I guess my big question is why we can't all just come together, stop fighting over abortion legislation, and use the time, money, and effort to actually reduce abortions.
The big difference is that my wife and I planned to have a child and the choice had already been made. By definition, it was still a fetus, but we were planning for the day when our baby would be born.
andymoon, the only force currently applied is on the unborn baby there are about 5 common abortion procedures. there are plenty of development charts for babies from 6th week of pregnancy forward. I wouldn't mind posting the development charts But I wouldn't post any one description of an abortion procedure and no one else should either.... It is too hineous There is no question whatsoever that abortion is a personal moral issue just ask the doctors and nurses who have to walk away from the babies that live through an abortion attempt, so they aren't in the room to watch it suffer and die the moral issue falls to the doctors, not the mothers I just read the Brown University Website instructing students how to get an abortion, where they can go, how much it costs (they take visa and mc)- a real nice pitch for the incoming students and all for the purpose of enhancing women's health on campus... I am shocked that abortion is even an issue, I really am shocked that this is even a human discussion period. so when are we going to get concerned about the billions of $$$$ wasted in nursing homes taking care of drooling old people whose families don't call or see them at all... too many sit in wheelchairs staring, no viability... NVMG- Non-Viable Mercy Group- those groups (people) who have lost sustainable viability and can be processed out through mercy initiatives. I would like to get credit for coming up with that term... In an overcrowded, economically challenged global society wise scientist may already understand this as a pressing issue of global sustainability. It's the mindset we have about pregnancy and childbirth as human beings that is really confounding. Never would have thought it would be this way... I know there is absolutely no connection between nursing homes and abortion clinics.... except somewhere in the heart of humankind.
rhester - by the way, thanks for your thoughtful reply earlier in the thread, i am swamped an unable to offer anything equally substantive this week, but i would like to pick it up sometime. much much appreciated. more soon - CBFC
I think alot of people could bring good ideas to the table, people on both sides. I believe it would take alot of time and thought, compromise. Would like to hear your thoughts.
The vast majority end up doing just fine. I can't believe how much of an ass you can be. I have two unplanned brothers and 2 unplanned nephews, 1 niece, and an unplanned son. They are all doing fine. Most unplanned pregnancies are nothing like what you described. Most end up being fine, most are kept by the parents or grandparents rather than being adopted. There are a small percentage that fit your description, but there are planned children that fit that same description. People shouldn't have sex if they are not prepared for the responsibility. I know people that have had abortions, and it hasn't changed how I feel about them, but I have always disagreed with their choice. They have abortions and not because of how the kid will be affected, but because how their life will be affected. There are too many ways to prevent pregnancy out there, please take advantage of them if you are not willing to have a child.
I don't know if this is in here, but this got emailed to me today so I thought I would share it. I don't know if it has been posted or not, as I don't feel like going through 20 pages (I try to stay out of these discussions, because peoples minds on this issue or hardly ever altered) - however it goes over your discussion (obviously by the video a pro-life stance).......... 4 minute video
Define able to take care of? At what point can someone not care for a child? I will tell you it is extremely difficult for them, but possible.
Couldn't you do the same thing... except fight unwanted pregnancies and leave the dead children out of it?
The irony here is that bobrek, myself and a few others are trying to be responsible for the baby TO THE POINT OF TRYING TO SAVE ITS LIFE. "Once it's born." That phrase segues perfectly into the let the baby be adopted argument; all you have to do is make it availiable...
I would much rather spend my time and energy WRT abortion policy on figuring out ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. That is what we should be spending our time on. However, when such a vocal segment of our society is fighting to legislate their personal morality, my energy is taken up by fighting for the rights of women instead.
For the overwhelming majority, "she" already made the choice. In the vast majority of cases, abortion (the ending of an 'unwanted pregnancy'), is the escape of responsibility for the consequences of a consentual act, at the expense of the life of a defenseless unborn. Where's the fetus's "choice" in all this?
Go for it. And that "vocal segment" will continue fighting the rights of the unborn children. Call it "personal morality" all you like. It's not "personal" to the dead baby.
Are you staring at your blind spot? If wanting to save an innocent child's life is "legislating my morality," what is refusing to recognize that baby's humanity legislating on your side?
The debate really goes no where when one side refuses to explain itself outside of it's her choice. I guess I just have a few questions for andy and the rest of the pro-choice crew. Keep in mind I am not even close to bringing up morality in these questions. a) What role should scientific definitions play in the matter, (i.e. this is a life as defined by science books) vs. philosophical distinctions (i.e. fetus not a person until viability and then after that not a person if mother decides to have abortion because of her health). Why should greater weight be given to the philosophical definitions of the pro-choice crowd? b) Your guys' libertarian mantra of nothing is a crime if it doesn't hurt someone else? Please flesh this out because it is not even close to being true in the eyes of the law. I.e. I'm speeding in the Alaskan wilderness by 5 m.p.h. and I'm given a ticket. I am not hurting anyone nor do I pose a risk to. By that logic I should get off. Where do you draw the principles from? I disagree with the notion in part, but I don't think it's completely false. It goes against the legislative intent, judicial interpretation, and executive enforcement model our country has been implementing these past 230+ years.
There is a reason why abortion is a 50/50 debate and infanticide is a 100/0 debate. Think about it. If abortion=infanticide, why it is not obviously against the law? Why is the world opinion 50% for the pro-choice movement and 50% for the anti-abortion movement? Why wouldn't this be an obvious 100% against abortion as is infanticide?
