to rise in that country. My point for bringing it up is not to justify abortion but to ask how conservatives in the government are going to deal with the issue before it becomes a serious problem.

Given that conservatives' ability to adequately consider and plan for the consequences of their policy shifts have, of late, been less than spectacular this is an entirely rational line of questioning.

If this isn't being used as an argument to justify abortion, then why bring it up? Why is it relevant?

Wait. You can't understand how something that will be caused by banning abortion is relevant to the discussion of the abortion ban? Seriously?

[Grifman]

That seems to be a major argument around here - no abortion means more unwanted children, which means more crime. So therefore we should continue to allow abortion to avert this potential crimewave.

At the very least you are misunderstanding me then. While I do hold that abortion does effect crime rates it is not for ideological reasons but because evidence from the US, Canada and Australia suggests that legalizing abortion caused crime to drop in those countries while evidence from Romania suggests that banning abortion caused crime to rise in that country. My point for bringing it up is not to justify abortion but to ask how conservatives in the government are going to deal with the issue before it becomes a serious problem.

Sorry but we are discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion. Bringing this issue up only causes confusion in this discussion, as you can see, because it appears you are justifying abortion by saying it reduces crime. I'd suggest you save this for a separate discussion to avoid such confusion, since you say that this was not your intent.

Given that conservatives' ability to adequately consider and plan for the consequences of their policy shifts have, of late, been less than spectacular this is an entirely rational line of questioning.

Oh, please, let's not toss that red herring out, unless you want to get into all the times liberals failed to "adequately consider and plan for the consequences of their policy shifts". This is silly and you should know better.

If this isn't being used as an argument to justify abortion, then why bring it up? Why is it relevant?

Wait. You can't understand how something that will be caused by banning abortion is relevant to the discussion of the abortion ban? Seriously?

Yes, because we are talking about the justification for abortion and in this context (seeing as others have used this as a reason) according to you it is not. So it shouldn't be discussed as it is not relevant to the point under debate.

[Grifman]

Sorry, Josh, I don't buy your explanation for the discrepancy between the high end of the abortion estimates pre RvW vs. those of the immediate subsequent years. As I noted it took 4 years for abortions post RvW to reach the high end of the pre RvW estimates. That makes no sense if the pre RvW numbers were that high. Most of the US lives in urban areas, or within a few hours drive of any urban area. Do you really expect me to believe that half a million people still choose to go to back alley abortionists or unlicensed abortionists (even if they were doctors) when safe legal abortion was readily available? You might could explain 1973 for that reason, but you can't explain why it took so long to reach the 1.3MM level. Sorry, I don't buy what you're selling.

FYI, I made no claim about AGI, I merely provided 2 sets of data for comparision purposes and so people can draw their own conclusions. Please do not attribute to me an assertion that I did not make. That said, everyone and every organization has a "bias" - that's life as humans. The point is to recognized bias exists and then determine if that bias influences a person's or organization's conclusions. Just because someone is biased does not mean that what they are saying is not true - that's a false assumption and means that we really couldn't believe anyone. That's a false argument alot of people make - which then makes it easy - they can discount automatically what someone else says, and then never have to deal with their arguments. I may fail sometimies, but I never try to do that myself.

Lastly, the question that you still don't answer. Let's assume that the range of 200k to 1.3MM is correct for pre RvW. That gives you an average of 750k/year. I know that you said you don't know alot about statistics, but wouldn't you have to say an increase from 750k to 1.3MM or 73% is a "significant" increase?