Abortion Debate
 

Aside form these points, I'd also like to discuss this recent study linking legalized abortion to crime reduction;

Abstract:
We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.

and criticism of that study by an African American group;

Project 21 members are concerned that the widespread acceptance of the conclusions of studies like "Legalized Abortion and Crime" could be used to resurrect population control plans similar to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's racist "Negro Project" of the 1930s. The "Negro Project" was created to reduce the size of black families so blacks would not overwhelm whites in number. Sanger sought to use birth control policies overall for the "weeding out of the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

Well, this ought 'a be good. *Gets out marshmallows*.

Let the flames begin.

I think crime comes largely from lack of parenting and a family structure. So, I can see how one could correlate abortions to reduced crime. In this case, the person who would have normally had the child and done a poor job in parenting is now killing it. However, this does not justify killing the baby. Since I believe that life begins at conception, I am pro-life for myself. I am, although, pro-choice for other people because I believe we should just live and let live. I wish other people would assume more responsibility and that way unwanted pregnancies would decline and so too would the abortions.

I'm all for the 'viable outside the womb' verbage. I guess that would make me pro-choice for about the first half or so of the pregnancy and pro-life for the second half, althought I do have some reservations about the second half.

Oy. I had a three hour discussion on the UofM campus about this with some hardcore pro-lifers. They had reasonable arguments, except for the fact that they based them all on the concept that we all had a 'natural' and shared moral outlook. They couldn't understand that the morality they believed in was socially constructed.

Until the day that there is 100% infallable birth control, I am 100% pro choice. After that day, I'll re-evaluate my stance.

No, abstinance doesn't count. Rape still causes pregnancies.

A child should be a choice -- a positive one, not a negative one!

- Pie

Amen. Choice, choice, choice! Pro-choice, childfree by choice...choices is what makes this country great...well, as good as it's gonna get (since nothing is perfect).
;)

Compel a woman to carry a child to term and you reduce her in effect to an incubator. I can totally understand the distress abortion causes to those who disagree with it. It's not a pretty thing and the manner in which it is carried out often leaves a lot to be desired ....once a feotus ( or baby) is capable of experiencing pain then precautions must be taken to ensure the abortion is painless and swift but we should not confuse a working set of nerves with a consiousness.

It's a tough one really and even someone who is ardently pro choice as I am, would no doubt be much moved by the sight of an aborted feotus which displays the beginnings of life in movement. At no point though should that little life take precedence over the woman's bodily freedoms. As beautiful and viable as that baby may be it is not yet a conscious being and should not be afforded rights at the expense of a thinking and feeling human.

So when does consciousness start?

Immediately after the abortion debate stops.

"So when does consciousness start?"
Very good question. As I understand it the human baby starts to see itself as a self in some way around the age of 4 or 5 months ( though my recollection of the facts on this is not brilliant ;P) At first it sees itself and the world as one. When it moves the world moves. Eventually it works out that when it willls movement only it's hand ( for example) moves ratherthan the cot or surroundings and in such a way it realises it is an it and has limits.

Prior to that there must be some kind of consciousness but the nature of that is largely indeterminable. There is a definate point however at which the brain is receiving messages from the nervous system. I believe they have pretty much isoltaed the point at which that occurs but i dont recall how far along in the feotus' development that is.

Abortion is one of the few, maybe the only, raging debates that truly hinges on a single point of contention: the definition of a personhood. I think we can all agree that there are certain, hmmm, what’s the word, “inalienable” rights attached to personhood that trump the rights contended against it. Certainly the right to live is the most fundamental of those rights.

This makes several frequently fielded arguments in the debate completely meaningless. If a fetus is NOT a person prior to a certain point, then no real argument for abortion is needed – the fetus has no legal or moral standing, the mother’s rights trump the rights of the congealed cells sitting in her womb. If the fetus IS a person after a certain point, then any argument fielded for abortion has to extend from that point forward, to born persons, to adults, to the elderly.

“Abortion lowers crime” fails that test. If the fetus is not a person, then this is a weaker argument than mother’s rights. If the fetus is a person, we can see the absurdity of extending this argument to other persons – if we kill all 2 year old children who have no stable, healthy family environment to grow up in, we would drastically reduce the crime rate, but no one would think of fielding this “modest proposal”, because the right of persons to live clearly trumps the benefit of lowered crime.

“Rape and Incest” fails that test, again because we would never extend the argument to born persons. A 2 year old child who was the product of a rape would have no less right to live than a 2 year old who was the product of a loving and committed marriage relationship. Personhood again trumps the argument.

“Viability” even fails the test, unless viability is your prime condition for personhood. We don’t abjure the personhood of someone who needs kidney dialysis, a feeding tube, and a pacemaker, but who is otherwise capable of thought, response, communication. The rights of the family to their finances and their time are not strong enough to trump the ill persons right to live. The same is true of a mother and an unborn person – if personhood exists, then the means necessary to sustain life are the obligation of the person capable of providing it. If personhood does not exists, then no argument for viability is needed.

Here’s the nutshell, for those of you who skip all the good stuff and just read the 1st and last paragraph in every post. The delineation of personhood is the prime question in the abortion debate. Before personhood exists, no argument for abortion is even needed. After it exists, no argument trumps the fundamental right of a person to live.

Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?

-sm

Immediately after the abortion debate stops.

Wow, UT just doesn't get into these debates, anymore. Never, for the life of me, will I understand why. :3eye:

I'm a guy, so is it okay if I don't care?

I have been to them all: Womyn's Rights Rally's...Take Back the Night, Herstory, you name it. I have tried to be a ''sister" --tho, not so much as a sister to, ya know, disinclude BROTHERS, ya know??? :)

I like Brothers.


That being said: Abortion is an intensely private affair. Your reason for abortion may not be mine. There are all kinds of women...they're are all kinds of reasons for doing what we do--and hoping we are (at least to ourselves) true. I advocate compassionate listening to each side and admit a lot of things have been done in the wrong.

Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.
The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth). My morals are my own and my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.

And that is why you'll never rule the world.

Maybe only certain ones.

Unless you're a Haliburton executive.

You mean lifestyle, not survival, right?

well, touche! (no one thinks of that....... )

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

One who is no longer a parasite to another person.

But what about Siamese twins?

A rather thin argument, depending on who you are talking to.

The argument? Not my argument...

I'll take SM's bait with a serious answer to the consciousness question. Consciousness seems to occur with the development of the neocortical brain activity. This happens at about the same time as viability, 5th or 6th month. IMO, consciousness is the best possible answer to when person-dom occurs because conscious thought is what makes us unique amongst the world of all the beings we know.

This is the best scientific answer and I believe that the law should have a scientific basis with a cultural bias rather than the other way around.

A legal definition is very hard to do. You need a clear cut-off point like conception or birth. Even something like first trimester, second trimester is a little too vague in my opinion. Laws have to be black and white.

I would never dream of killing actual newborn children, but with my own, I didn't think that they were "people" until they were around four to six months old or so. That's when I noticed a spark in the eye. Some sort of reaction to the world around them that was more than just simple reflex. Before that, they were just blobs of flesh. Eating, pooping and crying. The mice I killed in traps in my crawlspace were more conscious and aware than they were.

I agree 100%. While I am rabidly pro-choice, I personally think around 5 months after conception there's a bit of a line that shouldn't be crossed. I don't think abortion should be illegal after that point, but there's something unsettling to me about performing an abortion at that point. I personally wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Every woman should be able to make the decision for herself.

There's a bit of a difference. The welfare recipient is already a born and likely fully grown person who is surviving outside of the womb. A fetus generally cannot.

I think there should be a cutoff point after which medical justification should be required for abortion, but I couldn't go so far as to suggest when that should be.

Why? Do you think there are so many women who would just enjoy a late term abortion, sans good reason, that we need to pass laws against it?

I haven't the slightest idea if it's frequent enough to merit legislation. If not, great.

I'm sure there aren't many of them, but my other message board pointed me in the direction of a Yahoo group that was "pro-abortion" in the sense that they like it and get off on it. They post really disgusting stories and pictures of aborted fetuses, etc. and have tons of fiction/fantasy tales they have written themselves. I'm not posting a link.

Thank you, Thank you!
:vomitblu:

I'd guess that some of those people get off more from pissing off anti-abortion people than they do from the stories. Sort of like the "Hermione from Harry Potter countdown to 18" page - set up as a joke, but attracts a few wierdos.

Very interesting quote from Ayn Rand on this subject....

"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.' "
— Ayn Rand

Sentience. (total self-awareness...something no other animal besides humans have and is measured in alpha brain waves which are present even in those who are in a coma and are not brain dead)

Although there really is no need to define it. That decision is only up to one person, the host (pregnant woman) of the parasite (fetus).

Note: I'm not using the word parasite in a derrogatory manner. It is merely an accurate biological description of the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant woman. A fetus is a non-human because it does not have sentience.

Some things are often confused with human life so let me make a short list of things that are not human life.

• a beating heart
• reflexive actions (sucking thumb, response to stimuli, kicking, etc)
• the shape of a human being
• fingers, toes, arms, legs or other body parts
• human dna

None of these alone or even combined constitute a human life but even if the fetus did have human life (defined only by sentience/alpha waves) it would not give it any claim to the body of the host/pregnant woman. Nobody on earth has any claim on our bodies but ourselves, not even something that may be living inside us, even if it is a human.

I don't have any moral compunction what so ever about abortion. In my eyes it's akin to having a wart, a tumor, or a tapeworm removed or having a limb amputated. It's no more or less important.

I've thought about becoming an abortion doctor just so one of the services I offered would be free abortions to those under 18 without any notification of parents, guardians, husbands, boyfriends, etc. I'd even offer a free ride to and from the clinic if they lived nearby.

And I'd sleep well at night knowing I did the right thing in helping salvage real existing human life, not merely the potential for one. I put the lives of the living above those who might live later.

How would you feel about it in the 7th month then, once the fetus has at least the capacity for sentience, and perhaps has it in some way we don't fathom?

How would you feel about it in the 7th month

7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...

http://fox.org/~vince/out/crying.jpg

( :thumbsdn: straight to hell!)

I thought the Yahoo group was trying to yank some chains, too, and then I noticed they'd been at it since 2001, with a lot of the same members. I thought that was quite a while to be at the same crusade. I read some of the stories too, and they were quite explicit sexually. They post real videos of abortions and claim to get off on it. The one thing that made me believe it was real was that they weren't actively promoting it. It was a private group, or whatever you call the ones you have to get persmission/password from the person who runs it before you can see it. (I quit the group after I'd read all I could take).

*CRINGING!!!*

OH god no...


:eek: :thumbsdn: :thumbsdn: :greenface

I am pro-choice in only two cases: if the mother's life is in danger, or if the child will be born with a birth defect that will shortly kill it or will make it so that there is no quality of life at all for the child.

When it comes to the "oops, I fucked up/I don't have time or money for a child" type of abortions--uh-uh. There are way too many people out there who are willing to pay all doctor bills in order to adopt for that to be an excuse. When it comes to rape or incest, all I can say is that I personally would not have an abortion, for the above-mentioned reason. It's not the baby's fault who the father is. There is no reason to make the child pay for the sins of the father.

I think that abortions should be allowed until brain waves start. It is at this point that the fetus is conscious and can feel pain. I also think that menstrual extraction is an acceptable method of abortion. Invented by a female OB-GYN, it keeps a woman from having to go through her period each month by extracting the menstrual debris via vacuum. This means that if an egg has been implanted, the egg gets sucked out as well.

I've talked to several pro-choicers about this on abortion debate forums, and I still don't understand their reasoning. It's all about them. Considering that most places have free clinics in which one can procure free birth control, there's no excuse. Granted, birth control can fail, but at least one is attempting to prevent a pregnancy and is taking responsibility for that. I'm all about responsibility and having to deal with the consequences of one's actions, as everyone well knows.

The main reason I'm pro-choice is just as Wolf said--back-alley abortions kill too many people. It should be made safe. BUT, I also think that if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, that she should be required to take birth control. It should be mandatory.

I also think that the men should have a say in the abortion issue. After all, it takes two, and fathers just don't have any rights nowadays when it comes to children--at least they have no rights if they aren't currrently married to the mother of the child. I think that if the father wants the child and says he will take care of it, then she should have to have the baby. It shouldn't die because she'll be inconvenienced by its presence.


Sidhe

I don't know how much I agree with that, but I can agree that people today, especially women, are becoming so much harder, so much more "me, me, me." I personally don't understand how someone can justify killing an innocent child--and it is murder, IMO.

Here's something I don't get: why is it that if someone causes a woman to lose her child involuntarily, that's considered fetuscide--murder--and they can be charged, tried, and sent to jail for it; but if a woman willfully kills her own child, that isn't considered fetuscide? Murder is murder, in my book. Either the child has rights and protection under the law, and is therefore considered a person, or it DOESN'T. It shouldn't be both ways.

It's like someone killing a pet. If your next-door neighbor kills your dog, that's animal cruelty, and they can go to jail for it. Likewise, if you abuse and/or kill your dog, the same laws apply to you, although you own the dog. The animal has protections under the law, and it applies equally across the board, no matter WHO violates that law.

So why isn't it the same for babies?


Sidhe

Incidentally, LadySyc, I love your AmishRakeFight link. Meant to tell you that about a hundred years ago when I first saw it, but forgot. I've sent it to so many people, mostly because I knew they'd appreciate it just as much as I did, and send it on.

:thumbsup:

Sidhe

I'm not sure that's true. I remember some anti-abortion congressmen tried to pass such a law recently, but I don't know what the status is. I think the usual charge would be forcing a miscarriage, rather than murder.Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.

uh-oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?

*sees garnet entering room carrying soap bax and flame thrower* :D

Here in La., it's fetuscide. I don't know about other states.

I'm not referring to people who bring sick pets to be put down, or vicious or rabid animals (I think that people who kill perfectly healthy pets should be flogged. If you can't take care of a pet, don't get one, IMO). I'm talking about people who abuse their animals or kill animals. I can't tell you how many people I know who have had pets poisoned by neighbors, or the like.

In La., if you abuse or kill an animal, or are found to be engaged in animal fighting, you can be fined and/or imprisoned for animal abuse, if you're caught.


Sidhe


Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.

Pathetic.

The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.

Hey, part of garnet's discussion was about which euthanasia methods are PETA-approved!

I saw a hilarious video regarding "putting the dog out of it's misery" the other day, but don't have the URL handy. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

I'd guess that they are trying to get as close to banning abortion as they can without attracting the Supreme Court.
How about animal shelters? If they can't find a loving family for the animal, they'll kill it (depending on the shelter).
The reason rabid animals are killed is that they are considered less important than people, and therefore not worth life imprisonment. Babies are more protected than animals, and fetuses are less. Animal fetuses have no protection at all.

Hey! I've been a good girl lately! I'm learning slowly but surely how to play nicely with others. :)

(just don't start another PETA thread......pleeeeeeze!)

2 things.

1) some cellarites are partial to the opposite of a good girl. :eyebrow:

2) PETA - that is a sandwich, right? (go with me on this one, and maybe people won't even notice that PETA was brought up again.)

Sorry, just can't help myself on this one. It all goes back to what your definition of "baby" is. If you kill a human infant (and get caught) you're going to the slammer for a looooong time. If you kill a kitten or a puppy, you get a slap on the wrist (if anything).

Lots of pro-lifers hate PETA because we protect animals instead of unborn "babies." I've never understood the connection. We get tons of mail from those people. I don't get why they're wasting their time bitching at us instead of doing something useful--like helping pregnant teenagers and abused children.

So wait, are you saying you like the "bad" garnet better than the "good" garnet? Cuz if you do, she's lurking just around the corner :ninja:

Are you trying to say you've got a thing for bad boys lookout? :eyebrow:

eeew. thanks but no thanks jinx. i didn't mean that opposite.

i was simply (although with poor grammar) saying that some of the cellar dwelling guys like the bad girls... take that how you want.

and to garnet - please keep evil garnet in chains. and a ballgag. with chinese finger cuffs. in a burlap sack. in a closet. in an abandoned house. in siberia. that should do it.

Chinese finger cuffs? OUCH! Even for "bad garnet" that's a little harsh!

A big amen from me on that one.
:thumbsup:

Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child. :mad: