yes, you just described the age of viability framework. whoo. People like you exasperate me. I get the concept of unjust law. I see a lot of them actually. But I also see a bunch of people around me who are proposing neat technical solutions, and workable frameworks, with reason-based arguments that are well-distributed to remark on the nuances in the balance of the law, from the EFF to Aaron Swartz. But then I see people who are so passionate about a topic and all they propose is emotion-based shaming that adds nothing to the discussion. it's a bit off-putting to me
Yes, being completely biased towards one side in a debate, particularly one that so intimately affects women, is absolutely a bad thing.
Been thinking about a solution to this and here's what I suggest. Tax churches and use the money sole to support unaborted fetises and nothing else. The mother has has to give up the child but the said child gets church money til 18. Too often I hear about the rights of the unborn but then the child is condemn to poverty. This will solves it... but I wonder how hard religion will fight when their wallet is effected
Apparently you did not catch the irony created by that being the very point that GR would have the mother lose the right to choose-- the only point where the baby has a fighting chance to survive if she unburdens her uterus. Hands-off does not require a technical solution. The framework is of the mother's and father's own creating (in most cases). Everyone take care of your **** and don't expect someone else to do it for you, okay?! Again, it is what it is. It's not pretty and I'm not going to pretend it is. It's not the majesty of science, rather it is the mystery of life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545 A technical solution to this problem that doesn't involve shame, and inducement/punishment is to create algorithmic analysis of abortion region-by-region (the regions can be counties) establishing an overall mean, and standard deviation for the country, then offering a family planning educational program region-by-region on those that displace the 1% confidence interval in having significantly more abortions then the mean---ensuring that family planning services, contraceptives, and education revolving around them are available for those that need them, and that those regions are well-funded in terms of maternity services and early childhood services. Each region can incubate a test of different policies---the best-standing policies can be combined into a standardized program that can be distributed across all regions willing to opt-in (though if they do opt-in, money comes from collected taxes). The whole of it other than the opt-in system is funded by a Tobin tax on hot currency flows (ha!), or a reduction in military aid to Israel, or reducing the prison population for non-violent criminals, whatever floats your boat. Surely if the children are at stake, people will figure out a way.
This side is, at least, giving consideration to all parties involved. You actually believe that only one party deserves any consideration at all and it is the party that isn't even alive yet.
Yes, that's where medical risk and the state's interest to preserve life of both the mother and fetus comes into play. Well, it's not going to be pretty if you take it on with that attitude. There'd be a whole lot less mystery of life if you looked at the painfully documented research and facts drawn out of those who have made it their life's work to preserve prenatal life medically, and socially.
The problem with the two sides is that neither has room for compromise, so don't just blame it on me. Readily available abortion means that babies will die; it won't be like those cyanide pills that spies and astronauts never take! Indeed 56 Million since 1973 have died in providing women with a choice. What greater sacrifice? Therefore my greater sympathy lies with the side with everything to lose-- the baby. The baby is alive; it is just not born yet.
That has nothing to do with GR's illogical approach which allows the woman to abort when the baby needs her uterus but disallows her to abort when the baby would have a fighting chance to live-- if she wants to reclaim her uterus. It's not really about control of the uterus... is my point. Is it too much to ask of people that they do the best they can to take care of their own lives? Not sure what you are criticizing here... I'm sure it is fascinating but what is it going to prove to me? I appreciate the medical community. My brother is a doctor (there's my black friend moment). What I find is that the science is used to disqualify life, i.e. the whole "fetus" fiasco that revived this thread.
The fetus neither knows nor cares, it's the mother that has to make her choice. If it was clearly murder the people would outlaw it, but the people have decided what they think, regardless of your individual view. Argue till you are blue in the face but there is a lot thought, politics and legal consideration that have gone before the status quo. And I don't think you have changed any minds here.
Individual punishment for collective failure. It takes a village to raise a child. That American society has allocated a small amount of resources to family planning, shames sexuality, still is behind the curve compared to nations like the Netherlands on sex ed, abandons children and mother at the first sight of fiscal trouble, and has an adoption system that is often filled with backlogs and damaged children reflects on everybody. "Is it too much to ask if"---well yes, if you're going to stand around and shame people as if you're above it all---meanwhile your attitude, and thinking are very much a part of the problem, and not the solution.
It's going to prove to you that your one-track mind on criminalization and punishment is an ineffective inducement, and serves only to make you "feel good" in absence of any rational thinking or planning.
You don't know what the fetus' experience is. Maybe it zooms into some sort of ethereal, heavenly experience. I hope so. I am not looking to change the mind of anyone arguing with me. All it takes is to change their heart. If they get angry at my bluntness, at last they have engaged it in a way that I'm not confident they do. What they do beyond that is on their conscience. I will continue to plea the case because I think it the right thing to do. I feel pretty good when I have people like Mother Theresa and Ghandi on my side. Found this interesting piece: http://feministsforlife.org/-taf/2004/summer-fall/Summer-Fall04.pdf Oh, but was it you that said I couldn't find even one?
1. Are you saying that all of the unwanted pregnancies are springing out of orgies? These are individual actions that demand individual accountability. 2. I guess you don't watch TV, go to movies, surf the internet or read magazines... shame sexuality? Get real. 3. No doubt that some reform is needed. All the people I know who have adopted have gone overseas: Congo, China, Bulgaria.... because it is easier. 4. I don't think I've said "shame" on anyone. It's no secret that I disapprove of abortion. Not sure how you expect me to convey that disapproval. What words should I use. I'm not above it all. I could lay low and say nothing. That would be being above it all. Instead I enter a fray where I'm told that my opinion doesn't matter, that I don't belong, that I have nothing to add and that it is none of my business.
RATIONAL: We don't know for sure when Life begins, so who are we to doubt the moment of conception? We can prove nothing else. PLANNING: Don't engage in any kind of behavior that you cannot take responsibility for the outcome? The church and the state can and will offer assistance but they will not become your Sugar Daddy. I'm not clear how or why you keep talking about criminalization; I've not said a word about it specifically. Surely it needs addressing. My goal is and has been to get people to love the children they create and take one of the courses of responsible action beside killing it.
I think we should stop using religious arguments to take away women's rights. If Republicans want to curve abortions, then they can encourage education on avoiding getting pregnant in the first place. Since more advance contraception has come out, abortion rates have dropped 5%.
With all due respect, OP, you must have been raised in an extremely sheltered environment...perhaps, perhaps not, but sheltered nonetheless. Personally. I went to high school in a large urban area. Now maybe at private schools the whole "abstinence" argument woks with the mythical god delusion, blah blah blah. In the real world people have pre-marital sex. Period. A teenager brimming with testosterone is almost powerless if an attractive female shows interest in him. Whether they go all the way or not is arbitrary and cheers to the guy who can keep it in his pants longer...but if we look at reality you will never stop pre-marital sex. Ever. And you will never "force" people to love an unborn fetus enough to keep it if they are truly against keeping it. Your banking on a completely emotional appeal and ignoring all sensible reason.
1. I think we should stop using scientific theories to take away children's right to life. 2. Only 5%? That makes me think the whole argument about inadequate birth control and birth control education is just an excuse. Clearly, it would seem, birth control is not being used wisely or widely.
