Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Banana]

1. The government paying for people to undo their foolish mistakes. Where's the personal accountability? I like Banana's proposed solution: give them a 1 way sterilization if they can't afford an abortion, can't keep their legs crossed, and can't deal with a child.

Just wanted to point out that while I would favor sterilization as dictated by my set of morals, it does not mean I would support a government program for such. I'm one of those wild-eyed raving lunatic that dare to think that government has no place in our personal lives, and that many programs such as welfare and entitlements should be privatized. Abortion and the associated social programs are no different- leave the matters to private organizations to require sterilization in exchange of additional support, provide adoption services & safe housing for the duration, or just straight abortion. Government simply does not belong here.

 

[Banana]

When does life begin? I feel at birth. At birth the child is capable of survival outside the womb. Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

As I asked another poster who had similar belief, how do you account for my relative who was born three months too early, was the size of Barbie doll and required incubator to survive and is now the tallest and healthy female in the family. I'm sure you don't think she would be disqualified?

 

[Rich]

Just wanted to point out that while I would favor sterilization as dictated by my set of morals, it does not mean I would support a government program for such.

Who else should control and monitor it then, wealthy private enterprise?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

George, the questions about the rights of non-citizens are in courts right now and will probably stay there for a while longer. I agree that it seems bizarre, but the detainees at Guantanomo are in exactly this "nutcracker" and therefore are in legal limbo.

To my limited understanding, part of the problem is that some folks don't understand the REAL structure of the USA. (Sadly, including some U.S. congressmen.) We are a coalition of 50 states. The EU is finally doing what we've been doing, and look how bumpy it gets when it was their INTENTION to merge. This fine point becomes operative when you talk about international treaties. Lawyers are making money hand-over-fist to argue that international treaties do not bind individual states.

The most recent example of this was when a Mexican national was put to death for a murder. The evidence wasn't in question. It was his legal status that spurred the big controversy. Apparently Texas didn't follow the rules of some U.N. sponsored treaty and let this guy talk to the Mexican Embassy to get legal assistance. Texans answered that they didn't ratify the treaty and that it only applies to federal crimes. They pointed out that USA citizens in Mexico who are stupid enough to join the drug-trafficking business don't get that particular break either. Mud-slinging, of course, has ensued.

My best answer to your question is thus that it depends on treaties and on whether the local law enforcement agencies are in a forgiving mood at the time, which is SURELY the wrong answer even if it is the technically correct one.

Brian, your counter-question is inappropriate because it misses the point of my stated restrictions. NONE of my comments apply to cases where the mother (and family) WANT the child to be born. A child born to a loving family who welcomes him/her as a blessing has a much better (though still not 100%) chance to grow up under good circumstances.

Good luck with the grandkid, by the way. I know I wouldn't trade mine for the world, but again, they were born to a situation where they were wanted and loved. Again, my comments about abortion don't apply.

To simplify it, my postion stated earlier is that a woman in a state of desperation is going to solve her problem. You can make her a criminal and force the child into a system that is overloaded and under-successful, or you can work to change the system, or you can work to prevent the desperate situation in the first place. But once the woman becomes desperate for a timely solution, you've already lost any chance to do something constructive. Therefore, don't compound the disaster that happened months earlier. Go with it and work to prevent future reoccurences.

On another comment, the "offer sterilization" approach was tried in Georgia, USA back between WW I and WW II. Eventually folks recognized that the sterilization was being applied unevenly and it became a race issue. It also failed to address the real problem, which was that men can't keep it in their pants and young girls are willing to offer them another place to keep it - for a while.

At base, this is a discussion over whether one can control a primal urge - to procreate. I believe the answer is that we will never fully succeed, though perhaps we can control the effects with birth control and sex education as a way to at least minimize the damage being done.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I can never figure out those pics, is he kicking yet?

He is very active, but not kicking hard enough for anyone but his mum to feel.


Doc As you can see by my response I said yes in certain circumstances, but I do believe too many people just say yes without considering all aspects, and I believe one of those is would you do it seeing the lifelikeness of the foetus.

It has already been pointed out how inappropriate the test of viablility outside the womb is.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

I like Banana's proposed solution: give them a 1 way sterilization if they can't afford an abortion, can't keep their legs crossed, and can't deal with a child.

It's interesting that you ask about personal accountability but then specifically mention "can't keep their legs crossed". The man in the pair has just as much responsibility as the woman.

My main objection to the way abortion is currently handled is that it is being used as a form of retro-active birth control.

I agree. In a perfect world there would be no abortions because everyone who didn't want a child would use protection every time, and every child that is born would be wanted and have a loving family waiting for them.

I think the tactics used by the anti-abortion people has really turned this into a nasty argument. In the USA they are the crazy Christians. They will print pictures of fetuses at various stages and seek to scare people into thinking their way. A few of them even go so far as to kill doctors who perform abortions.

We will always have disagreements on various issues, but IME the people willing to kill over their beliefs always do so in the name of religion. That in itself reassures me that I'm on the right 'side' of this issue.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It's interesting that you ask about personal accountability but then specifically mention "can't keep their legs crossed". The man in the pair has just as much responsibility as the woman.

There aren't many men seeking abortions, are there? I did think to say "keep it in their pants" but it really doesn't fit very well, does it?

Yes, either person could prevent the unwanted pregnancy.

 

[oumahexi]

OK, you all know my religious beliefs, as for abortion I can't fathom out why anyone should have an unplanned pregnancy these days unless they were raped, if they were, I can understand why they wouldn't want to have the child. If they weren't, they were playing Russian Roulette anyway, have they never heard of safe sex? It's down right irresponsible.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I clicked option 2, I think abortion should be an option under certain circumstances..

My sister in law fell pregnant, (unplanned) after already having two children, and due to finances they decided not to keep the child, thus it was aborted.. only a year later to then plan to have another child anyway.. This I do not agree with..
Still she has to live with that on her conscientance, why was the third conceived child any less a child than the fourth one that was planned.

My wife and I have two children, and she would love a third, but our finances do not permit it, therefore we are taking precautions to ensure that we do not face the dilemma faced by her sister.

 

[Rich]

have they never heard of safe sex?

Do you mean lock the doors so as not to get caught in the act?

 

[statsman]

As I asked another poster who had similar belief, how do you account for my relative who was born three months too early, was the size of Barbie doll and required incubator to survive and is now the tallest and healthy female in the family. I'm sure you don't think she would be disqualified?

So your relative was BORN and with a little help SURVIVED OUTSIDE THE WOMB.
Your point seems to reinforce my point.

 

[statsman]

I think the tactics used by the anti-abortion people has really turned this into a nasty argument. In the USA they are the crazy Christians. They will print pictures of fetuses at various stages and seek to scare people into thinking their way. A few of them even go so far as to kill doctors who perform abortions.

We will always have disagreements on various issues, but IME the people willing to kill over their beliefs always do so in the name of religion. That in itself reassures me that I'm on the right 'side' of this issue.

It's interesting that in 30 years of political pressure and battles for the hearts and minds of the public over the issue of abortion, very little has changed.

At the beginning:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
Undecided - 60%

Currently:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
Undecided - 60%

 

[Banana]

So your relative was BORN and with a little help SURVIVED OUTSIDE THE WOMB.
Your point seems to reinforce my point.

I may have misunderstood your point but in your original assertion:

Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

which left me with the impression that this would rule out premature births and other situations involving extra medical intervention. If a baby that is born prematurely and requires incubator, the baby certainly didn't 'survive outside the womb'- the baby needed something to replace the womb until the term and thus would be disqualified.

More to the point, if a baby can be bought to life successfully even with those additional hardships & intervention, then it was 'alive' to belong with, hence my question to you.

 

[jamesmor]

I voted option 4, as i feel it is every woman's right. It's not my job to decide when a baby is "alive" or decide if it's ok for them to terminate that life. That's between them and God, and they'll have to square with it one day, not me.

 

[Rich]

That's between them and God, and they'll have to square with it one day, not me.

Assuming there is one

 

[Brianwarnock]

I
When does life begin? I feel at birth. At birth the child is capable of survival outside the womb. Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

My daughter tells me that Liverpool Womens hospital consider 24 weeks is the point when the baby becomes viable.
Years ago this would not have been the case, in the future who knows what the age will be, that is why I say this viability test is nonesense.

Brian

 

[Banana]

Bri, I think you expressed it much better than I did.

 

[Kryst51]

It's funny that you should post this now. In church on Sunday we had a guest preacher named Dr. Richard Land. Dr. Land is the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist convention. He spoke about this very issue. It was a very compelling sermon. I haven't checked, but I am sure if you would like to hear it, it is probably posted on my church's website. Of course I am biased towards the generic Christian view (That abortion is wrong in all circumstances), not neccesarily the Southern Baptist view, on most issues, I agreed with most of the things he had to say. I just thought you guys might like to see that this debate continues everywhere.

He was mainly here in Houston to protest a new Planned Parenthood that is being built.

See the following links for some more info on that (I know, two of these links are very biased):

http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=6091&issue=2/9/2009

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3971316/new-abortion-clinic-in-houston/?playlist_id=87249

http://www.click2houston.com/news/22229286/detail.html

 

[Mike375]

I voted Under Certain Circumstances but my vote was not based on any morality type of issue.

I just think there needs to be some responsibility and jumping into bed should not be a free ride to welfare or other gov't support.

 

[jamesmor]

Assuming there is one

As a man who's has a loving wife, 2 children, and more than a few close calls (one of them being a few weeks ago when a 6 point buck came thru my car window), that's an assumtion i'm totally willing to make.