Abortion; Why?

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

That image is three for three.

Abstractly, I mean. I've never really enjoyed beer, for whatever reason.

If you drink it, It will come.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

That's what I hear. That, like smoking, you have to force through the initial stages to enjoy it. Which seems bizarre to me. "Hey, here's this potentially expensive and addictive habit. Don't worry if you don't get hooked right away: just keep doing it anyway and you'll love it and not be able to stop." Huh?

Off topic, you say? What's that?

Well... I don't really see the point in continuing, since no one cares.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Well keystone beer isn't a particularly tasty brew to get one started.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Risky, but will prevent abortions.

oh for ****'s sake, guys, start a new thread.

__________________
letterboxd

That is up to management. Personally, I think a thread goes where it goes. Most long threads stray, I say go with the flow.

Done.

A thread about healthcare and debt and stuff

whoa what the hell happened.

Yoda flashen the Jedi skills like a mofo'n mofo

Yeah, I always imagine this stuff looks crazy awesome and powerful on the other side. I could point out that the software makes it pretty easy...but why would I want to dissuade anyone of the idea that I'm insanely powerful?

Sorry Yoda! I had no idea there was already another thread on this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by will.15 View Post
And Perry and Republican are for more freedom? Don't make me laugh, he and Michelle Bachmann wanting to force pregnant women to undergo unnecessary procedures and force their doctors to provide narrative scripted by them to persuade women not to have an abortion.
As I have said previously, I am a liberal on most issues, but I think the primary rationale posited by the Democrats for abortion is ridiculous and logically inconsistent. The Democrats support abortion because they profess that it's a "woman's right to choose" whether or not to have a child. While I appreciate that a woman should have the right to "choose" what to do with her life, I wonder why the Democrats, and those who support abortion for this reason, do not consider the decision to have sex in the first place a "choice." Was that not a choice too? Is sexual activity an unavoidable consequence of life? In my mind, it's not. It's a choice. In a loving, committed relationship, it's a good and worthwhile choice, but it is a choice. It's also a "choice" to not use any kind of protection, or to forget to take your birth control pills. Aren't these all choices that the woman, and the man, are making?

The fact that a woman chooses to not have a child is a choice, but the Democrats act like that choice affects only the woman. That's really not true. The choice profoundly effects the developing child, who is not born. The choice affects the father who may want to keep the child but who cannot do so because the woman doesn't want to. The choice is not made in isolation. All of these are choices. In my humble opinion, if someone is not prepared for the possible eventuality of having a child, they should either not have sex, because they cannot handle the consequences of that decision, or they should use protection every single time. I know there are arguments that contraception does not work as advertised, but in the vast majority of cases, I don't believe that holds water. I think that this "choice" has to be confronted because women and men are irresponsible, not because it's inevitable.

I do think that there are good arguments for abortion. Abortion in the case of rape or incest is okay by me, because a choice wasn't made in those cases. If a woman is raped or the victim of incest, they didn't make a choice. The personal responsibility element is absent. I also think that for some, the decision to have a child or not is financial. If a woman cannot afford to raise the child, it may be better for the child not to be born, as single parenthood is the single biggest predictor of crime and poverty. These are perfectly defensible arguments to abortion that the liberals should be making, but they aren't. Instead of making these arguments, they harp on it being a woman's "choice."

I am a California voter, and I am baffled by how many times parental notification gets voted down. I think it's absolutely insane to allow your teenage child to have an abortion, which could have serious complications, both physical and psychological, and have the parents, who are legally responsible for the welfare of the child, know nothing about it. We don't let our children go to the zoo with their classmates for a field trip without a parent's permission, but we will let them have an abortion. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I have yet to hear a single argument that is even remotely convincing as to why this is good social policy. I know there is an argument that most teens will tell their parents, and if they don't it is probably an abusive environment from which the teen needs to be protected, but that is why there is always the judicial bypass option. The argument that a teen would not be able to go to court and defend her position is ludicrous. Planned Parenthood could hook the teen up with a lawyer to defend her interests. It's not like the teen has to be flying solo in court.

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is that a man has absolutely no say whatsoever on whether a woman should have an abortion. The child is his too, and if a woman "chooses" to have a child, the man has to support that child until he is 18, and most likely for the rest of his life. It really doesn't make logical sense to have a man have no role in the "choice" yet be saddled with the responsibility to support that child for the rest of his life while a woman can just "choose" not to have it and not have to support it at all.

Nobody makes these arguments though, not because they are illogical, because they are not, but because they are politically unpopular. Politicians need to have the courage to stand up for what is right, not for what is easy. We need a real debate about the moral, financial, and psychological costs of abortion, not one with slogans and platitudes about a woman's "choice."

As for the comment that spurned this post, I see no problem with a waiting period to have an abortion, or for the woman to be informed about the potential physical and psychological costs involved. In every other medical procedure, patients are informed of these things, and abortion should be no different. It's not about "persuading" a woman to not have an abortion. It's about informing the woman so that one of, if not the, biggest decision of her life will be well-informed, and made in view of all of the potential, and often very real, consequences.

I always like to hear different points of view, and I do respect them, so if you have a well-reasoned argument refuting the points I've made, please share it.

When did anyone suggest that those matters are not choices?

I sense that you're juxtaposing the matter of personal responsibility with the pro-choice position and suggesting that the two are incompatible. Frankly, that view is fallacious, for one can preach personal responsibility yet still promote a pro-choice stance. Contrary to the implication (intended or not) of your comments, being pro-choice isn't the same as being pro-abortion.

All these contingencies are inherent in the idea of a woman's right to choose and would only need to be spelled out if Roe v. Wade proved in jeopardy of being overturned. Otherwise, the best pro-choice argument is simply to focus on which policies will promote more widely shared, broadly based economic prosperity and educational opportunity. For enhanced economic and educational situations reduce the chance of unwanted or unaffordable pregnancy and Democrats should not be muddying that message.

I am a California voter, and I am baffled by how many times parental notification gets voted down. I think it's absolutely insane to allow your teenage child to have an abortion, which could have serious complications, both physical and psychological, and have the parents, who are legally responsible for the welfare of the child, know nothing about it. We don't let our children go to the zoo with their classmates for a field trip without a parent's permission, but we will let them have an abortion. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I have yet to hear a single argument that is even remotely convincing as to why this is good social policy. I know there is an argument that most teens will tell their parents, and if they don't it is probably an abusive environment from which the teen needs to be protected, but that is why there is always the judicial bypass option. The argument that a teen would not be able to go to court and defend her position is ludicrous. Planned Parenthood could hook the teen up with a lawyer to defend her interests. It's not like the teen has to be flying solo in court.

With this type of issue, there are more wrinkles than meet the superficial eye. For instance, what if the only remaining parent is a father who raped and impregnated his adolescent daughter? Would you want her to notify him? Sure, a heinous situation of that type will constitute the exception, but it can happen.

The bottom-line is that we can't legislate our way out of everything. The best way to avoid underage pregnancies is for parents and to a lesser extent schools to provide education and encouragement so that such pregnancies are less likely to occur in the first place.

And the question of whether to give birth to a baby isn't exactly analogous to a trip to the zoo. Indeed, the notion of forcing a different person to give birth constitutes the crossing of a major threshold, for better or for worse.

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is that a man has absolutely no say whatsoever on whether a woman should have an abortion. The child is his too, and if a woman "chooses" to have a child, the man has to support that child until he is 18, and most likely for the rest of his life. It really doesn't make logical sense to have a man have no role in the "choice" yet be saddled with the responsibility to support that child for the rest of his life while a woman can just "choose" not to have it and not have to support it at all.

Who said that a man should possess no influence in the matter? But ultimately, the woman is the one who carries the fetus or the child and thus the final decision must belong to her. Besides, in some cases, the question of paternity may be ambiguous or in dispute.

The bottom line is that if a man does not want to be cut out of a decision on abortion, then in most cases he simply needs to avoid the inadvertent impregnation of a woman. I realize that accidents can happen, but if a man does not want to make a commitment or behave in a responsible manner initially, then he can hardly complain about losing agency later on.

Nobody makes these arguments though, not because they are illogical, because they are not, but because they are politically unpopular.

… or because these arguments miss the point.

We need a real debate about the moral, financial, and psychological costs of abortion, not one with slogans and platitudes about a woman's "choice."

No, we absolutely do not need this debate at all. For the last thirty or forty years, this society has wasted far too much time, energy, and money debating abortion because we ignore a simple truth: even without Roe v. Wade, abortion can and will still occur. The difference is that without federal protection, lower-income women will become more liable to receive an abortion in Mexico or via some unlicensed practitioner in potentially unsanitary conditions. By contrast, upper-income women will continue to use their affluence to take advantage of better connections and superior resources.

Hence the way to reduce abortions is to focus not on the law, on improving the economy and education, sexual and otherwise. Historically, abortion rates have correlated with economic conditions and that trend is unlikely to ever change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wa..._b_174750.html

As for the comment that spurned this post, I see no problem with a waiting period to have an abortion, or for the woman to be informed about the potential physical and psychological costs involved. In every other medical procedure, patients are informed of these things, and abortion should be no different. It's not about "persuading" a woman to not have an abortion. It's about informing the woman so that one of, if not the, biggest decision of her life will be well-informed, and made in view of all of the potential, and often very real, consequences.

You are naively conflating two different issues. Of course a woman should receive basic education about the ramifications of an abortion, but she doesn't need a "waiting period" to be educated. A "waiting period" is a restriction—and a euphemism.

Obviously, you're free to debate what you wish, but my recommendation is that society should focus more on such issues as unfairness in the tax code; corporate tax incentives and evasions; finding ways to encourage American companies to actually create jobs in America; environmental protection and climate change; the fallaciousness of the death penalty; and the consequences of foreign policy.

I think those two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible. I agree with you that being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion, but to say that someone who believes in abortion believes in personal responsibility in a sexual context is untrue. They may believe in personal responsibility in the abstract, but they don't believe in taking personal responsibility for the choices they make and living with the consequences. That is an abdication of personal responsibility, and a failure to acknowledge that the actions we take in this life have consequences. If you choose to have sex, you can have a child. If you choose to not use birth control, you can get pregnant. To say that someone can have an abortion and just make the problem go away, because that's their choice, is an abdication of personal responsibility, in my view.

I agree with you that the long-term solution to abortion is a structural one, and that enhanced economic and educational opportunity would go a long way to reduce abortions. This argument, while a good one in some contexts, completely ignores the demographic group that can afford a child, and has the opportunity to raise one, but chooses not to do so.



Yes, that can happen. On this point we agree. Where we may disagree is that I acknowledge that this is a very remote possibility, and the exact kind of situation the judicial bypass option was designed for. There are over a million abortions every year in this country.How many of those do you think involve a parent who rapes their child, or someone who was the victim of rape or incest? Likely less than once percent. I don't think we should be making social policy based on an exception. We should, in my view, make social policy based on what is most likely to happen, and craft exceptions for the extreme cases. This is exactly what has been done, and what I have advocated for.

I agree that education is key. At the same time, I think the best way to avoid underage pregnancies for teenagers is to teach them sexual morality. Meeting up with a guy in a club and going to have sex at 2 in the morning is the wrong thing to do. It's dangerous. It's irresponsible. It puts both parties at risk of horrible disease. It leads to people being involved in relationships because they have bonded sexually with someone because they slept with them too early and therefore have an attachment to them that leads them to be with people they are completely wrong for. It causes psychological and emotional disturbances that young people are usually ill equipped to handle. It's a bad idea. We need to educate our young people that this is not the way to conduct themselves in civilized society. That would reduce teenage pregnancy dramatically.

And the question of whether to give birth to a baby isn't exactly analogous to a trip to the zoo. Indeed, the notion of forcing a different person to give birth constitutes the crossing of a major threshold, for better or for worse.

[/quote]

[quote=Warren'sShampoo;774107][color=black][font=Verdana]I didn't say anything about the parent forcing the child to give birth. I said that the parent should be notified that their child, who they are legally and morally responsible for, is having potentially life-altering surgery, with a whole morass of psychological, emotional, and potentially physical complications. You are conflating two different issues here.



I actually agree with you that conservatives focus too much energy on overturning Roe v. Wade. It's not going to happen anytime soon, and even if it did, it would not lead to the results that conservatives envision. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will just remove the constitutional right that the Supreme Court created. States will be free to make their own laws. There will be a few states that do outlaw abortion, but the vast majority of the country will still have it, and many states had the option to have an abortion far before Roe v. Wade. To put so much energy into overturning Roe v. Wade, which is very unlikely to happen, and which, even if it did, would not lead to the goals that conservatives want, is misguided. I'd much rather concentrate on health care policy, education policy, the economy, and other issues upon which conservatives and liberals can find common ground, and get something done for the good of our society.

Your post conflates two different issues again, however. It's not 40 million safe abortions vs. 40 million unsafe abortions. There will always be people who want to have an abortion, and will do so whether it is legal or not. That's not the point. The point is that making abortion illegal will reduce abortion. For someone that is pro-life, that is important. Less people will have an abortion. The reality that people will not always follow the law is not a reason to not have one. People don't follow all sorts of laws in this country, yet we still have them. We have laws against people speeding yet people still speed. We have drug laws yet people still do drugs. We have laws against theft and assault yet people still commit these crimes. We have laws to encourage behavior that is socially adaptive and discourage behavior that is socially destructive. If we were to pass laws against abortion, which again, I don't see happening, such a law would be perfectly compatible with the purpose of the law in this country.

[quote=Warren'sShampoo;774107][color=black][font=Verdana]What is the argument against a waiting period? Why would anyone be against the opportunity to give a woman 48 hours to reflect on the most important decision of her life, and one that will directly effect the developing life that is growing inside her? I think that developing child deserves 48 hours of thought. I fail to see how anyone can disagree with this. There is virtually no surgery that is done immediately, unless the condition underlying the reason for the surgery is imminently life-threatening. There is also a period of time between which a surgery is scheduled and when it is performed. What's wrong with giving a woman 48 hours to consider all of her options and make the best choice?

Thanks so much, Warren, for your perspective, and for the thoughts you have shared. I appreciate your analysis, and I enjoy the debate.

Abortion; Why?

Overpopulation? (nearly 7 billion & counting ... )

Ugh.

1) Either we're talking about a person, in which case killing them cannot be justified by citing overpopulation, or it isn't, in which case you don't need to cite anything.

2) Overpopulation is pretty much a joke claim at this point. Birth rates drop (sometimes even below replacement levels) with increased affluence. Every doomsday prediction about overpopulation has been made to look incredibly silly over the decades. The reason is that they all stem from a Malthusian pessimism which regards humanity as akin to an insect, failing to account for the ways in which it changes and produces new things to compensate for new circumstances.

It is a consistent human blind spot, and it seems to recur in every generation to some degree.

It all depends on whether you believe a foetus is a 'person' or not I suppose.

Is it a joke? I'm not laughing. The global population has almost doubled in my lifetime. I live on a small overpopulated island.

I wouldn't exactly describe myself as a Malthusian, but by the end of the century there could be 15 to 20 billion human beings on the planet. This will inevitably lead to conflicts & a struggle to protect & maintain resources.

Well, without wanting to get all Soylent Green about it, it is just as 'blind' to get over-emotive about abortion, particularly by claiming it is murder. There are medical, cultural, religious & ideological reasons why the population is growing so rapidly in the Third World. It is irresponsible to emotionalise aborting unwanted foetuses, just as it is to dissuade people to use contraception for religious or ideological reasons.

Anyway, abortion just isn't an issue in my country politically, it was originally legalised to stop illegal 'back-street' abortions.

Silly predictions or no, I'll almost certainly be dead & *buried when the population hits the 20 billion mark.

*I will be cremated, like the majority of my fellow countrymen/women as there is already difficulty in burying the dead less than five deep in graveyards in my homeland. Of course, they could create more cemeteries I suppose, but they are already having difficulty building new homes.

Yup. That's the whole ballgame.

I don't deny that it's possible for a small island to become overpopulated. Manhattan's overpopulated, too, but by choice.

Which island, by the way?

If you assume that the rate at which an average person consumes those resources will remain static, or that we won't discover or shift to other resources, then yes. But that, of course, is exactly the assumption Malthus made, and Ehrlich more recently. They both failed to account for human ingenuity and assumed the growth of humanity without the growth of innovation that has always accompanied it.

I'm not sure I'd called it "emotionalising" to say that, whether it's useful or not, we're just not going to kill people to lower population. We can then debate what is and is not a person, but I don't think overpopulation comes into it.

As I mentioned before, birth rates invariably drop as affluence increases. We can all speculate as to the limits of this, and to whether or not it would apply if most of the world reaches a base level of affluence, but it's a very significant fact, and one that I would think would give people who fear overpopulation a serious pause.