Abortion: Your Views

[Totenkopf]

Well, JK, I guess I should ask you: who does have a right to live? If being picked on by others is the yardstick you use for determining who should get to live, should we kill fat children, short children, kids with funny names, kids who don't make the cut for being a part of the "in crowd"? How about kids who are from a different race or creed? How about the poor, since they can't really pay their own way and are just a drain on everbody elses resources? Also, lets not forget the ugly, b/c god forbid we should be subjected to their visage? I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek here, but you need to take a more expansive view about who's entitled to live. Perhaps the ones who need to be culled from the gene pool are the tormentors themselves.......

[Darth InSidious]

My point was that intolerance of those who are handicapped mentally or physically is no different from racism, and that this kind of talk of extermination of those who are different is little more than xenophobia.

 

As to the question of removing people from the gene pool, where does it end? Where does the buck stop? Who decides? On what grounds should it be decided? Should we have only white, middle-class, American atheists? This kind of thing leads to KKK-thinking, IMO.

[JediKnight707]

Well, JK, I guess I should ask you: who does have a right to live? If being picked on by others is the yardstick you use for determining who should get to live, should we kill fat children, short children, kids with funny names, kids who don't make the cut for being a part of the "in crowd"? How about kids who are from a different race or creed? How about the poor, since they can't really pay their own way and are just a drain on everbody elses resources? Also, lets not forget the ugly, b/c god forbid we should be subjected to their visage? I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek here, but you need to take a more expansive view about who's entitled to live. Perhaps the ones who need to be culled from the gene pool are the tormentors themselves.......

 

I think that you're turning a blind eye to what I said. I wasn't saying to abort them simply because they'll be picked on at school, that was just an example. And, a fat person can get skinny, a poor person can get rich, but a mentally challenged person can never get be un-mentally challenged.

[Prime]

I think that you're turning a blind eye to what I said. I wasn't saying to abort them simply because they'll be picked on at school, that was just an example. And, a fat person can get skinny, a poor person can get rich, but a mentally challenged person can never get be un-mentally challenged.

And yet they can be loved and live, happy, healthy, productive lives.

[Jae Onasi]

The ethics question aside (which is getting discussed in a very interesting thread over in the Senate), we also want to be very careful about making alterations to the gene pool when we still know so little about it.

Those with Down's Syndrome (trisomy 21) have a much lower chance of developing most cancers except leukemia than 'normal' people.

Think we should get rid of the sickle cell gene so people don't get sickle cell anemia? Well, being a carrier of that gene gives people some protection from malaria. I also thought I read something about being a Tay-Sach's carrier gives some protection against tuberculosis, but I'd have to double check that.

If we try to get rid of the 'abnormal' people or 'bad' genes, we may unintentionally be affecting the gene pool in a very negative way.

We've only begun to scratch the surface on what we know about medicine, physiology, and genetics. Making wholesale changes in genetics could have disastrous results.

[Totenkopf]

Jedi_Knight_707

I think that you're turning a blind eye to what I said. I wasn't saying to abort them simply because they'll be picked on at school, that was just an example. And, a fat person can get skinny, a poor person can get rich, but a mentally challenged person can never get be un-mentally challenged.

-----------------------------------------------------

Actually, I understood quite well what you were saying. The fact the the "mentally challenged" are at a somewhat severe disadvantage in life may be the reason we should just cut them out of the picture so that they do not have to endure all kinds of indignities due to their condition. A bit shortsighted in the long view. Just keep in mind that there are all forms of disadvantage in life, some of which most or even all people cannot recover. Let's say that you are involved in an accident that results in brain damage. Should the "compassionate" person put you to death so that you don't have to live your life in such an undignified state? How about Alzheimers, or quadra- plegia, etc...? You should develop a more expansive view, all the more so b/c you're still pretty young and your mindset hasn't (hopefully) ossified yet. As Prime pointed out, even the least among us can still live a happy and productive life.

[JediKnight707]

I've got nothing against mentally challenged people. I'm not prejudice against them. I hope that everyone out there who has mental challenges faces them with bravery I couldn't. But, I can't really say that I see a wrong in having someone having an abortion for fear that there child is going to have Down Syndrome, especially if those parent(s) aren't quite prepared for it. I do, however, have a problem with someone having an abortion on the day of their labor. Then the baby actually had muscle stimulation and was starting to think.

 

I've got a question for the people out there who said that there against abortion, simply because "if you do it without a condom, you should pay the consequences." What if they did use a condom, yet it broke? Would you support it then?

[Totenkopf]

Sooo......speculatively selective abortion is ok in your book? I ask it that way b/c you wrote....."having an abortion for FEAR (your word, my emphasis) that there child is going to have Down Syndrome". Do they actually know? Actually, a baby has many of those abilities far sooner than you seem to suspect.

 

But as to your final note about condom failures, it's irrelevant. I've no sympathy for people messing around and then finding themselves in "a family way". Though we live in societies that permit abortion, that doesn't mean that the government should foot the bill b/c we're too damn lazy or cheap to be responsible (ie. pay for it out of our own pocket). No contraceptive method is perfect or fool proof (alas, it's ashame b/c there're a lot of fools out there). But as the man says......don't do the crime if you can't do the time.......don't do it, don't do it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

In some ways, having an abortion with a child that could have a mental defect is better than letting it be born. Think about it. If a child with down syndrome goes to a normal school, do you realize the absolute torture they'd go through?

I'm so sick of that argument, and not only used in this context.

 

"Think about how the kids will torture that kid with the black mom and white dad!"

"Think about how the kids will torture that kid with two moms!"

 

It's up to the schools to integrate the kids and prevent bullying of them. Aborting a kid because you're afraid he/she's going to be bullied is just not logically defendable. We'd have to ban homosexual adoption and inter-racial relationships if that reasoning was to be applied.

 

If you're going to allow society to dispose of inconvienent lives, why not euthanasia?

Indeed. Why not? It's barbaric to keep a person alive when he or she is in great pain and is never going to get better.

 

If you were in a bed 24/7, relying on nurses for everything, in great pain nearly all the time, and not going to recover, wouldn't you want to die, too?

[Totenkopf]

The problem with euthanasia isn't that someone would rather die than live like that, but WHO you allow to make that decision. If the patient in question has not made it clear via a living will, or other form of legal document, that they wish to be allowed to die, who gets to make that decision? Do you let the nurse or doctor make that call? Do we kick those decisions to the courts?

 

What of the person whose not in pain constantly (say no more than the rest of us)? Is it barbaric to keep them alive too? How about the comatose? Who decides the pain threshold for life and death? Unless you wish to have beaurocrats making these decisions for you, I'd be careful about leaving these matters to a government alone. You have to keep in mind that a government is as good/bad as the people who run it, so it's not inconceivable that some in power could come to arbitrarily decide who gets to live or die, perhaps even on the most specious of grounds (think Logan's Run, which for those of you that don't know, was a movie where people were euthanized @ age of 30, regardless of actual health).

[Jae Onasi]

I've got a question for the people out there who said that there against abortion, simply because "if you do it without a condom, you should pay the consequences." What if they did use a condom, yet it broke? Would you support it then?

 

My decision to not abort any of my children isn't based on contraception failure. It's based on my view that life begins at conception. If something strange happened and I got pregnant, then I'd have the baby.

 

@Totenkopf--sometimes contraception failure happens with responsible married people, too, though generally they're in a better position to handle a little surprise than, say, a teenager.

 

Euthanasia--with pain meds so much better than they were even a decade ago, it's a lot easier to have a decent quality of life even close or at the end. What happens now, at least in the US, is if it's clear that the person is going to die, there's no advance directive, and the patient isn't able to answer for himself, the doctor will call the family together. S/he will explain what's happening medically, what's likely to happen in the near future, the impact that will have on that person, and a discussion on options.

 

Each end-of-life decision is so individual, and it need to be made by that patient if possible, and by the family in consultation with that person's doctor next if the patient can't make that decision. There's no way any government could create a set of rules flexible enough to cover every possible situation. I don't want them trying to legislate death.

[Darth InSidious]

There's also a question of where abortion and euthanasia stop, since effectively once it becomes selective its about only having "normal" people. We know where that leads.

[Totenkopf]

Jae Onasi:

@Totenkopf--sometimes contraception failure happens with responsible married people, too, though generally they're in a better position to handle a little surprise than, say, a teenager.

---------------------------------------

Basically my point. Contraceptives are NOT 100% effective (and not just for fools, but everyone), but their failure is no excuse for an abortion. But even responsible people, ie those who make the effort to take precautions, should still have to foot the bill themselves if they go down the road of abortion. I guess the closest you can get to 100% is having oneself sterilized.

[El Sitherino]

Uh, since when does the government pay for abortions?

[Samnmax221]

Uh, since when does the government pay for abortions?

Government subsidies end up in the strangest places.

[Totenkopf]

El Sitherino, ever hear of a little government program called medicaid? That's our tax dollars at work. Also, as indicated above, can you say with certainty that groups like NARAL, PP or other women's reproductive health clinics and such get NO government monies whatsoever? So, even if medicaid has tightened it's regs for doling out money, it still means govt funding at some level. That shouldn't even be an option.

[Darth InSidious]

In the Holland (IIRC) now, there are cases of children of twelve who are 'depressed' being killed by doctors legally for depression.

[El Sitherino]

Government aid pays for sanitation and supplies at clinics, it doesn't (as far as I can recall) actually pay for the abortions.

[Totenkopf]

El Sitherino:

Government aid pays for sanitation and supplies at clinics, it doesn't (as far as I can recall) actually pay for the abortions.

------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, it doesn't much matter what they use the aid directly for (or what they report it's usage for), if they are engaged in such activities there should be no government financial support. period. There's eough money out there in the private sector to help them accomplish their goals and meet their daily operating expenses. They just need to focus their efforts on fundraising if they think that there's going to be a budget problem.

[Alegis]

I'm for it, for all reasons.

 

Not wanting to live with a child (too young?), raped - so it doesn't ruin your child. I'm even for it when you know the child will be mentally handicapped etc and you don't wish to live your life like that.

[Henz]

Pro Choice. There should always be a choice involved. People against it are arguing that the choice be taken away, but they could just shut up and choose not to themselves.

Waay too many acceptable reasons {IMO} to take it away. And to be honest, reguarding the whore-ish community not even bothering to use protection, I see a bright side to them not mothering another generation of lil whore-ish youngsters. Thats just me being the miserable bastard I am.

 

[This will probably be censored but I will protest as this is an adult conversation]

[Totenkopf]

Hey if the prospect of pregnancy is so daunting, I've got a suggestion.........sterilize yourself (by whatever method you want, no problem going pro-choice there). This way you can have all the sex you want, w/o the worries (STDs notwithstanding). Sort of like the slogan........tastes great, less filling. You can always adopt later when you feel you're ready for children.

[JediKnight707]

Yes, but I think that anyone who's adopted and had a child will tell you that, although the love for the children are the same, there's something different about loving an adopted child and loving a child you created.

[Whiteknight1980]

1) I have been called "retarded" even though I have an IQ of 121. I just happen to have AADD, Tourette's, and Asperger's. The arguement about aborting those who are different HOLDS NO FREAKING WATER!

 

2) To those who want to blame it on the woman for not keeping her legs closed; ever heard of Date Rape, Incest, or the guy coercing the woman? Sorry but the main problem lies in how society makes women into sex objects and puts most of the power with the man. A man can have sex and be the best dude on Earth for his buddies but the woman he does ends up being called a slut. This double-standard stinks worse than Bantha poo-doo. Until a man understands that no means no, nothing will change.

 

3) Education would be wonderful, but not abstinence-only as this is PROVEN to fail. You give as much information to the woman and man as possible when they are teens. This works better!

 

4) Birth Control; if a pharmacist tells you that they can't give it too you for moral or ethical reasons, remind them that they are in that job to help people. NOT to be moral sheriffs of the world.

 

I am pro-choice in that I support the right to make that choice and it is between the woman and however they choose to view the divine!

[Totenkopf]

JK--your point may be valid about the depth of a connection, but that is secondary to the welfare of the child. But there is a price that must be paid if you wish to be a libertine in your youth (relative or actual). If your primary MO in life is to pursue your pleasure, you should at least be mature enough to accept the consequences. For women that would mean having to carry a child to term and then give it up for adoption (even if to the natural father, should she not want the child herself). For us guys, it means stepping up to the plate and providing support, be it emotional or otherwise. Simply "terminating" a pregnancy is tantamount to punishing the innocent for the acts of the guilty. So, if you sterilize yourself, you dramatically decrease the odds of pregnancy (perhaps to 0). If all you can do is focus on yourself, this may be the best solution for everyone.

 

WK1980- I find no fault with your first statement, but your second one is a bit of a gross simplification. It is statiscally borne out (yes that does sound a bit cold) that most (~95-99%) abortions (at least here in the US) are ELECTIVE and NOT due to such things as rape or incest. Your solution is a lot like executing 100 people, only one of which is actually guilty. You are dead on, though, about the problems facing abstinence only programs. In a modern and materialistic culture, like we have in the west, people are bombarded with sexual imagery very early on in life. Couple this with the crippling "me first" attitude borne out of the self-styled sexual revoultion, and it becomes extrememly difficult for impressionable younger people to resist the siren call of sexual "expression". I mean, hey if "everyone" is doing it, why wait. But you also are overlooking the fact that in modern society girls are now seeking to be more masculine in their approach to sexual activity (ie verrrry aggressive), so it's not quite so simple as to say that women are little better than victims. And b/c many of them are brought up exposed to the feminist myth that they don't need a man, there are an increasing number that embrace this attitude.

 

As to the whole pharmacy thing, those are private organizations that should have the right to refuse or restrict their services accordingly. If they are exceeding their authority w/in their respective organization for not supplying contraceptives, they risk the possibility of losing their jobs. Much like any protester (war, abortion, animal rights, etc...) faces the prospect of jail time for tresspassing on private property and not dispersing peacefully when ordered to do so by police. All actions have a price to them. But seriously, seeing as how bc is sold even in grocery stores and is virtually available in public schools, public bathrooms, universities and clinics, it's hard to argue that a pharmacist is beholden to "help" you in your pursuit of sexual conquest. You may not always be able to control exactly when the urge to merge hits you hardest, but neither are you a lower order animal with no self control. Remember P to the 6th

....prior planning prevents piss poor performance. If you absolutely gotta screw, be prepared.