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

[Eightball]

Edited in light of both brettmcd's post (which is reasonable) and Rowdy's post (which I won't comment on).

About incest:

The reason for 1st generation incest is both a societal taboo reason, and also an increasing chance of a congenetal abnormality (be it Down's, anencephaly, deafness, fragility in the skeltal system, immune system depression etc). Nice historical overview here and who can go wrong with the Merck Manual on congental issues. While sister/brother or father/daughter is estimated at a 50% increase in abnormality, the 1st cousin connection is only about 4%, assuming healthy gene pools. 1st Cousin probably is more due to the societal taboo, in all honesty.

[Little Raven]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth i never said, I do so appreciate that, i never ONCE spoke on my feelings on abortion when the mothers life is at risk. In those cases morally and legally one can make the case that is covered under self defense, as we do not legally force someone to trade their life so another can live. As for rape and incest cases, I will honestly say that while I would hope that a person would carry the child who did nothing wrong to term, but I dont know if i can force a person to do that, yes it makes me a bit inconsistant on my arguements, but I really dont care.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that there are cases that call for an abortion, so we can't have an all-out ban.

Now...who do you think is the best person to determine if an abortion is necessary? Who should have the power to determine whether a fetus is viable or not, or whether the risk to the mother is grave enough to warrant the procedure? Does a woman have to obtain permission in order to get one, or beg forgiveness afterwards? (remember, in cases of medical necessity, time is a factor) What kind of regulating body do you suggest?

[noxiousdog]

Playing centrist is teh hard.

Where i am completly, firmly and totally against abortion and consider it 1st degree murder is when it is used as a form of birth control, which is what it is used for 95+ percent of the time.

This is where I was until a few years ago.

Clearly, you have established that killing is ok or at least forgiveable in certain situations. And make no mistake, I firmly believe that even a first trimester abortion is killing.

Still, if we make all birth-control related abortion (even if you could define such a thing) illegal, what would be the consequences? There are an estimated 1.4M-2M abortions per year. The adoption roles stand at 600,000. That's 800,000-1.4M unwanted children every year. These kids are so unwanted that their parent(s) are willing to kill them. That would increase our birth rate by 20%-36%. That is a problem of epic proportions.

So, on one hand you'd have the killing of an unaware, unfeeling human being, and on the other you'd have 1 million unwanted children per year. If you choose the latter, I hope you're in the adoption queue.

[brettmcd]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth i never said, I do so appreciate that, i never ONCE spoke on my feelings on abortion when the mothers life is at risk. In those cases morally and legally one can make the case that is covered under self defense, as we do not legally force someone to trade their life so another can live. As for rape and incest cases, I will honestly say that while I would hope that a person would carry the child who did nothing wrong to term, but I dont know if i can force a person to do that, yes it makes me a bit inconsistant on my arguements, but I really dont care.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that there are cases that call for an abortion, so we can't have an all-out ban.

Now...who do you think is the best person to determine if an abortion is necessary? Who should have the power to determine whether a fetus is viable or not, or whether the risk to the mother is grave enough to warrant the procedure? Does a woman have to obtain permission in order to get one, or beg forgiveness afterwards? (remember, in cases of medical necessity, time is a factor) What kind of regulating body do you suggest?

I dont claim to have all the answers on how things would work, but abortion as a means of birth control is what needs to be changed. I would leave risk factors up to doctors to decide, but as medically necessary abortions are such a minute % of the total number it is something that could be worked out.

[noxiousdog]

You said you find abortions abhorrent, as do I... how can you not stand up against it then? How is it ok to watch a stranger kill her baby and say, well, it's your baby, do what you want with it? It's the betrayal of our own basic biological design, it's infanticide, and it's beyond abhorrent.

Do you take the same stance with children killed in Iraq?

I'm painting in black and white because it is black and white.

It's easy to use only black and white when you haven't looked at any of the other colors.

What do I want to do with all the newborn 'unwanted children'? I don't know, but we can sure as hell come up with a better plan than killing them.

No, I don't think you can. I don't think you realize the numbers you are dealing with. The 10th largest city in America doesn't have 1M people in it. You're talking about putting another Dallas, Texas up every year with nothing but unwanted children.

We could start by not giving the aforementioned stupid couple the easy way out - maybe we as a society could pull our heads out of our asses and take unprotected sex more seriously.

If the fear of death (AIDS) hasn't stopped people, why would the fear of having a kid stop them?

And spare me the 'crude and repugnant pro-life tactics' speech - it's the only thing that matters in this issue. Economics, population, woman's rights - they're all important, but pale in comparision to saving a human beings life. If it's uncomfortable to be faced with the brutality of what's going on RIGHT NOW, good. Stop hiding behind meaningless intellectual ideas and face it.

You find a good place for 1M unwanted children and I'll support you.

[brettmcd]

Playing centrist is teh hard.

Where i am completly, firmly and totally against abortion and consider it 1st degree murder is when it is used as a form of birth control, which is what it is used for 95+ percent of the time.

This is where I was until a few years ago.

Clearly, you have established that killing is ok or at least forgiveable in certain situations. And make no mistake, I firmly believe that even a first trimester abortion is killing.

Still, if we make all birth-control related abortion (even if you could define such a thing) illegal, what would be the consequences? There are an estimated 1.4M-2M abortions per year. The adoption roles stand at 600,000. That's 800,000-1.4M unwanted children every year. These kids are so unwanted that their parent(s) are willing to kill them. That would increase our birth rate by 20%-36%. That is a problem of epic proportions.

So, on one hand you'd have the killing of an unaware, unfeeling human being, and on the other you'd have 1 million unwanted children per year. If you choose the latter, I hope you're in the adoption queue.

If every abortion was 1st trimester, i could almost see that point of view, but sadly in america abortion is legal past the point where the child is viable to be born. That is where i cannot understand the pro abortion croud being so in favor of abortion on demand as they are. As for medically necessary abortions, they are not legally or morally murder, so they should not even be part of a debate on abortion. And its pretty easy to define 'brith control related abortion', if the abortion is not medically necessary for the PHYSICAL health of the mother, it is for reasons of birth control (i.e. the mother just doesnt want the child).

[Dirt]

As long as it decreases the amount of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou a-holes I'm all for it.

Hiro, I could give two shits about what you think of me. The bottom line is that you're damn straight I'm going to call a spade a spade and call someone who'd rather kill their child than go through the inconvenience of having it, or someone who thinks death is a preferable option to giving a child a CHANCE to live their life, a murderous bastard. If that makes me an asshole to you or others here, I could care less. I assume if I broke into your house and threatened to kill your kids, you'd do whatever it takes to stop me, right? How about if you saw me threatening to kill a random kid on the street, would you try to stop me? Why is it 'holier-than-thou' to try and stop someone else from killing their fucking baby?

Did abortions happen prior to 73? Of course. Did they happen by the MILLIONS each year that happened after the government sanctioned killing children as a form of birth control? No, they didn't. If we just moved the timeline up of these childrens death by a year, we'd be the perpetrators of one of the greatest mass murders in the history of the world - millions of children dead every year. We went to World War 2 to stop the holocaust - which is a drop in the bucket compared to how many innocent children have died in the last 25 years.

Not once they are responsive and/or aware.

This is such utter bs. There's a million studies showing how early children in the womb are responsive to their surroundings. They feel pain, they cry, they smile, they move in response to stimuli. There are horrific pictures on the web showing their responses via sonogram AS THEY'RE BEING 'aborted'.

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept. How can killing a living, feeling, human being NOT be an emotional concept? There are so many supposedly compassionate liberals on this forum, talking about the horrors of the war, the evils of capitalism and how it affects people - who then turn around and like to pretend that the millions of children who are dying before they've had a chance to draw their first breath are less important than a woman's 'right to choose'.

Do you value only human life or all life?

[GuidoTKP]

I'm painting in black and white because it is black and white. We're not really discussing cases where the mothers life is in danger, we're not discussing rapes. Those are such a tiny insignificant % of the epidemic of abortions that occur in N. America that it's s flimsy smokescreen to even bring them up. It's another cheap way to rationalize the killing of unwanted children. We're talking the needless death of a child caused by some stupid couple having unprotected sex and not wanting a baby to disrupt their lives, and deciding that they can fix the problem by getting rid of the baby. What do I want to do with all the newborn 'unwanted children'? I don't know, but we can sure as hell come up with a better plan than killing them. We could start by not giving the aforementioned stupid couple the easy way out - maybe we as a society could pull our heads out of our asses and take unprotected sex more seriously.

***

And spare me the 'crude and repugnant pro-life tactics' speech - it's the only thing that matters in this issue. Economics, population, woman's rights - they're all important, but pale in comparision to saving a human beings life. If it's uncomfortable to be faced with the brutality of what's going on RIGHT NOW, good. Stop hiding behind meaningless intellectual ideas and face it.

Why is it a smokescreen? The answers to the questions about how to treat the issue when the life of the mother is endangered or in the cases of rape and incest help us explore the relative worth of "unborn" life to "born" life. You paint it as a black and white issue, but for most people it is not. I didn't see your answer to my questions. Would you prefer your wife's life to an unborn's life? Would you allow an abortion in cases of rape and incest? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then it really blows out of the water the whole notion that terminating a fetus is murder. If your answer to those questions are both "no", by the way, I think you're nuts, but at least you would be a logical nut.

I assume you don't want to answer those questions, because doing so would destroy your cherished illusion of this being a black and white issue. In order for it to be murder, you have to give unborn life the exact same dignity you give to born life. Historically, we don't and never have. The point of that observation isn't intellectual masturbation, but rather is to point out that the unborn are widely considered to be lesser lifeforms (although people rarely put it in those terms), who, in some circumstances, are considered expendable to further the physical and/or emotional welfare of the mother (because we consider her to be a superior life form vested with all of the rights we give to persons in our society). Once you accept that paradigm (and I think you have to, given the near universal historical exceptions to abortion bans dealing with preserving the health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest), then the only question left is who gets to decide when to terminate a pregnancy. At that point, it becomes a pretty freakin' easy analysis for me. As between the woman who has to carry that child, or the government, I choose the woman. The reasons that an individual woman may choose to terminate her pregnancy may not meet your standards, but I fail to see why you should get a vote in the matter. It's her body we're talking about, so it should be her choice.

[Al]

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.

[SuperHiro]

Well, you did infer that I was a sanctimonious, holier than thou asshole, so I didn't realize we were still so tight.

Then I apologize for getting snarky. It's a bad habit.

[Demonix]

I normally don't get involved in such discussions, but something compels me in this instance.

My mother, at some point while she was pregnant with me, faced the decision whether or not to abort me and decided not to.

Without going into too much detail (and without detail it will probably seem worse than it really was, and recognize that a lot of kids had a much worse time growing up than I did) my parents were not really prepared to raise children for differing reasons.

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.

You assume that every child wants to live the life that you are essentially determining for them. This is not necessarily the case. You must be prepared to consider the myriad of possibilities that can occur over the life of that child, and the quality of life that child will lead.

If, IF the parents actually show enough wisdom to realize that they aren't ready to raise a child, please don't force them to do it anyway. We already have enough parents without that wisdom or common sense having children without adding more.

[Dogstar]

If this qualifies as a derailment, I apologize, but the subject matter seems related. I'm curious how Rowdy, Brettmcd, and others that have similar positions feel about the Plan B pill?

[Gwar21]

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.

[Poleaxe]

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.

I don't buy it. Either you're overstating, or you have psychological issues to deal with. If it's the former then your argument is weak. If it's the latter then I am not likely to accept your opinion.

[Effidian]

Edit: In the interest of not derailing this thread for a possible misunderstanding. Deleted.

[Rowdy]

Noxious Dog wrote:
Do you take the same stance with children killed in Iraq?

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do think it's horrible that children die in war. The death of innocents is always deplorable. That's related how?

It's easy to use only black and white when you haven't looked at any of the other colors.

Gosh, that's clever. Wow. Um, I'm not sure I know what it means, but it sure sounds nice!

No, I don't think you can. I don't think you realize the numbers you are dealing with. The 10th largest city in America doesn't have 1M people in it. You're talking about putting another Dallas, Texas up every year with nothing but unwanted children.

Doh, 1 million? I had no idea of the numbers we were dealing with! 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. A number of course which presupposes that every single one of those parents who was going to abort their child now is going to leave them at the hospital. You've determined this how? You don't think any of those parents might decide to suck it up and attempt to provide a life for that child? Also, is there some reason why all 1 million are going to be born simultaneously? Your suggestion that suddenly 1 million people will be born homeless is asinine.

If the fear of death (AIDS) hasn't stopped people, why would the fear of having a kid stop them?

Because last I checked, your odds of getting AIDS in North America from unprotected sex wasn't 1 in 8, which is what your odds of getting pregnant are. Also, last time I checked, no one who mattered (other than some loony right wing fringe groups) were particularly going out of their way to tell teenagers that having sex before you're mentally mature enough to deal with the consequences is a bad idea - instead we hand them a condom and say there ya go, have fun! Abstinence is considered a joke today for most of society, thanks to nice liberal viewpoints. Maybe if it wasn't, we wouldn't have such problems with AIDS OR teenage pregnancy / abortion.

You find a good place for 1M unwanted children and I'll support you.

Well, I'll need to talk to my cabinet, form a platform and plan, and then get it into Congress, right after I become president, which means the law has to change about foreigners in office. But I assume I have your vote?

If you're going to go to all the trouble of dissecting my post and making multiple quotes, couldn't you at least come up with some decent points?

[Enough]

Edited due to post this was in response to being deleted.

[Enough]

If you're going to go to all the trouble of dissecting my post and making multiple quotes, couldn't you at least come up with some decent points?

If you're going to use this rhetorical technique, couldn't you at least do it so it's funny and we can all laugh? The piss and vinegar bits don't really seem to strengthen your argument much to put it another way.

Loads of heated exchanges in an abortion thread, who would have guessed?

[Effidian]

Rowdy, we already have a large problem with unwanted children. If they aren't be taken care of now, what makes you so sure that we'll take care of them plus the extras later?

[Rowdy]

Blah Blah Condescending tone to the pro-life hick Blah.

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.

Are you the position police? If the right to life movement doesn't answer your specific concern, does that make our position untenable? Or can you simply see into the future?

Your post is riddled with assumptions that this crime wave will actually occur, that the public will in turn decide that all these young hoodlums should in fact have been put to death, and that all the conservatives who engineered the whole thing may as well go into the rendering plant with the hoodlums. However, you didn't account for our benevolent neighbors from Sirius 43 arriving in 2015 and providing us with the solution to poverty and crime! Earth is actually a Utopia in the time you refer to!

How exactly would you like me to address these as yet merely potential issues? Perhaps instead America will turn a new leaf thanks to no longer living in a culture where casually killing a child is no big deal, and these children will grow up with values reflecting respect, duty and love for their fellow man.

Or maybe the guys from Sirius 43 show up. *Shrug* Who knows? Why don't we make a plan to deal with the crime wave when it starts to show up?

[Effidian]

Edit: In the interest of not derailing this thread for a possible misunderstanding. Deleted.

[Al]

Doh, 1 million?

Personally, I think the number is high but we are probably talking about an extra 200,000 at risk kids born annually.

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.

"Respective nations?" This thread did start out talking about the United State's Supreme Court, didn't it? At any rate, this comes back to my point. In the ban abortion movement, among the legislators, activists and party officials no plan right now, is there? If there is, what is it? If there isn't, why not? And why should the American people trust the movement to come up with a plan after the fact, and how could it be implemented in time to stem the rising tide of crime that will come?

A number of course which presupposes that every single one of those parents who was going to abort their child now is going to leave them at the hospital. You've determined this how? You don't think any of those parents might decide to suck it up and attempt to provide a life for that child?

How can you be so obtuse? Unwanted kids aren't abandoned at the hospital. Plenty of parents do take their kids home and suck it up. They also are much more likely to not provide a nurturing home environment which is one of the biggest risk factors when you look at kids that get involved in crime.

Edit: Damn simupost! Since I don't have to pad my post count...

Are you the position police? If the right to life movement doesn't answer your specific concern, does that make our position untenable? Or can you simply see into the future?

If a movement can't answer a concern of mine, then to me yeah it's position is untenable. People like me who are close to the center aren't just going to go with the "Abortion baaad!" rhetoric. They're going to have concerns like this and the movement will have to address them if they want to get more people on their side.

I'm not a big fan of abortion but I'm not in favor of pulling the option off the table without providing alternatives. "Suck it up and keep your pants on, missy!" isn't one of them.

And, no, I'm not some sort of soothsayer. I can, however, look at an analysis of past data and draw conclusions.

Why don't we make a plan to deal with the crime wave when it starts to show up?

Because by then the only solutions will be the most expensive ones. Hire a lot more cops, build more jails and start filling them up.

[Enough]

Edited due to post this was in response to being deleted.

[Rowdy]

I didn't see your answer to my questions. Would you prefer your wife's life to an unborn's life? Would you allow an abortion in cases of rape and incest? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then it really blows out of the water the whole notion that terminating a fetus is murder. If your answer to those questions are both "no", by the way, I think you're nuts, but at least you would be a logical nut.

No, neither of us would ever allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Is it the child's fault? If my wife didn't want to keep the baby because it would be a reminder of that incident, we'd likely look for a new home for it ourselves, or as a last resort put it up for adoption.

If my wife and I found ourselves in the unlikely position that her pregnancy was endangering her life, we'd need answers to a great many questions. What is the possibility of her dying from having this child? What's the possibility of her suffering any kind of lasting damage? What are the dangers to mother and child? What alternatives are there - can the child be removed early?

If it was a low risk, I have no doubt that she'd agree with me that we'd carry the child until it was viable outside the womb. (she was highly hypertensive with our last, and there was an outside chance of her stroking out, so this isn't purely hypothetical.) We also would NEVER abort a handicapped child - in fact, we would prefer not to know. It wouldn't change how we feel, so why tell us ahead of time? If there was an extremely high risk, and absolutely NO alternatives (ie. child is only a few weeks old, absolutely no chance of viability) we'd probably ask the doctor to induce, and let nature take its course.

Is that murder? Of course not. But your position that an absolutely necessary medical 'abortion' to save the life of the mother is the equivalent to an abortion for convenience is completely ridiculous. In the first place the number of medically REQUIRED abortions is tiny. Nor does it blow my position about an abortion of convenience being murder out of the water, as you put it. Is the death penalty murder? Is killing someone in self defense murder? Is killing an enemy in war murder? Not in any penal codes I'm familiar with.

Once you accept that paradigm (and I think you have to, given the near universal historical exceptions to abortion bans dealing with preserving the health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest), then the only question left is who gets to decide when to terminate a pregnancy.

I see, so because we allow the option of strictly regulated, rarely required medical abortion, we must allow everyone to have the right to abortions, at their discretion? I'm afraid I don't follow. A woman who wants an abortion but has no medical reason for one is rejected, done. A woman who walks into a hospital and says she's been raped and wants an abortion has to wait for the medical examiner and police to agree with her, and should be encouraged and supported if she decides to carry the child to term. Where's the problem, again?

And you're forgetting something, again, when you decide that it's the womans body, so she gets the final say - it's the child's life. She's got 9 months at stake, if she decides to give up the baby at birth. The baby has 70 years at stake, on average. Since his or her stake is roughly a million times greater than hers, why doesn't he or she have a choice in the matter? Oh right - simply because they don't have the ability to tell us, or defend themselves when the doctors forceps invade the womb. Honestly, why is it illegal for a young poor couple to strangle their 2 yr old that they can't afford, but it's legal to terminate a baby before it's born? What's the difference? Where's the logic there?

[Rowdy]

If you're going to use this rhetorical technique, couldn't you at least do it so it's funny and we can all laugh? The piss and vinegar bits don't really seem to strengthen your argument much to put it another way.

He started it, Dad. I'll try to be funnier next time while I'm discussing the death of millions of unborn children. Sorry.

[Effidian]

Edit: In the interest of not derailing this thread for a possible misunderstanding. Deleted.

[Enough]

If you're going to use this rhetorical technique, couldn't you at least do it so it's funny and we can all laugh? The piss and vinegar bits don't really seem to strengthen your argument much to put it another way.

He started it, Dad. I'll try to be funnier next time while I'm discussing the death of millions of unborn children. Sorry.

A bit better. But still a long ways from Steven Wright.

[ImLawBoy]

This is definitely a contentious situation, but it's being handled quite well - for the most part. We're getting close to crossing lines when we call someone or imply that someone is an a-hole or mentally unstable or whatever, and some of the rhetoric being used can be seen as somewhat incendiary, but we're still not in a "bad place" yet. Here's to hoping we stay out of that "bad place."

[Rowdy]

How can you be so obtuse? Unwanted kids aren't abandoned at the hospital. Plenty of parents do take their kids home and suck it up. They also are much more likely to not provide a nurturing home environment which is one of the biggest risk factors when you look at kids that get involved in crime.

So people 'close to the center' like you typically think that 'hey, it's probably better that we just kill this kid now rather than take a chance that he's going to become a violent offender in the future, seeing as how he's in a crappy home and all?' Geez - that doesn't sound particularly moderate to me. Sounds kinda minority report, in fact.

People like me who are close to the center aren't just going to go with the "Abortion baaad!" rhetoric. They're going to have concerns like this and the movement will have to address them if they want to get more people on their side.

See, I just don't know how to talk to that - if a potential concern about something that could happen in 10 years is more important to you than stopping the deaths of a million children right now... I don't see how that's 'abortion baad!' rhetoric. Unless you think 'mass murder baaad!', 'genocidal attacks baaad!', 'terrorist attack baaad!' are all examples of rhetoric too.

[Grifman]

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept.

What's interesting is that I see you as the one reducing this issue to an abstract concept. A child born is a happy healthy child and that's the end of it. As things stand right now, at least a third of all children that are not born as a result of abortion would have been 60 percent more likely to live in a single parent household, 50 percent more likely to live in poverty, 45 percent more likely to be in a household collecting welfare, and 40 percent more likely to die during their first year of life.

Again, do you care what happens after the cord is cut? If not, then what is the point, really?

So your solution is to kill them before the problem develops? Kill 'em and let God sort them out? That's caring about what happens after the cord is cut? I think alot of them would prefer to go without that kind of "caring".

[Al]

So people 'close to the center' like you typically think that 'hey, it's probably better that we just kill this kid now rather than take a chance that he's going to become a violent offender in the future, seeing as how he's in a crappy home and all?'

No. People close to the center don't think of abortion in terms of killing a kid. They tend to take ND's approach that a fetus is not a child. I know, I know. You don't see things in those terms but a good number of people in the center do.

See, I just don't know how to talk to that - if a potential concern about something that could happen in 10 years is more important to you than stopping the deaths of a million children right now... I don't see how that's 'abortion baad!' rhetoric.

It's because you can't see that "the deaths of a million children" is 'abortion baad!' rhetoric.

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. 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.

[Rowdy]

If this qualifies as a derailment, I apologize, but the subject matter seems related. I'm curious how Rowdy, Brettmcd, and others that have similar positions feel about the Plan B pill?

Well, based on that link, I don't really have any objections, as it specifically states it's not a drug such as RU486. If it's preventing conception from taking place, then it's a birth control device and I have no real issues with it.

[Effidian]

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do think it's horrible that children die in war. The death of innocents is always deplorable. That's related how?

I believe it is related in this way. You seem very adamant about abortion regardless of any consequences that might occur if abortions were stopped (not saying you don't care, just that your view is first and foremost to stop the abortion in the first place). So if you supported the war on the grounds that the future would get better, then that means you justfify the killing of some children on the basis of sacrificing a few in order to make the world a better place (or whatever your reason might be). This establishes guidelines by which we can better see where you stand on the issue. If you opposed the war because you believe there is no reason ever to kill a child, then that also gives us insight into your beliefs.

If there was an extremely high risk, and absolutely NO alternatives (ie. child is only a few weeks old, absolutely no chance of viability) we'd probably ask the doctor to induce, and let nature take its course.

Is that murder? Of course not.

I didn't quite understand this. Why wouldn't this be murder but normal abortions would be?


And finally, I'd just like to restate a question. We already have a large problem with unwanted children. If they aren't taken care of now, what makes you sure that we'll take care of them plus the extras later?

[Rowdy]

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. 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.

There's some of that liberal elitist masturbation, I was talking about. Perhaps it's you who more should be expected of, Al. You say banning abortion will eventually raise the crime rate - I keep saying So What? I'd rather take my chances living in Compton than sacrifice a child's life to ensure the safety of my posessions. Besides, who said anything about banning abortion and doing nothing? My not having an instant solution to your possible million thug march in the year 2020 doesn't mean that I'm all for banning abortion and then forgetting about it, as I've said numerous times. I'm for banning abortion, then teaching people not to treat sex like it doesn't have consequences, then taking care of the children.

Like the answers or not, I've responded to all your questions - why don't you answer mine? Why is it ok to kill a 5 month old baby in the womb and not a 2 year old? Why does the child in the womb not have any rights? You want to talk about the future? Lets talk about how history is going to judge our generation - a generation that brutally and casually massacred helpless innocent unborn children in the millions for decades, all in the name of casual, recreational sex. A generation that watched as a primarily sexually transmitted disease decimated millions globally and STILL didn't change it's attitude towards human sexuality and reproduction.

No. People close to the center don't think of abortion in terms of killing a kid. They tend to take ND's approach that a fetus is not a child. I know, I know. You don't see things in those terms but a good number of people in the center do.

I challenge your supposition - your 'center' position is probably inhabited by a distinct minority. I would say the majority of Americans, and Canadians do NOT believe that a 'fetus' is not a child. Do you hear many pregnant women say that their fetus is only 12 weeks old, and not a baby yet? If anyone really believed that, why would they be excited about any pregancy that's not yet viable? After all, the woman isn't carrying a life yet, she's merely growing an appendage. When your kids see your wife start to get bigger, and want to talk about the baby in mommy's tummy, are you going to let them know that it's not really a baby yet, just a collection of cells that at some point it going to be a human being but isn't yet?

Fetus is a made up term, used primarily to justify abortion, to pretend that abortion isn't about the taking of human life. It's a nice way to rationalize it, but most people will only use the term in the context of abortion. You're claiming that the belief that a baby in the womb is still a baby is the extremist position? Any child could tell you different.

[Rowdy]

So if you supported the war on the grounds that the future would get better, then that means you justfify the killing of some children on the basis of sacrificing a few in order to make the world a better place (or whatever your reason might be). This establishes guidelines by which we can better see where you stand on the issue.

Bullshit - I think it establishes guidelines by which you can try to label me. I don't think it has anything to do with abortion. Nor does my support or lack of support for the war in Iraq have anything to do with my feelings that children should be nurtured and defended. Nor does your assumption hold any weight - if I do support the war, it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm justifying the harming of children.

If you opposed the war because you believe there is no reason ever to kill a child, then that also gives us insight into your beliefs.

Or maybe option c) I supported or didn't support the war for reasons that have nothing to do with children?

This is fun though. Josh, what's your position on Capital Punishment? I think knowing that would help me to establish some guidelines on your beliefs.

I didn't quite understand this. Why wouldn't this be murder but normal abortions would be?

For the same reason that killing an intruder in your house who's threatening your family isn't murder, while shooting someone on the street because you didn't like the way they looked at you is.

And finally, I'd just like to restate a question. We already have a large problem with unwanted children. If they aren't taken care of now, what makes you sure that we'll take care of them plus the extras later?

Show me where I said I was sure we'd be able to take care of them all later? I said it's a lesser evil than KILLING them. But I'm not particularly worried that we'll be overrun with gangs of kids that should have been aborted, no. The US government can throw hundreds of billions of dollars at weapons technology, but you think that feeding and housing and even providing educations for a million children (which is a ridiculously high number to even play with) a year would be impossible? Would it take changes in society's values and attitudes? Dam straight. We can start down that road when we all decide together that we're done slaughtering babies for selfish reasons. Like I said, maybe the next generation won't be so eager to make babies they have no interest in once we stop providing an easy way out for them. Maybe this huge boom of unwanted children peters out in a hurry when people realize there's consequences for their actions and take some responsibility.

[geezer]

No. People close to the center don't think of abortion in terms of killing a kid. They tend to take ND's approach that a fetus is not a child. I know, I know. You don't see things in those terms but a good number of people in the center do.

I challenge your supposition - your 'center' position is probably inhabited by a distinct minority. I would say the majority of Americans, and Canadians do NOT believe that a 'fetus' is not a child.

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

[Rowdy]

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.)

Is this? I strongly suspect +/- 50% of Americans and Canadians would think so.



7 weeks.

How about this?



16 weeks. Still a just a fetus.

What about this one?



6 weeks. He has brain function, as measured by an electroencephalogram. He moves independant of his mother, who at this point may not even realize she's pregnant yet. She hasn't even missed her second period.

Photo from the University of Minnesota, Bell Institute of Pathology.

[noxiousdog]

Noxious Dog wrote:
Do you take the same stance with children killed in Iraq?

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do think it's horrible that children die in war. The death of innocents is always deplorable. That's related how?

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

Doh, 1 million? I had no idea of the numbers we were dealing with! 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.

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.

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.

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

A number of course which presupposes that every single one of those parents who was going to abort their child now is going to leave them at the hospital. You've determined this how? You don't think any of those parents might decide to suck it up and attempt to provide a life for that child?

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.

Also, is there some reason why all 1 million are going to be born simultaneously? Your suggestion that suddenly 1 million people will be born homeless is asinine.

I don't think I'm the one being asinine here, but you're welcome to argue with the CDC, AGI, and adoption.com if you like. Furthermore, did I say homeless? That's just another example of you hearing what you want to hear. I said unwanted.

Abstinence is considered a joke today for most of society, thanks to nice liberal viewpoints. Maybe if it wasn't, we wouldn't have such problems with AIDS OR teenage pregnancy / abortion.

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

If you're going to go to all the trouble of dissecting my post and making multiple quotes, couldn't you at least come up with some decent points?

If you would exit your dream world and join the rest of us on planet Earth, my points would make more sense to you.

I'd rather take my chances living in Compton than sacrifice a child's life to ensure the safety of my posessions

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?

My not having an instant solution to your possible million thug march in the year 2020 doesn't mean that I'm all for banning abortion and then forgetting about it, as I've said numerous times. I'm for banning abortion, then teaching people not to treat sex like it doesn't have consequences, then taking care of the children.

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.

Like the answers or not, I've responded to all your questions - why don't you answer mine? Why is it ok to kill a 5 month old baby in the womb and not a 2 year old?

It's not. It's more justified to kill a <12 week unfeeling, unaware baby than force the parent to perform penance, or have the US as a whole take care of him or her. Post 12 weeks, I tend to agree with most of what you say.

Why does the child in the womb not have any rights? You want to talk about the future? Lets talk about how history is going to judge our generation - a generation that brutally and casually massacred helpless innocent unborn children in the millions for decades, all in the name of casual, recreational sex. A generation that watched as a primarily sexually transmitted disease decimated millions globally and STILL didn't change it's attitude towards human sexuality and reproduction.

Sad isn't it? But anything you want to do to change those attitudes can be done without laws.

No. People close to the center don't think of abortion in terms of killing a kid. They tend to take ND's approach that a fetus is not a child. I know, I know. You don't see things in those terms but a good number of people in the center do.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. It most certainly IS killing a kid. The question is simply whether it is justified or not.

[noxiousdog]

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

They might agree, but they would be wrong. If appearance is what makes a human, then Michael Jackson is in trouble.

[Effidian]

Bullshit - I think it establishes guidelines by which you can try to label me. I don't think it has anything to do with abortion. Nor does my support or lack of support for the war in Iraq have anything to do with my feelings that children should be nurtured and defended. Nor does your assumption hold any weight - if I do support the war, it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm justifying the harming of children.

Where exactly am I using labels? You seem to be throwing around a lot of them though.

Or maybe option c) I supported or didn't support the war for reasons that have nothing to do with children?

Since we are not at the point that war does not kill those who are innocent, the only way you can think that war has nothing to do with children is to ignore the fact that they will be killed.

This is fun though. Josh, what's your position on Capital Punishment? I think knowing that would help me to establish some guidelines on your beliefs.

I'm against it. How about you?

For the same reason that killing an intruder in your house who's threatening your family isn't murder, while shooting someone on the street because you didn't like the way they looked at you is.

Okay, that makes sense. I missed this earlier.

Show me where I said I was sure we'd be able to take care of them all later? I said it's a lesser evil than KILLING them. But I'm not particularly worried that we'll be overrun with gangs of kids that should have been aborted, no. The US government can throw hundreds of billions of dollars at weapons technology, but you think that feeding and housing and even providing educations for a million children (which is a ridiculously high number to even play with) a year would be impossible? Would it take changes in society's values and attitudes? Dam straight. We can start down that road when we all decide together that we're done slaughtering babies for selfish reasons. Like I said, maybe the next generation won't be so eager to make babies they have no interest in once we stop providing an easy way out for them. Maybe this huge boom of unwanted children peters out in a hurry when people realize there's consequences for their actions and take some responsibility.

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. However, the fact is that we have not done that and we already have a problem with unwanted children. Why should I believe that we would change that? You may not think it matters, but I do. I understand that you believe it is the lesser of two evils. But not all of us do.

If you read the article I posted, you would see that even before abortion was legal it still happened. It certainly looks like becoming legal has not increased the occurrence. So making it illegal will not stop it from happening. (In countries where it is illegal today, I don't believe any have actually stopped it or even have it reduced to statistically small. If you have data that says otherwise, please point me to it.) What will we do then? If making it illegal does not significantly reduce abortions, then shouldn't we be looking for other ways to reduce unplanned pregnancy?