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.