Abortion: What's your opinion?

[SilentScope001]

This is applicable when the person is in a _persistant_ vegetative state with no hope for recovery. An embroyo will not remain in a persistant vegetative state (unless it has some sort of disease or malformation), it will grow and develop and become a functioning human. This law therefore does not apply to fetuses.

 

But I was trying to defend your position here. And according to several family members, there is the hope of recovery from comas that look suspiciously like PVS, but not really, therefore, it would be impossible to tell if it is a coma or a PVS, so let the person live.

 

I do think this law should be used as a guiding post however. After all, if a living person is unable to communicate his wishes, then his "next-of-kin" who knows what this living person wants should decide what is in the person's "best interest". It is only fair, we don't want to disrespect the living person's wishes unintentionally, and having the "next-of-kin" relate the wishes is a good way of making sure we respect the wishes of the person who is unable to communicate.

[Emperor Devon]

Which parts did you think I dropped?

 

Parts #3-7, the majority of all my arguments.

 

I don't suppose you've heard of George Tiller, a.k.a. "Tiller the Killer"?

 

I have. He's managing a business, something well within his rights to do. If he has customers, he provides his services for them. He certainly doesn't force them upon people.

 

The stories are quite horrific.

 

Agreed. The audacity of Rachelle Shannon is disgusting. It's one thing to disagree with Tiller, but trying to kill him?

 

Well, if you're going to put my statement there, you'd better add in the term, "safe abortion", because there is very little difference between the two, which was the point I was making. Safe abortion=safe murder.

 

As proven later, that argument is invalid. At that point the fetus bears no human traits other this "immortal soul" (which you have been unable to prove the existence of). Since we can only debate with facts that are actually that (and not beliefs related to the supernatural), there is no way you can logically say that a fetus is a person. Thus abortion is not a form of murder.

 

at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells"

 

When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

 

Until you can do that, your argument carries no merit. We might as well debate the existence of shadow people.

 

it has its own unique DNA pattern, its own cell structure, and by 10 weeks gestation will have its own heart that's beating.

 

As do rats, moles, vermin, and other non-sentient and non-human mammals.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Until you can do that, your argument carries no merit. We might as well debate the existence of shadow people.

I believe the correct term is "African-American"

[Aurora Starfire]

*sigh* As I said before, I don't expect you to believe me, and I can't make you. I've laid out my case, and you've laid out yours. If we go much further, it will descend into mere arguing, if it hasn't done so already.

 

PS--You're defending Tiller?? Dear me..... there are few people I can think of who commit more atrocious acts than he does.

[Samuel Dravis]

What it comes down to, is this: If you believe in God, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't, then it doesn't matter whether mothers choose to abort their children, because life has no meaning, no purpose.

What? Where did you pull this false dilemma from? The existance of God doesn't affect the value of a human life, nor do circumstances or anything else. I find it questionable how many people pull religion into this argument. It's not necessary and never has been; doing so only serves to make people ignore you since they realize you don't have a rational argument.

 

I think that everyone has inherent value. Sometimes that value may be outweighed (rarely!) by other factors, such as in self-defense, but even then the value of the attacker's life stays the same.

 

When talking about abortion we need to know whether the life is a person or not in order to make decisions based on that. So you see, I am against abortion not because it is against God's wishes, but because I believe there are not sufficient checks on the process to prevent a person from being harmed. Due to the vague nature of "personhood" it is very hard to determine that with reliability, so I tend to go to the least common denominator in order to avoid any possible harm to innocents. I accept that some people will disagree with me, but that's a problem of the different values people place on things, not arguements.

[Emperor Devon]

I believe the correct term is "African-American"

 

Shadow people

 

*sigh* As I said before, I don't expect you to believe me, and I can't make you. I've laid out my case, and you've laid out yours. If we go much further, it will descend into mere arguing, if it hasn't done so already.

 

Makes me wonder why you even bothered in the first place.

 

Silence is concession, btw.

 

PS--You're defending Tiller?? Dear me..... there are few people I can think of who commit more atrocious acts than he does.

 

If you wish to debate Tiller's actions with me, please try and use logic and actual evidence to support your claims... Saying he commits "atrocious acts" is merely an unprovable opinion.

[Aurora Starfire]

What? Where did you pull this false dilemma from? The existance of God doesn't affect the value of a human life, nor do circumstances or anything else. I find it questionable how many people pull religion into this argument. It's not necessary and never has been; doing so only serves to make people ignore you since they realize you don't have a rational argument.

 

I think that everyone has inherent value. Sometimes that value may be outweighed (rarely!) by other factors, such as in self-defense, but even then the value of the attacker's life stays the same.

 

When talking about abortion we need to know whether the life is a person or not in order to make decisions based on that. So you see, I am against abortion not because it is against God's wishes, but because I believe there are not sufficient checks on the process to prevent a person from being harmed. Due to the vague nature of "personhood" it is very hard to determine that with reliability, so I tend to go to the least common denominator in order to avoid any possible harm to innocents. I accept that some people will disagree with me, but that's a problem of the different values people place on things, not arguements.

 

Well, people asked why I consider life so sacred, so I told them

I knew that including religion in my reasoning would cause some people to automatically disregard my arguments, but nevertheless, I'm not going to hide any of my reasons. I believe that all life is sacred, including life inside the womb, and my religion happens to play a part in that belief. If others choose to disregard my statements because of my religious beliefs, so be it.

 

Thank you, though, for standing up for life. Your arguments are good ones.

 

Makes me wonder why you even bothered in the first place.

Because, as you said, silence is concession.

If good men say nothing, then evil prevails.

And I'm not going to simply be quiet, I'm just going to stop answering arguments I've already answered. If something new comes up, I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

 

About Tiller, I'm trying to stay out of trouble and not go into graphic details about what he does, but suffice it to say that he performs what's known as "partial-birth abortions", which is the killing of fetuses which could survive outside of the womb. If they were to be delivered, then they would then be considered persons by those of you who don't believe fetuses are persons.

[Emperor Devon]

I'm just going to stop answering arguments I've already answered. If something new comes up, I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

 

More like something old which never came up. My original arguments mention personal freedom, involuntary pregnancy, the downsides of adoption, and personal beliefs being imposed on the impersonal.

 

But that's your choice. I've already said all there really is to say on the matter, which the pro-life side of the issue, time and time again, has been unable to sufficiently refute.

 

suffice it to say that he performs what's known as "partial-birth abortions",

 

...which, I may point out, is done entirely due to a pregnant woman's decision. If Tiller didn't perform her abortion, chances are she'd just go to another clinic, or worse yet, possibly try to perform it herself. To blame Tiller is like a blaming a gun for shooting someone rather than the person who fired it.

 

If they were to be delivered, then they would then be considered persons

 

Inherently flawed logic. If the mother waited a few more weeks or months, they would be people. Were the mother to go along with her pregnancy for 9 months, they would be people. Were she not to use a condom/pills, there would be more people.

 

One of the problems with such an argument is the question 'where is it really murder?' Is it murder if the mother uses a condom/pills? Either way she's just stopped a person from existing - just the same as if she took a pill or had an abortion after having sex. She's stopped a person from coming into being either way, and it feels no physical pain one way or another. Is it murder for a woman to say 'no' if someone asks her to have sex? It goes back and back...

 

The only refute in pro-life arguments seems to be the immortal soul one... Which, conveniently, is entirely unprovable but entirely undeniable.

[Totenkopf]

@Aurora--I was being a bit toungue in cheek, hence the smiley. The underlying point though is not entirely invalid. If the father has no legal right to decide the disposition of the unborn child, neither should he then have any legal responsibilities upon its birth. I agree with the sentiment, though, that if you broke it you bought it. Afterall, making babies IS a team sport.

 

@ED--you do realize that she was talking about "partial birth" abortions, right? The only thing seperating that child from full legal rights is about a few minutes in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

@ET--your violin analogy only seems to work if the pregnancy in question results from rape or unintended sex (drunk sex, etc...). Otherwise it falls flat as even the statistics you cite show that the vast majority of sex appears in fact to be concensual. Not to mention, that there was nothing in that info that spoke to the numbers of pregnancies resulting from those alleged and/or conjured numbers of rapes. Fact is, the vast majority of abortions are not physically necessary, just convenient (except for the fetus/child of course). Also, your burglary argument is strained and applies only, once again, if comparing it to instances of rape. Otherwise, we're predominantly talking about consensual sex, where both parties are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you're too worried about a "mistake", perhaps you should find other ways to "relieve the pressure" (cold shower, exercise.....get your mind out of the gutter. )

 

The best part of my beliefs is that not everyone has to believe them. Merely respect them.

--actually, umm, no. Only respect your right to hold them.

[Darth InSidious]

I don't think it's silly at all. I am being GENUINELY serious here. Why is the risk of sex such that if we take the risk and get burned it's a "Too bad, so sad, deal with it" problem, but taking the risk of getting robbed such that we can chase of the robber, or call the cops and get our things back?

You don't agree to be burgled. And as I said, if you leave the family silver on the window sill with the same window open, you're asking for trouble.

 

As I also said, for the most part, sex is a consensual decision. Unless women in the US are in the habit of showing off their genitals, and men are equally in the habit of sticking their dicks into the same areas without so much as a by-your-leave...

So you have never, EVER looked into rape statistics then? rape is uncommon? Despite the fact that one out of every six women in the United States is the victim of Sexual Assault, in 2004-2005, there were an average annual 200,780 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault, and Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. source. Those statistics don't even take into account sex that may not have been entirely consensual, but wasn't reported so it doesn't make it to the statistics pages.

First of all, I'm not American, and in my country, the conviction rate for rape is still 7%.

 

Secondly, those statistics are quite clearly skewed. Unless most of what we hear about your country, and more specifically the Deep South is true...?

 

Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

 

To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

 

Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

 

Further more, even your own source must admit that the number of assaults has fallen since 1993 by 69%.

 

I'd also be interested in knowing where, and from what kind of sample they compiled their statistics.

 

Stats are also notoriously easy to manipulate to your own ends. I hope I don't need to quote Clements on the three types of lies.

 

Also, even assuming you are correct, surely this indicates that sexual relations and life issues have become far too trivialised in western society, to the point where such things can be so widespread, and that a casual attitude to sex has far-reaching consequences?

In fact, some statistics suggest only 16% of rapes are reported. source.

How would you know if they aren't reported? That's like saying that one in five people are completely invisible, inaudible and intangible to everyone else.

Not everybody works for their things. What if my TV was a gift from my extremely rich uncle? I didn't have to do anything for it, but I still put it in my living room as a lure for those darn burglars.

Nonetheless, there are precautions you can take in both instances, and once again you assume that a woman has no choice in the matter. At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

 

Oh, and stop distorting the issue. This is about abortion, not rape. And the number of women who even get to conception after rape due to the shock is extremely low, let alone the number who get much further in their pregnancy.

 

Once again, I refer you to Mahkorn and Dolan, Sexual Assault and Pregnancy: New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 1981.

Well if her perceptions are so colored by her she-woman-man-hating behavior, then feel free to point out why the violin player analogy is flawed.

That's a glib response which doesn't answer my point. In the violin player instance, you didn't know it was a risk of what you were doing. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to know what the possible consequences of sex are...

I generally make efforts to provide sources to actual statistics or quotes that I bring into any argument that are not purely of my own device. If I have failed to do that at some point please point that out so I can correct my mistake. I don't generally make up numbers without making it obvious that they are fabrications used for emphasis.

First off, congratulations on directing me to other sites which don't actually provide any explanations of where they got their statistics from. Very clever, I'm sure.

 

Secondly, enough with the superior attitude and loaded language. Or did you think I hadn't noticed? And please, don't claim that your use of language isn't deliberately derogatory - it's quite obvious you aren't stupid enough to use the word 'spouting' without knowing damn well about its negative connotations.

 

Third, using reason, and the grey matter between our ears, we can ESTIMATE numbers, and so come to a reasonable approximation, which is what I did.

 

Fourth, I'm arguing with someone on a forum. Do you really think total accuracy matters? It's not like I'm writing a paper for the Royal Society - I'm arguing the toss with someone who I don't know, and whose opinions frankly have no bearing upon my life.

It is STILL a non-sequitur, though I will point out that the violinist analogy brings to light your point of "convenience" before human life.

Except that the "environment" is a descriptor that we humans have given to a complex system of parasites, symbiotes, and all other manner of creatures.

Just like your body.

The fact that we exist off of the "environment" is merely an artifact of the existence of the "environment", and the fact that humans are a part of it. So again, non-sequitur, this does not compare to an organism living parasitically off of another organism.

But it is. We actively engage in things that harm the environment, and unlike the other relationships, give very little back. At present, the amount of harm we do is quite considerable.

Which is not a universal benefit of having children. Children can DESTROY the lives of the mothers who have them. They can TAKE the lives of the mothers.

They can also not do so.

 

As far as I am aware, and I admit that I am not well versed in this matter, the number of deaths in childbirth in this day and age are pretty miniscule. And homewrecking children are usually the result of badparenting, AFAIK. No doubt Jae can set one or the other of us right on this.

Not every person will get any joy from having children, let alone "untold joy". This is the point of having a choice. Some people simply should not be having children. They then have the option of abortion. Some people will gain GREAT benefit from it, and they choose NOT to have an abortion.

But when abortion is foisted as the best way to go, and several of my friends and family have had it practically forced down their throats that they should have abortions, it is not a fair choice. Further more, if it is a human life, what right have you to take away someone who may be the next Einstein. Sure they may not be, but is it worth the risk? Don't be so temporally narrow-minded.

I appreciate the...subtle attempt at spelling correction, but fetus is an acceptable alternate spelling.

Not if you've studied Greek

[Jae Onasi]

But that's your choice. I've already said all there really is to say on the matter, which the pro-life side of the issue, time and time again, has been unable to sufficiently refute.

The only refute in pro-life arguments seems to be the immortal soul one... Which, conveniently, is entirely unprovable but entirely undeniable.

At the point that the cell has a DNA pattern unique from either mother or father, it's become a separate person. The fact that the baby cannot yet live on his or her own is not relevent to his or her personhood.

Abortion, particularly the late-term partial birth abortions, show a society's disregard for the right to live. Where do you draw the line at personhood? Conception? When the heart starts beating? When the fetus feels pain? When s/he can live outside the womb? When s/he's born? When the mother decides she wants to keep the baby after s/he's born? Conception is the definitive point in time where that person is formed. Just because it doesn't have all his or her parts yet does not mean s/he's any less a person. That's like saying a 5-month-old is not a person because s/he can't speak normally.

That being said, I can live with early term abortions, if unhappily. I don't like it, I'd never do it, and I'll work to help gals find alternatives, but I can grudgingly live with it. The very late-term abortions I strenuously object to. If you've carried a child 38 weeks and decide you don't want the child, just have the baby and give it up for adoption. Partial-birth abortions are barbaric in how they are conducted and in principle, and they are nothing more than a blatant example of the violence we allow in this culture. It is a very painful procedure for the baby. There have also been a couple instances where the child actually survived the procedure, was born, and was killed moments after birth. Unfortunately, there's been no definitive proof so there've been no murder charges brought to my knowledge. There are no maternal medical reasons to kill a full-term baby instead of letting the baby live--the mother has to give birth to the child whether the child is dead or alive, so the birthing process and health issues are exactly the same.

 

Stats: see my previous post. I put the stats there. The maternal and abortion related mortality rates are from the Centers for Disease Control. The lightning strike data is from NOAA. I can't remember exactly where I got the fatal crash data but I think it's derived from the NTSB.

 

For everyone, since I'm sensing a bit of friction in the last page or so, not bad, but something I wanted to address now before it goes farther. Ahto is a more casual and generally less serious forum than the Senate, and so arguments on controversial topics reflect this accordingly. It has a very different personality than the Senate. If you want a knock-down, drag-out Senate-style debate, there's an abortion topic there. We're not going to hold people to PhD level documentation (though citations are always good if you want your point taken seriously), and we're not going to get hung up on British vs. English spelling (which is off topic).

 

Everyone has done a nice job of keeping this discussion civil, and I'd like to see it continue that way.

[JasraLantill]

DarthInsidious, I realise that this thread is veering dangerously off-topic, and you’ve said as much yourself, but what you’ve written in your last post has really struck a nerve with me. So much so, that I feel obligated to respond.

 

First of all, I'm not American, and in my country, the conviction rate for rape is still 7%.

 

Conviction rates only tell you the number of people who were charged, tried, and convicted of a particular crime, not the actual number of crimes that have been perpetrated. Point in case, I recently had something stolen (due to my own stupidity), so I did not report it to the police. That does not mean that a crime did not occur. It means that I just did not report to anyone that it did. Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:

At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

 

I am not ‘for’ abortion as a primary method of birth control, especially in this day and age where information on the subject is widely distributed. Nor am I a fan of ‘late-term abortions.’ I am, however, not in favour of imposing my wilful opinions upon others in what is such an obvious personal and medical matter to the point of making abortion completely illegal in all cases. I’m not a big fan of cosmetic surgery for reasons of vanity either, but I’m not going to go out and campaign and picket against breast implants and face lifts in front of my local cosmetic surgery centre to make those procedures illegal.

 

Gestational time limitations for doctors being allowed to perform a legal abortion on someone, I agree with. But total illegality for abortion in all cases? No. I do not agree with that.

 

This is about abortion, not rape. And the number of women who even get to conception after rape due to the shock is extremely low, let alone the number who get much further in their pregnancy.

Agreed. But had I been one of those women, I have no doubt in my mind that I would have aborted as soon as possible. ‘Accidental’ pregnancies are one thing. ‘Imposed’ ones are quite another. Had abortion been completely illegal where I lived at the time, I know I would have sought out someone to do an illegal one. My attacker broke the law when he assaulted me. I would have no qualms about doing the same to rid myself of anything he ‘left behind’.

 

I’m stepping down off my soap box now.

[Jae Onasi]

Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:

At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

 

Oh, sorry to hear that.

I agree with that comment, though--while a woman may dress provocatively, it in no way gives license for a man to sexually assault her. He's responsible for where Junior goes, not the woman. If he's getting too excited looking at her, he can go look at something else. Rape isn't typically about the sex itself, however. It's usually about power and control.

 

The pregnancy stat from a single unprotected encounter is an average 5%, whether that's from consensual or non-consensual sex. The sperm and egg don't care whether the woman was forced or not. About 25,000 women become pregnant each year in the US as a result of sexual assault according to the NSVRC.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Abortion, particularly the late-term partial birth abortions, show a society's disregard for the right to live. Where do you draw the line at personhood? Conception? When the heart starts beating? When the fetus feels pain? When s/he can live outside the womb? When s/he's born? When the mother decides she wants to keep the baby after s/he's born? Conception is the definitive point in time where that person is formed. Just because it doesn't have all his or her parts yet does not mean s/he's any less a person. That's like saying a 5-month-old is not a person because s/he can't speak normally.

 

 

Welcome to the world of making laws. Usually, society decides this and accepts this. "This" being arbitrary laws. For example, the legal drinking age in most Canadian provinces is 18. In the United States, it's 21. Who's right, who's wrong? Nobody. Nothing happens in your body the day you get from 17 to 18 or from 20 to 21 that automatically makes you capable to drink alcohol. It's an arbitrary age, accepted by society and sanctioned by the system, that puts a limit.

As such, to answer the question :" Where do you draw the line at personhood?" There is only one answer possible:" Where society says so."

 

 

At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

 

You know, I'm going to put aside my scientist hat and put my normal human hat back on. This is frankly disgusting. So rape never occurred before the late 20th century? Armies who conquered all in their wake raped no one because they didn't revealing clothes? Wait, I'm sure that in Afghanistan, women, who are covered from head to toe, never are raped right? Honestly, that's the biggest load of bull ever. There is no excuse for a man to rape. Ever. Period.

 

 

Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

 

You actually say that you have no idea how those stats are made, so how do you it's blown up? You ask a fair question, but shoot yourself in the foot.

Second, the laws of a country define what rape is and the various cases of conviction for rape.

 

To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

 

I doubt that's the case, but I understand the need to define every element. However, you seem to just try to play on the words. You know what it roughly is for most people. I think that it's necessary to have the definition, but no one is stupid enough to not know what it is.

 

Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

 

Which is one case. You keep talking about the need for "real" stats and bring up a single case here. So which is it? Actual general statistics or potentially marginal case?

[Jae Onasi]

Welcome to the world of making laws. Usually, society decides this and accepts this. "This" being arbitrary laws. For example, the legal drinking age in most Canadian provinces is 18. In the United States, it's 21. Who's right, who's wrong? Nobody. Nothing happens in your body the day you get from 17 to 18 or from 20 to 21 that automatically makes you capable to drink alcohol. It's an arbitrary age, accepted by society and sanctioned by the system, that puts a limit.

As such, to answer the question :" Where do you draw the line at personhood?" There is only one answer possible:" Where society says so."

 

The drinking age was changed from 18 to 19 and then 21 because it was too easy for 18 year old high school students to get alcohol for their not-yet-18 year old high school buddies. In addition, the motor vehical accident rate was higher when the legal drinking age was 18. Also, the impulse-control centers of the brain don't quite fully develop until very late teens and into the early 20's. 20+year-olds theoretically have more control over drinking behaviors than teens as a result. So in this case, it wasn't a matter of an arbitrary 'because society said so', it was a matter of 'when we have 18 year olds drinking, they drink to excess more often and get in accidents more often than those who are several years older'. That decision was based on morbidity/mortality stats.

 

Setting the standard for when/when not to do abortions is much more arbitrary and far more difficult. Decisions are not getting made based on stats and research all the time. There's even arguments over whether women should be offered pain relief for the fetus for the abortion on the theory that it might discourage her from getting the procedure. We give our animals pain relief before we put them to sleep, for heaven's sake, and we're arguing about whether to do this for a human baby because it might 'bother the woman.' Sometimes this whole issue gets insane.

[Aurora Starfire]

More like something old which never came up. My original arguments mention personal freedom, involuntary pregnancy, the downsides of adoption, and personal beliefs being imposed on the impersonal.

 

Fine, then. Point A: Personal freedom

I did already address this. A person does NOT have the freedom to harm another person.

 

Point B: Involuntary pregnancy

If you're talking about rape, there are several other people here discussing this better than I probably could. However, if you're talking about consensual sex, that's something else. When a man and a woman get in bed together, they should remember that the reason sex exists is not for the pleasure of the man and woman. That's just a bonus. The reason it exists is for the creation of new life.

In my personal opinion, if they do not want to create new life together, then they should hold off until such a time as they do. Otherwise (or in addition to), there is something called "Natural Family Planning", http://www.ccli.org/nfp which I recommend as a life-giving alternative to artificial birth control. (it also works much better than condoms/the pill)

 

Point C: The downsides of adoption

First of all, one of the chief reasons children are not adopted with greater frequency is the cost. It costs a HUGE amount of money to adopt a child, money which could be used to take care of the child, or two, or three. I know my family would adopt if we could afford the $30,000 it costs. But we can't, and so we aren't going to adopt anytime soon.

Now, it seems to me, that putting one's child up for adoption would be much less traumatic than killing one's child. I mean, at least she knows the child is alive, and has a chance for a happy life elsewhere.

 

Point D: Personal beliefs being imposed upon the impersonal

This statement confused me. I think you meant, "Personal beliefs being imposed upon others who don't share those beliefs" so that's what I'll address. First of all, it's a two-edged sword. Some of us believe that it's wrong to kill babies in the womb, but those of you who don't believe that have made it into law, saying that it's okay. What if the father of a child wanted the child to be born, but the mother didn't (for whatever reason)? As far as I can make out, the father has no say in the matter, even though biologically it's his child, too. What if the father wanted to take responsibility for his actions, and give the child he helped create a chance?

That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person. Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

 

There, happy now?

 

One of the problems with such an argument is the question 'where is it really murder?' Is it murder if the mother uses a condom/pills? Either way she's just stopped a person from existing - just the same as if she took a pill or had an abortion after having sex. She's stopped a person from coming into being either way, and it feels no physical pain one way or another. Is it murder for a woman to say 'no' if someone asks her to have sex? It goes back and back...

 

EDIT: Ok, this is my opinion, which I base upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, and those of my parents, since I have no personal knowledge of this stuff. My mom helped me clarify my thoughts about this. Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable. In extreme circumstances, such as poverty, Natural Family Planning could be used to prevent pregnancy. This is not NFP's only purpose, however. To quote from the NFP site, "It can be used both to achieve and to avoid or postpone pregnancy."

And a word about murder. I have perhaps overused that word a little. Murder is willful, knowing destruction of human life, and most mothers who get abortions, or use abortifacient contraceptive technology, are not aware that the child they carry is really human. Those who have never been informed do not commit murder, but it still results in the death of the infant, which is morally wrong.

 

@Aurora--I was being a bit toungue in cheek, hence the smiley. The underlying point though is not entirely invalid. If the father has no legal right to decide the disposition of the unborn child, neither should he then have any legal responsibilities upon its birth. I agree with the sentiment, though, that if you broke it you bought it. Afterall, making babies IS a team sport.

My apologies if I offended you. But I believe that the father does have responsibility, and should have a say in what happens to his child. This does not change my belief that abortion is wrong, though.

 

Ok, if you don't like religion coming into this stuff, then let me rephrase:

What it comes down to, is this: If you believe that a fetus is a person, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't believe that a fetus is a person, then abortion doesn't matter.

[Totenkopf]

@aurora--no, you didn't offend me. Was only pointing out to you that misunderstood what I meant. My attitude is that you don't punish the child for the mistakes of the parents. My point about the legal aspect is that if men are to be cut out of the loop on the decision of abort or not, they should not be LEGALLY responsible for a child they did not intend. I agree that any man who puts himself in a situation where pregnancy becomes a byproduct of his behavior is, at the very least, morally culpable and should have to step up and be responsible. Afterall, it wasn't an "immaculate conception".

 

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

Originally Posted by DarthInsidious

At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

 

You know, I'm going to put aside my scientist hat and put my normal human hat back on. This is frankly disgusting. So rape never occurred before the late 20th century? Armies who conquered all in their wake raped no one because they didn't revealing clothes? Wait, I'm sure that in Afghanistan, women, who are covered from head to toe, never are raped right? Honestly, that's the biggest load of bull ever. There is no excuse for a man to rape. Ever. Period.

 

DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.

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

 

Originally Posted by DarthInsidious

Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

 

You actually say that you have no idea how those stats are made, so how do you it's blown up? You ask a fair question, but shoot yourself in the foot.

Second, the laws of a country define what rape is and the various cases of conviction for rape.

 

Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

 

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

 

 

Originally Posted by DarthInsidious

To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

 

I doubt that's the case, but I understand the need to define every element. However, you seem to just try to play on the words. You know what it roughly is for most people. I think that it's necessary to have the definition, but no one is stupid enough to not know what it is.

 

Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.

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

 

Originally Posted by DarthInsidious

Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

 

Which is one case. You keep talking about the need for "real" stats and bring up a single case here. So which is it? Actual general statistics or potentially marginal case?

 

It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.

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

slightly off topic--

That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person. Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

---this argument is very similiar to that made by many of the proponents in these threads about man's hand in global warming. Even if the data isn't exactly correct (and it ain't), isn't it better to err on the side of caution and enact draconian economic measures in case the sky might actually fall. Funny how many of those people are big abortion supporters (pro choice=pro abortion, it's irrelevant that they claim that they wouldn't personally have one).

[Darth InSidious]

DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.

Nope, that was precisely my point

Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

Indeed.

If you take Freud as an example, he only intereviewed people with mental...question marks, shall we say?

 

What conclusion did he come to? That humanity was basically very screwed up, sexually insecure and dominated by maternal figures. Does this mean that his work applies to all the world? No.

 

Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.

Indeed.

It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.

That was what I was highlighting, and the lack of info provided regarding that

 

DarthInsidious, I realise that this thread is veering dangerously off-topic, and you’ve said as much yourself, but what you’ve written in your last post has really struck a nerve with me. So much so, that I feel obligated to respond.

Fair enough

Conviction rates only tell you the number of people who were charged, tried, and convicted of a particular crime, not the actual number of crimes that have been perpetrated. Point in case, I recently had something stolen (due to my own stupidity), so I did not report it to the police. That does not mean that a crime did not occur. It means that I just did not report to anyone that it did. Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?

 

I am not ‘for’ abortion as a primary method of birth control, especially in this day and age where information on the subject is widely distributed. Nor am I a fan of ‘late-term abortions.’ I am, however, not in favour of imposing my wilful opinions upon others in what is such an obvious personal and medical matter to the point of making abortion completely illegal in all cases. I’m not a big fan of cosmetic surgery for reasons of vanity either, but I’m not going to go out and campaign and picket against breast implants and face lifts in front of my local cosmetic surgery centre to make those procedures illegal.

You must admit, however, that the issues involved in abortion are somewhat larger in scale of importance than those involved in cosmetic surgery...

Gestational time limitations for doctors being allowed to perform a legal abortion on someone, I agree with. But total illegality for abortion in all cases? No. I do not agree with that.

But where do you draw the line? And how do you stop that line being pushed forward?

Agreed. But had I been one of those women, I have no doubt in my mind that I would have aborted as soon as possible. ‘Accidental’ pregnancies are one thing. ‘Imposed’ ones are quite another. Had abortion been completely illegal where I lived at the time, I know I would have sought out someone to do an illegal one. My attacker broke the law when he assaulted me. I would have no qualms about doing the same to rid myself of anything he ‘left behind’.

So...two wrongs make a right? By killing this new life, how do you erase the crime done against you?

 

This site might be of interest to you in this regard

[Jae Onasi]

In my personal opinion, if they do not want to create new life together, then they should hold off until such a time as they do. Otherwise (or in addition to), there is something called "Natural Family Planning", http://www.ccli.org/nfp which I recommend as a life-giving alternative to artificial birth control. (it also works much better than condoms/the pill)

 

I'm going to disagree with you that Natural Family Planning works much better than condoms or the pill at preventing pregnancy, because clearly the research shows it does not. I'm not trying to prove you wrong so much as make sure people have the most accurate info possible on something like this.

 

These are from the US's FDA (Food and Drug Administration) office. Sorry for the weird formatting--it's off of a table. The first number right after each listed method is the typical use statistic, the second number is the lowest expected rate (described below).

 

The following table provides estimates of the percent of women likely to become pregnant while using a particular contraceptive method for one year. These estimates are based on a variety of studies.

 

"Typical Use" rates mean that the method either was not always used correctly or was not used with every act of sexual intercourse (e.g., sometimes forgot to take a birth control pill as directed and became pregnant), or was used correctly but failed anyway.

 

"Lowest Expected" rates mean that the method was always used correctly with every act of sexual intercourse but failed anyway (e.g., always took a birth control pill as directed but still became pregnant).

 

Method / Typical Use Rate of Pregnancy / Lowest Expected Rate of Pregnancy

 

Sterilization:

 

Male Sterilization 0.15% 0.1%

Female Sterilization 0.5% 0.5%

 

Hormonal Methods:

 

Implant (Norplant) 0.09% 0.09%

Hormone Shot (Depo-Provera) 0.3% 0.3%

Combined Pill (Estrogen/Progestin) 5% 0.1%

Minipill (Progestin only) 5% 0.5%

 

Intrauterine Devices (IUDs):

 

Copper T 0.8% 0.6%

Progesterone T 2% 1.5%

 

Barrier Methods:

 

Male Latex Condom1 14% 3%

Diaphragm2 20% 6%

Vaginal Sponge (no previous births) 20% 9%

Vaginal Sponge (previous births) 40% 20%

Cervical Cap (no previous births) 20% 9%

Cervical Cap (previous births) 40% 26%

Female Condom 21% 5%

 

Spermicide: (gel, foam, suppository, film) 26% 6%

 

Natural Methods:

Withdrawal 19% 4%

Natural Family Planning 25% 1-9%

 

No Method: 85% 85%

 

 

So, for the typical 'real people' use rate, there is a lower risk of pregnancy with the Pill or condoms than with NFP. Even with perfect usage, the Pill still provides a lower risk, and condoms (male version) show a slightly more effective alternative at 3% than the average with NFP (I split the middle between 1 and 9% and got 5%).

[Aurora Starfire]

I'm going to disagree with you that Natural Family Planning works much better than condoms or the pill at preventing pregnancy, because clearly the research shows it does not. I'm not trying to prove you wrong so much as make sure people have the most accurate info possible on something like this.

 

Fair enough. I don't have a lot of stats and such, I'm just putting the information I do have out there. The biggest thing in its favor is that it is a healthier, nonabortive alternative to the pill. However, my mom did tell me that NFP has none of the problems condoms have in regards to how it feels.

[mimartin]

My personal opinion is abortion is wrong. Personally I’d make an exception for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened.

 

However, I voted in the poll “Yes, I believe people should have the right to abort.” I did this because my personal opinion is just that, my opinion. I don’t believe people or governments have the right, or should have the right to govern morality. It is between that person and the own personal values to choice their own path.

 

Does that make me a murder for not doing something to stop abortion? Possibly, but that is between me and my maker and I will have to suffer for my judgment or lack there of. I just know the answer is not more killing or more stupid slogans.

 

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.

[JediMaster12]

This is a can of worms that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

Abortion is something that is not talked about around my family because then the ranting and raving start mostly with the support of religion and the like but I won't go there. I don't approve because it is not the baby's fault that its parents don't want it. It is still a person though I won't argue over what defines a person. I think Jae explained that in medical terms. I don't approve of it but I do know that even as early as the ancients in Greece and Rome, there were abortions though they are not all documented. Abortion seems to be a thing prevelant in every society. Some would call it an option. To use it as an excuse for birth control I don't buy it. There are other ways of preventing conception. Ever hear of a condom or abstinence? I am not going to vote on this issue nor do I wish to argue the merits of freedom of choice and pro-life and all that mess. This is an issue but it should not be a major one. I would call it a misdemeanor, forgive the use of criminal law terms, issue. Major issues I think that should be the focus of concern are our resources, our relations with other nations, the unemployment and economics at home, and a few others that I can't think of right now.

 

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.

You know what will argued? The whole right to privacy issue. The doctor-patient privilege. I guess I am lucky that I am an adult in the US and don't need parental consent but like you I think the double standard is a load of bull. We have too many of those in this country and it makes me sick.

[JasraLantill]

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?

Hmmm....by counting the number of new calls to a rape crisis centres. By doing public surveys on the issue. By extrapolating figures on reported assaults against women where there is noted suspicion of a rape, but the victim was unwilling to co-operate further. And I'm sure if I wasn't feeling so incensed at the present moment, I could probably think of a few more methods for statistical investigation.

You must admit, however, that the issues involved in abortion are somewhat larger in scale of importance than those involved in cosmetic surgery...

 

But where do you draw the line? And how do you stop that line being pushed forward?

I'll admit that my cosmetic surgery analogy isn't of the same emotional and political scale, but I still think it is wrong for me to impose my standards of morality on others who may not share the same social or religious values that I do. Making abortion completely illegal is not going to stop someone from getting one if they really want to. It just makes a traumatic procedure more traumatic, hazardous, and more expensive. Point in case, scores of Irish women cross the channel to come to the UK each year specifically to get an abortion as it's completely illegal in Ireland, proving that making the act illegal does not stop it from happening. It just happens someplace else and costs the woman more to do it. (I'd post a link for statistics on that particular factoid, but you can search the BBC website for them if you really feel the need.) And as far as drawing a legal line? How about drawing it between when the foetus can viably survive on its own outside the womb and when it cannot?

 

So...two wrongs make a right? By killing this new life, how do you erase the crime done against you?

It does nothing to erase the crime nor the memory of it. But had I ended up pregnant, an abortion would've given me some small measure of retribution against my attacker. I certainly would not have wanted to have been 'forced' to bear any child of his. Why should I? Why should he be allowed to spread his genes into the gene pool without my consent? I stand by what I said earlier. Had I fallen pregnant, (and thank God I didn't,) there is no question that I would have sought an abortion as soon as possible. Legally or not. In my mind, it would not be getting rid of 'my child' but rather 'his leftovers.' Apologies if that sounds harsh or graphic, but that's how I feel.

 

Oh, and I took a look at article in the link you posted. Thank you for posting it, but I'm rather disappointed that Dr. Reardon didn't site any references (bar one from 1987) prior to 1979 to support his article. A lot of things have changed since then, especially in the handling and counseling of sexual assault/incest victims.

 

And I still do not agree with your assessment that a woman is 'inviting' someone to assault her by wearing what someone else considers to be 'provacative' clothing. That's akin to saying someone is 'inviting' someone to mug them when they decide to take a large sum of money from a cash machine. In both instances, it is the criminal who is responsible for perpetrating the crime, not the victim.

 

But the topic here is abortion and the Portuguese vote on the 11th of February, so I'm not responding to anymore comments. (It's just making me angry.) I already voted in the poll and said my two plus cents. But I am, however, interested to see what the Portuguese people decide, being for the most part a Catholic country. Should prove interesting to see if their decision will affect other European countries.

[ET Warrior]

This is an entirely inapplicable example. An adult trying to leech off another adult is wholly unlike what happens during pregnancy.

I don't quite understand how this is inapplicable. It seems to me that disconnecting yourself from a human life-form that is dependent upon your body for it's survival makes little difference if it is a cluster of cells or a fully developed adult. In fact, it seems much less humane to disconnect the adult, as the adult is already fully conscious, aware of what is happening, and able to feel pain. Not to mention already has a lifetimes worth of memories and experiences that you erase by letting them die.

 

If I'd been in that situation in high school/college, couldn't stand kids, or couldn't afford to bring up the child, I would have given the child up for adoption.

Admirable, to be sure, but more children up for adoption means that there are more children who are already waiting for families to adopt them that will get looked over, and they get to continue on trudging through their miserable lives.

 

And of course, how would you have felt giving up a child in high school, moving on, getting married, having and keeping kids, and some day a 21 year old man shows up at your door and tells you that he is your long-lost son come back to find his mother. I'm sure some women can handle that, but there are certainly some people whose lives could again be destroyed by this.

 

One of my best friends in undergrad did just that at age 23. He fell in love with a terrific gal who had had 2 kids from a previous marriage. [...] However, plenty of guys do indeed do just that.

Good on your friend, but that really doesn't change the fact that you have provided me with two stories of men who have done this, and I can give you a list of fifty or so college-aged men I personally know off the top of my head who wouldn't do that. fifty isn't that many people, but it's a reasonable cross-sampling of people and zero percent of them are interested in dating into kids. The girl my friend dated hasn't been able to maintain any kind of relationship for years because of her kid.

 

Whew. If you can actually make the quantitative observation in the middle of The Wild Thang that something that is .0019 inches thick makes it X% less enjoyable than without, you've got a hell of a lot more willpower than I do.

Well, I certainly didn't come up with a percentage

 

@ET--your violin analogy only seems to work if the pregnancy in question results from rape or unintended sex (drunk sex, etc...).

Actually, combining my Burglar and Violinist analogies make this relevant for pregnancy in general. I have noticed that my analogies are, in general, getting glazed over with a "Oh, that's not actually relevant" or "Well the two things are far too different." But I honestly don't think you are taking any time to stop and THINK about these analogies. Why are the irrelevant? Why are they so different that it no longer applies?

 

It seems that for some reason being robbed is something that was involuntarily thrust upon you, but a sperm fertilizing an egg that you didn't want fertilized is voluntary? Despite the fact that the men and women may use protection, pregnancy can still result. That was involuntary, but the act of engaging in sexual intercourse is clearly the kind of risk that if we get burned we must deal with the results, whereas if we locked our doors but the thief broke the lock we are entitled to our right to A)repel that invader or B)have the police get our stuff back.

 

And even if my analogies are ONLY applicable to rape/drunken sex, they are STILL pertinent to the discussion of keeping abortion as a legal option.

 

Secondly, those statistics are quite clearly skewed. Unless most of what we hear about your country, and more specifically the Deep South is true...?

I'm not convinced I know how it is that you know these statistics are clearly skewed. You said yourself you didn't know who or how they made these studies...

Here is a governmental source of rape statistics. If you want to ignore them, then I don't quite understand why you are trying to engage in debate...

Source

Further more, even your own source must admit that the number of assaults has fallen since 1993 by 69%.

...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".

surely this indicates that sexual relations and life issues have become far too trivialised in western society, to the point where such things can be so widespread, and that a casual attitude to sex has far-reaching consequences?

Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.

In the violin player instance, you didn't know it was a risk of what you were doing. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to know what the possible consequences of sex are...

What if it was all over the news? The Music Lovers society is preying on sleeping individuals, breaking into their homes and hooking them up to dying musicians! You know the risks of sleeping without putting bars on the doors and windows.

First off, congratulations on directing me to other sites which don't actually provide any explanations of where they got their statistics from. Very clever, I'm sure.

Yes, it was an intentional attempt to mis-lead you. I am so devious.

And please, don't claim that your use of language isn't deliberately derogatory

You'd rather I lie to you and say that it is?

Third, using reason, and the grey matter between our ears, we can ESTIMATE numbers, and so come to a reasonable approximation, which is what I did.

Except your approximation wasn't all that reasonable, nor was it a valid estimate. It was a random number that you threw out to support your position.

We actively engage in things that harm the environment, and unlike the other relationships, give very little back.

Except the 'environment' is not a living, thinking organism. It isn't an organism at all. It isn't analogous to pregnancy.

They can also not do so.

...which is why abortion is not mandatory...

As far as I am aware, and I admit that I am not well versed in this matter, the number of deaths in childbirth in this day and age are pretty miniscule. And homewrecking children are usually the result of badparenting, AFAIK.

Even if the deaths are a small risk, they are STILL A RISK. A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to put herself in that situation or not. And as for the part where I said it could destroy a woman's life, I meant very little about having bad children who make life hard. I was referring to a young woman who may have to drop out of high school because she cannot take care of a baby and go to classes. She will possibly be stamped with the label "slut" or "tramp" by anyone she interacts with. She may have difficulty finding a job that will allow her to work hours so she can still take care of her child, or they might just not hire her because "how can she be responsible enough to work if she can't even keep her pants on". I can come up with more examples if you really want.

But when abortion is foisted as the best way to go, and several of my friends and family have had it practically forced down their throats that they should have abortions, it is not a fair choice.

I agree with you on this. I don't agree with people promoting abortion as a superior choice to adoption or keeping the child. I also don't agree with people promoting adoption or keeping the child as superior choices to abortion. It is a personal choice to be made on a case by case basis.

her more, if it is a human life, what right have you to take away someone who may be the next Einstein. Sure they may not be, but is it worth the risk?

I love the what-if game! What if that person was going to be the next Hitler? What if they were going to cure cancer? What if they were going to create a nuclear explosive and detonate it in the middle of your home country? Of course, in the history of the world there was only one Albert Einstein, but there have been millions and millions of thieves, murderers, rapists, and all around bad people. So are you more likely to be aborting the next Einstein or the next mass-murderer?

[Jae Onasi]

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?

 

Usually surveys, or as Jasra pointed out calls to rape crisis centers. Also, those cases where the cops are called to 'suspected' sexual assault can be counted against vs. those where a rapist is convicted.

 

The surveys are really easy:

1. provide the definition of rape and ask if the woman has ever had that experience.

2. then ask if she's reported it.

 

A lot of women will not report it to the cops for fear of retribution (the assailant threatens to hurt her again or hurt her family if she reports it), but will respond honestly on an anonymous survey.

 

OK, guys, where are you all getting the idea that it's partly the woman's fault for getting raped if she dresses provocatively, whatever that may be? If she was assaulted without the sexual component, is it still somehow her fault for dressing provocatively? I have a good friend who got raped when she was in high school. She never has dressed provocatively and never will. The boy came over to her home to study with her and took advantage of her. She didn't invite it, she didn't want it, she tried to push him away but couldn't. Yet some would still claim that she somehow 'deserved' it and she must have done something to encourage him. The truth is, the boy commited a crime, and she did nothing to deserve to be victimized.

It takes a remarkable amount of audacity to claim that the victim somehow invites the crime because the assault has a sexual component to it. The rapist is in control of his own actions and has sole responsibility for those actions, not her. It is this stereotype that actually stifles reporting of rape, because women are afraid they won't be taken seriously, or that the cop they're reporting it to will make them think that it was somehow their fault.

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.

 

I'd be very angry if my daughter had an abortion without anyone notifying me about it. When I ask teens about their medical history, nearly all of them don't know a thing about it--99% of them look over at their parents for the answer. It's essential for the anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist to have a good, accurate medical history to make sure there are not problems during a procedure, and 14 year olds just can't give a good history for the most part. I'd also like to make sure that whatever practitioner is seeing my kids that they're not total fruitcakes--there are bad doctors out there.

I know there's the argument 'what if it's a case of incest'--well, if it's incest, the child needs to be taken away from that parent immediately so it doesn't continue. The court-appointed guardian can then make medical decisions for that child.

 

Abortion is not risk-free, and I'd like to be involved in any of my kids' medical issues until they've reached the point where they can be responsible for it themselves.