Abortion debate!

[Wolf]

@ Dante:

The planet can probably support around 12-14 billion comfortably before we start experiencing serious problems.

[Khan]

We have billions of people starving to death. When do problems get serious?

[Edric O]

Andrew you're right, making abortion illegal will not stop people from using abortions. It will in fact lead them to less sanitized, less sterile methods that could put the mother in harm as well.

Well, yes and no. Making abortion illegal will give rise to unsanitary backstreet clinics and such, but not everyone who wants an abortion will break the law to get it. Making abortion illegal certainly will reduce the number of abortions performed, and it will reduce them quite significantly, but it will also lead to hardship and a risk of infection and death for pregnant women in really desperate situations who will try to get illegal abortions.

Ronald Reagan : "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, but it's no surprise coming from Reagan. It's like saying "I notice that everybody who is pro-life is currently alive."

George Carlin : "Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No, nothing! No natal care, no food stamps ... If you're pre-born, you're fine; if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked!"

That's not a good argument against the pro-life stance, but it is a great argument pointing out the contradictory nature of conservative ideology.

Medical reasons or the case of rape. Which is only less than 1% of actual abortions performed in real life. I'm pro-life because the reality is that women only use abortion as an ex post facto form of birth control.

What if they used birth control but it failed? What if they agreed to have a child with their boyfriend or husband but he decided to run away from the responsibility?

The majority of abortions occur in the first week or two of pregnancy. [...] Do you know how many abortions are performed in the United States, Nema? 1.3 million. For the people who view the fetus as a human life from conception, that's four times the number of people America lost in all of World War Two being lost each year. That's the source of the emotional entrenchment on the pro-life side.

I understand that, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur in the first two weeks of pregnancy should be an argument against the pro-life side, not for it. I mean, a two week old embryo can't really be considered a human person in any sense of the word, and many are aborted spontaneously and naturally at this early stage.

Quite frankly, given the numbers, I think my worldview (that, whatever they think, they have no problem doing it) is more accurate than yours (that we're a bunch of chauvinists). What, women are the gentle, innocent creatures of 19th-century lore? I think you underestimate the emotional fortitude of the 21st-century woman to abort her child with such frequency.

Err, actually, the population of the United States is 300 million, and women account for half of it so that means there are 150 million women. So 1.3 million abortions isn't really all that impressive. On average, in a year, less than 1% of American women have an abortion (ok, yes, the rate would be higher if you only considered fertile women, but not much higher; even if only half of all women are fertile, that would only put the rate at a whooping 2%).

My problem really is that, in the countries where you find abortion legalized, Western Europe and the United States, you find negative birth-rates.

That's a GOOD thing. The Earth is overpopulated already. Reducing the overall growth of the human species is a very, VERY positive thing.

[nemafakei]

"We have billions of people starving to death"

Nah, they're just lazy permanent-unemployed chavs who spend all their money on frivolous abortions. Whole countries full of them. They don't deserve the food. Letting food go to rot in warehouses in developed countries is the much fairer.

[Edric O]

What I meant about equal responsibility is that if a woman gets pregnant, it is not just her fault. It's the father's fault as well. And in the case of a child brought to term, as pointed out, a father is expected to provide care.

However, it is the woman who holds ultimate control in cases of abortion.

[...]

Neither is it fair for the mother to carry a baby to term when the father wants an abortion, thus dooming him to spending the rest of his life caring for a child that he did not want and in all probability will fiercely resent. This is also holding power over the other parent, and while there is no risk factor involved, there is a lifetime of writing cheques.

Ok, let's look at this logically. There are four possible ways to divide control over the pregnancy between the father and the mother:

1. The mother holds all control over the pregnancy and decides whether or not to abort (within the limits imposed by the law).

2. The mother and father hold joint control and either of them can decide to abort. If one of them wants an abortion, the woman must have an abortion.

3. The mother and father hold joint control and both of them have to agree with abortion in order for it to be performed. The father can veto the mother's decision to abort, and vice versa.

4. The father holds all control over the pregnancy and decides whether or not to abort (within the limits imposed by the law).

Now let's go through a process of elimination:

Option 4 is clearly unacceptable and sounds more like something out of Saudi Arabia than anything belonging in a civilized society. It goes right out the window.

Option 3 means the father can force the mother to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. This can lead to horrible abuse, since it gives men an incentive to get women pregnant in order to control them. All you have to do is get a girl pregnant, and then you can ask her for money or other favours in exchange for letting her abort. This option encourages despicable behaviour and is unacceptable.

Option 2 gives the father the right to force a woman to have an abortion even if she wants to keep the child. This will no doubt be used by irresponsible men as a quick method of running away from responsibility if they get their girlfriends pregnant by accident. It also encourages domestic abuse: A husband could threaten his wife with killing her child if she does not obey him. Therefore we must reject this option as well.

And so we are left with only one reasonable option - option 1. Let the woman have full control. Sure, it may give her the power to cause emotional distress to a father who wanted to keep the child, but it is better than giving the father the power to control a woman's body.

In that respect I'm rather fortunate. If I ever decide I'd like a child (...scary thought, no?)

Yes, especially for the poor child. :P

If I were charged with the responsibility for legislating abortion law, it would go something like this...

It sounds reasonable overall, although I'm a bit uncomfortable with the extent of the father's control. The fact is that the mother is the one having to deal with the biological implications of pregnancy, not him, and I don't see why he should have any say in the matter until the child is born. I might accept the possibility of releasing him from his parental duties if he can prove that he never wanted the child and took reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy. But I can't accept him holding a veto over the woman's body.

Frankly, as a man, I have very little sympathy for men who get their partners pregnant "by accident," unless the condom broke. If they weren't using a condom, they were being stupid and certainly shouldn't be allowed to wriggle their way out of the situation.

Because parents, not the state, should be responsible for their children.

I cannot agree with that, because it does not take the interests of the children into account. Children should not have to suffer if their parents are idiots or jerks who couldn't care less.

One other thing that I would add is that even if the man and woman agreed to an abortion that they should be required to pay $3000/each (Stupidity Fine). If they do not have the money up front, then their respective wages should be garnished to pay the fine.  Hopefully, this will encourage them to think twice before ever making such a stupid mistake again.

No, that's a bad idea, since it will only punish poor people - the poorer you are, the greater the burden of the $3000 you have to pay, whereas rich people can afford to pay this fine many times over and not give a damn.

If you must introduce any fine at all, it should be a percentage of income (or a percentage of one's total assets) rather than a fixed sum. But I don't think there should be any fine. Maybe community service or something, but definitely not a fine.

There have also been cases of women (or men? I don't know, but maybe) who have engineered a pregnancy in order to keep a partner with them. A quick slip of the hand and voila, instant legal obligation for the next eighteen years or so. If the father wants out of this situation, when the pregnancy was not even accidental but maliciously caused, there should be a way. Such as not being held responsible for the child.

The problem is that either partner can do this, and proving "malicious intent" would be extremely difficult. Particularly in more traditional communities it is not unheard of for a man to get a woman pregnant in order to force her into marriage (since the community looks down on single mothers; in more extreme cases unmarried mothers can even be banished from the village).

[Acriku]

FYI: Those quotes I put in my post earlier, Edric, were for enjoyment - not argument. Enjoy them for what they are. That's why I put anti and pro abortion quotes up there.

And I'm with Mr Flibble. (just where did that name come from anyway?) While I'll argue that abortions should be made legal with restrictions (which are difficult to define, obviously), in my personal life I will be very adamant against an abortion of my kid. But some think different and they should have the choice. I for one, will never endorse an abortion in my personal life.

[Edric O]

FYI: Those quotes I put in my post earlier, Edric, were for enjoyment - not argument. Enjoy them for what they are. That's why I put anti and pro abortion quotes up there.

Oh yes, I know... it's just that I can't resist the urge to deconstruct an argument, even if it's really just a witty quote intended for amusement rather than debate. I'm a bit of a compulsive debater like that.

[Acriku]

I have to say I know the feeling, but dissecting George Carlin? Come on man, you can't disect genius!

[Sneakgab]

I have already posted pretty much to the effect of what I have said.

I guess this effectively means that me, Edrico, and (mostly) Hwi Noree are on agreement on this issue. Maybe Dante to? Don't really remember anybody else's posts. This way simply seems the most logical and an everybody wins mechanism.

I also think that the woman should have full control over the abortion option. However, I think that the man should be able to leave if he want if he did not agree to the abortion at a stage where it was cancelleable. If the woman wanted the child regardless of his support then he did no harm. If she did then he is subject to the stupidity fine when the abortion comes round depending on responsibility

so ie:

1.Full control of abortion to women.

2.Full choice of parenting (on their side) or not to those who did agree to abortion (lol, almost wrote: to those who did not agree to abortion, which would be the exact opposite of what I have meant, if I made this error before ignore it). Necessarily refers to father as if women agrees to abortion then it is done as per the first line. If woman disagrees with abortion then she must take up the burden she created via omission..

3.Forced abortion if it can be proven that parents are not in position to support child. Therefore if the woman decides she will have a child without the father's support but cannot support the child without the father then the child must be aborted. The man should not be forced into parentage if the pregnancy is still cancelable and there should be no option of bringing somebody into a world of garantueed misery and perhaps early death. Getting pregnant and forcing the man to look after the child seems akin to slave labor.

''And so we are left with only one reasonable option - option 1. Let the woman have full control. Sure, it may give her the power to cause emotional distress to a father who wanted to keep the child, but it is better than giving the father the power to control a woman's body.''

The thing here is the mechanism of pregnancy. That is why the difference in abortion control lies here as it is the womans labor. The man should not be able to force this labor and cost upon her. He can always get a child with somebody who agrees to take upon this labor. The parentange however is labor for both mother and father that neither should be able to unecessarily force on the other.

This is all in the case of a pregnancy that is still termineable without that being tantamount to murder.

''''Because parents, not the state, should be responsible for their children.''

I cannot agree with that, because it does not take the interests of the children into account. Children should not have to suffer if their parents are idiots or jerks who couldn't care less.''

I think I suggested something to the extent that only those who can and will properly support the children should be allowed to have them in the first place. I suppose there are already laws in place for negligence but these are probably bypassed by a parent being UNABLE to support her child. I think said parent should still be punished if this was apparent before birth or should have not been allowed to have a child in the first place if this was the case. Ie: abortion should have been forced upon her or a hefty threatening fine placed for possibility of pregnancy in such cases in order to avoid the third option of taking the child away from her for adoption as I am under the impression there are not enough adoptees for children without parentage. Ie: if someone is unable to support a child, then she should be dissallowed to become pregnant (on purpose, obviously) and in the case of willingly and wittingly ignoring this she should be forced to have an abortion and receive some punishment. In the case of unwitting there is the stupidity fine for her and her inseminator depn on responsibility.

''No, that's a bad idea, since it will only punish poor people - the poorer you are, the greater the burden of the $3000 you have to pay, whereas rich people can afford to pay this fine many times over and not give a damn.

''If you must introduce any fine at all, it should be a percentage of income (or a percentage of one's total assets) rather than a fixed sum. But I don't think there should be any fine. Maybe community service or something, but definitely not a fine.''

Qoute from one of my earlier posts.

''The only minor modification I would add would be that the fine be variable and dependent on the fine receiver's wealth. Basically, it is the ouch factor that acts as the deterrent here. Besides, imagine how much wealth the govt could procure from foolish celebrities like this  Shocked Grin.''

''The problem is that either partner can do this, and proving "malicious intent" would be extremely difficult. Particularly in more traditional communities it is not unheard of for a man to get a woman pregnant in order to force her into marriage (since the community looks down on single mothers; in more extreme cases unmarried mothers can even be banished from the village).''

The burden of proof is just more reason to allow full abortion control as well as full parentage control. If the man inseminates a woman against her will but she cannot prove it then she can have an abortion and the matter is resolved. If the woman engineers a pregnancy then the man need not provide parenting if he wants an abortion.

[nemafakei]

OK, excuse repetition, then, as the same stance has been made again without any response to the problem it causes.

Trying to legislate for the sperm donor to have control just leaves you in potentially far worse depths of unfairness. If you went for the "check this box if you wish not to be responsible for the child" option, for example, the vast majority of men not in committed relationships with the mother would opt for termination, whether they want it or not, whenever they have a child by a woman they know won't terminate, just so they don't have the responsibility. Moreover, many men will take far less responsiblity for contraception on the grounds that they are not responsible for the maintenance any more.

Sneakgab and others who think alike: solve.

[Sneakgab]

''Moreover, many men will take far less responsiblity for contraception on the grounds that they are not responsible for the maintenance any more.''

If they don't take the responsibility for contraception, then they take the responsibility for the abortion if the female wants it. If the female wants to keep the child, then no disservice has been done by the male. The only abuse could be forcing a marriage by impregnating a woman who happens to want a child and hence giving you optional parental rights. However, the woman can still just have an abortion, and then have a baby with another that she actually desires a marriage with. This allows choice of husband as well as choice of adoption

''the vast majority of men not in committed relationships with the mother would opt for termination, whether they want it or not, whenever they have a child by a woman they know won't terminate, just so they don't have the responsibility''

Are you trying to suggest that a man would want to keep the relationship but basically not the burden of a child if the mother wants one and that by doing this they can keep the woman but ditch the responsibilities of bringing up the child that the woman demands to be in a relationship with said man? In this case said the man and woman must decide if they are going to agree about having children. If the man wants the woman and not the child and the woman wants the child and the man, then the woman can leave if she wishes as can the man. She can definitely have the child but this could mean choosing between having a child and having a husband. Meanwhile, the man can choose between having no wife and no burden or a wife and a burden. These are the decision that are basically the pivot point of the relationship. The wife can have the child if she wants but she cannot force the man to look over it and the man cannot force anything on the woman.

Basically, if a man only wants a relationship with or without a child involved, or the woman wants that, then those are the only options that the indivual is offering and then the other partner in the relationship must choose to accept the others terms or not have a relationship with them. Otherwise there would be impinging on freedom of choice?

Though, in the end, I'm not actually exactly sure what you mean in that last paragraph of yours:D.

Everybody is free to choose but the choices have advantages and disadvantages. Theres nothing wrong with that.

[nemafakei]

no disservice has been done by the male

"Are you trying to suggest"

I'm trying to suggest that the man wants the child or is opposed to abortion, but does not wish to be held responsible for it, and thus will lie on the form. Knowing that the woman will not abort (perhaps because she wants a child, perhaps because she has religious views about abortion, perhaps because she has certain medical conditions that make it difficult), he can absolve himself of responsiblity and hold his financial support over the head of the woman with impunity.

[Sneakgab]

The female has the choice to bring the baby into existence regardless of the male's support. If the male is not willing to support, then he should have to. Of course, that would mean no parent based rights for him. It's all about options given by others. Ie: You are free to do as you please so long as that does not involve taking others freedom away. With this in mind the female can have the baby or not but if the male is not willing to give the option of his support then that is an option the female does not have. She can always try to find support else where but if no wishes to take this burden upon themselves then of course it couldn't be justifiable for her to force this. An abortion that is not cancelleable is different of course; now those who brought the burden into the world should deal with it. Or, at least, the burden must be dealt with and if you believe that those responsible should take the burden then it is better assigned to them than randomly. If you do not believe in the concept of punishment then the burden can be distributed evenly by drawing from taxes. However, the former would dissuade those who foolishly neglect their contraceptive responsibilities.

''because she wants a child, perhaps because she has religious views about abortion, perhaps because she has certain medical conditions that make it difficult)''

The first reason, because she wants a child, is a matter of choice. I may want chocolate and the consequence to consuming it would be my health and the financial cost, but I am not forced to purchase and eat the chocolate. It is the same with her desire for a child. Besides, she can always have an abortion and then have a child with somebody who agrees to assist in the parenting if she does not have the finances.

In the third case of medical conditions making it difficult. Thats a bit vague... difficult as in threat to life, expensive, painful? In all these cases, she can choose between the lesser evils of carrying out the pregnancy to term or abortion. If she did not want the child then she should have practiced contraception and the burden of this child will be distributed as per responsibility. If it was the male's fault then he will be forced to reimburse her through whatever means are deemed satisfactory. If she does want the child then the situation is the same as before as the conditions of the abortion are irrelevant unless she specifically want the child WITH the financial support of the man. If the man does agree to this then has forced the two options of parenting the child alone or abortion upon her and since neither of these are satisfactory he should be forced to reimburse her for whatever choice she is partially forced to make due to him.... unless of course she bears full responsibility for the pregnancy in which case she must bear the consequences of her actions.

The second case is the same as the third with choosing btw lesser evils involved. She can choose to have the child without his support or abort and suffer due to her religious beliefs. Once again if the male was responsible for the accidental insemination and refuses to parent the child then he must shoulder the burden through other means via reimbursement for either abortion or carrying to term. Religious cost is the same as any other. It is not infinite and if were then the female could choose carrying to term and in the case of accidental insemination would be reimbursed for this. The only tricky thing here is putting a price on religious pain. Still, since an abortion would basically be a good deed in avoiding a burden (since the man does not desire this child) then maybe one should consider their religion. What if I had a religion that said healing myself after injury is bad in a spiritual or ethical sense. Should I gain extra $ for the same injury with the same treatment (if paying for treatment is the lesser evil( costs (seeing pregnancy as a ''condition'' that can be ''treated'' with abortion if done early enough) because of my religious beliefs? Actually something for me to consider.

Basically, if the scenario is such that abortion has become so expensive through whatever costs that the burden of a child is lighter then the man is effectively forced to provide financial support via reimbursement as per the responsibility for the pregnancy that he claims. Normally he would pay for an abortion but if that is not viable then of course the only option is carrying to term.

Essentially, your example changes the scenario. My earlier posts were based on the assumption of a cancellable abortion in which case the man should not have to shoulder a burden that the female through ommission wittingly brought into the world but should have to pay the price for the abortion should he bare responsibility for the pregnancy. A more difficult abortion just means a higher price to pay.

In the case of an impossible abortion, then the man bears responsibilty not for the lesser of two evils but for the child brought into the world and the pains of carrying to term since this is the last remaining option.

So essentially, nothing has changed with this second scenario you have mentioned other than the cost of abortion. The female can choose as she pleases but only from a physically limited set of option. If forcing this situation was something the male was responsible for then he must also pay for the costs of whatever option the female chooses as he has forced these options upon her. Obviously if she was a foolish sperm hunter then she bares full responsibility.

''he can absolve himself of responsiblity and hold his financial support over the head of the woman with impunity.''

He can do this if the mother needs his support and this is standard. If somebody needs another's financial support to do something he cannot force this person to give him the financial support and must agree to his terms if he wishes to carry out this action. The difference with abortion is options have been limited and SOME (ie: needing an abortion) damage has already been done through physical acting. Like the damage done by any physical act this has to be reimbursed.

[Anathema]

Stumbled on this one yesterday. Warning: possibly disturbing and/or offensive material.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513

Sicko.

[Anathema]

Nevermind, I just found out that it was a hoax (from the supposed artist)

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I'm anti-choice.  I will choose for them.

All the babies must die.

[Andrew]

Nevermind, I just found out that it was a hoax (from the supposed artist)

It wasn't entirely a hoax.

Shvarts stands by her project, calling the University's statement ultimately inaccurate

This afternoon, Shvarts showed the News footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit. The tapes depict Shvarts . sometimes naked, sometimes clothed . alone in a shower stall bleeding into a cup.

She's seriously messed up.

[vota dc]

Usually abortion doesn't make any sense. I mean, after a rape you can kill the baby but not the raper.

But we are human beings, I understand the need of people that want the babies dead because they will be deformed, they are refused from the parents. In ancient time they don't have any problems to do it. The problem is that in christian nations to justify it they invented that abortion is not killing: they bury their heads like ostriches.

In Italy the law is quite strange.

For example allow the abortion to save the mother would make sense because means killing for self-defence, instead you have three months to decide, after that even if a woman is in danger of life she can't do it.

There is no a smart law that say when you are allowed to kill children, the law only say "before three months children are junk and not human beings, after that you can't touch them".

And even failed population control: without abortion italian women would have 2 babies, now they just have 1. That means halving the population each generation.

[ErasOmnius]

I think you should not kill this thread. Hwi and I will disagree; and Wolf and I might agree -- so that should be interesting.

[athanasios]

Abort it!

In some decades the majority of the members of this forum will be Muslim and this topic will have no meaning.

[ErasOmnius]

I believe that abortion is a tragedy foisted upon women when they are in their weakest moment.

They are suddenly under new hormonal stresses, financial distress, etc. Since the legalization of abortion in the 1960s and 1970s in the West, the best society offers to distressed women is abortion.

The child is completely innocent, and suffers, too, by it's life being ended.

[SandChigger]

Yawn.  ::)

In some cases it's the woman who wants the abortion, despite the protests of the man involved.

Your last sentence is typical of the emotion-first, reason-out-to-lunch stupidity that "informs" the whole debate.

And what the whole thing really boils down to is just another roundabout attempt to control people's sexual behavior. Might I suggest a new hobby? Bird-watching perhaps? Canasta?

[MrFlibble]

And what the whole thing really boils down to is just another roundabout attempt to control people's sexual behavior.

Hmm, I wouldn't say that the issues regarding abortion are directly related to (control of) sexual behavior. Taking into account the ample means of contraception/birth control available nowadays, many situations that could possibly end with an abortion can be easily avoided.

[SandChigger]

I was looking at it from the Catholic point of view, which

[ErasOmnius]

And what the whole thing really boils down to is just another roundabout attempt to control people's sexual behavior.

There is no greater 'teller' of who we are as human beings, than our sexual behavior.

Might I suggest a new hobby? Bird-watching perhaps? Canasta?

My wife is always asking me, "Let's play Rummy. Let's play Tripoley. Let's play Canasta." I hate playing Rummy, Tripoley, and Canasta.